ᐅ Installation of a Gas Heating System in New Construction 2023/2024
Created on: 11 Apr 2023 14:47
R
robert0815
Hello fellow home builders,
we have started constructing a single-family house. The approved building permit / planning permission includes a gas heating system, which we still want to install.
There are two possible scenarios:
1. What happens if the heating system is installed in October 2023, but the house is only inspected and approved in February 2024?
2. What happens if the heating system is installed in January 2024, and the house is inspected and approved in May 2024?
Both options are difficult to plan for. So far, we do not know whether the construction schedule might be delayed.
I haven't found any information on this. Do you have any further details?
Regards,
robert0815
we have started constructing a single-family house. The approved building permit / planning permission includes a gas heating system, which we still want to install.
There are two possible scenarios:
1. What happens if the heating system is installed in October 2023, but the house is only inspected and approved in February 2024?
2. What happens if the heating system is installed in January 2024, and the house is inspected and approved in May 2024?
Both options are difficult to plan for. So far, we do not know whether the construction schedule might be delayed.
I haven't found any information on this. Do you have any further details?
Regards,
robert0815
B
Bookstar8728 Apr 2023 21:59chand1986 schrieb:
That really doesn’t make sense. If that’s your position at the end of a game of telephone: alternative facts instead of just an alternative opinion on the same facts.
First, FFP2 masks have always reduced the risk of infection (not eliminated it). No, there was no reduction. Neither domestic data nor international data support that. Peer-reviewed studies show no difference. It’s less about the masks themselves and more about incorrect usage, which clearly demonstrates how theory and practice differ significantly.
D
Daniel-Sp28 Apr 2023 22:59Bookstar87 schrieb:
No, there was no reduction. Neither domestic data nor international data supports that. Peer-reviewed studies show that there is no difference. It has less to do with the masks themselves and more with incorrect usage, but it clearly shows how theory and practice differ significantly. Well, if I wear the mask below my nose, it works just as well as wearing it on top of my head. In that case, I might as well wear a carnival hat. But concluding from that that masks are generally ineffective is a bit of a flawed argument...
B
Bookstar8728 Apr 2023 23:06Daniel-Sp schrieb:
Well, if I wear the mask without covering my nose, it works just as well as when worn on the top of the head. At that point, I might as well wear a carnival hat. But drawing the general conclusion that masks are ineffective is quite a stretch... These are simply the facts, supported by studies and statistics. Whether you like it or not doesn't change that. It's like climate change...
I read in countless online discussions about these dubious people who supposedly always wore their masks below the nose, and statistics about them. In reality, I have hardly ever seen any. No joke, out of 100 people, I might have seen one who was too careless or defiant.
D
Daniel-Sp28 Apr 2023 23:28If measures are not implemented correctly, they cannot be effective.
If a speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph) were introduced to reduce CO2 emissions, but everyone still drives at 180 km/h (112 mph), it is no surprise that the measure does not achieve the desired effect.
A condom in a bedside drawer is also ineffective, but when used properly, it does work for a significant percentage of cases. The same applies to FFP2 masks. There are studies on this, and it reflects my professional experience over recent years. Incidentally, the FFP2 mask does not only protect against the coronavirus.
If a speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph) were introduced to reduce CO2 emissions, but everyone still drives at 180 km/h (112 mph), it is no surprise that the measure does not achieve the desired effect.
A condom in a bedside drawer is also ineffective, but when used properly, it does work for a significant percentage of cases. The same applies to FFP2 masks. There are studies on this, and it reflects my professional experience over recent years. Incidentally, the FFP2 mask does not only protect against the coronavirus.
D
Daniel-Sp28 Apr 2023 23:40kati1337 schrieb:
I read countless discussions online about these suspicious people who supposedly always wore their masks below the nose, along with statistics about them. In reality, I have hardly ever seen them. No joke, out of 100 people, I might have seen one who was too stubborn or careless. From my experience, I can report that well over 1% did not wear their masks properly. I made sure my employees wore their masks correctly and reminded them if necessary. They all caught their infections during vacation. During the peak phases, we had 20 to 30 patients daily in the infection consultation with PCR positivity rates sometimes exceeding 50%.
Everyday clinical practice is of course not a controlled study environment, but it does show that wearing an FFP2 mask correctly provides protection. Certainly not 100%, but at least some.