Dreading a dark winter lockdown? Think like a Norwegian
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Living semi-rurally in a cold place is a good predictor for a good winter experience. In the cities, especially southern citites, it is worse. Slush, gravel, dark snow, rain, wet everywhere. And public transport is full of people with big jackets taking up too much space.
It is easy to have a mindset geared toward enjoying winter when that winter acutally has the possbility of being enjoyable. In a rainy cold dark urban center, not much so.
I agree. If winter just means "it's dark, the sky is grey all the time, it's cold and the ground is mushy", it sucks. When it's cold with blue skies, sun is shining and the ground is frozen white, it's much nicer and much more tolerable.
I will wake up at 5 to avoid that and the masses on public transport if I actually have to go to the office.
-35c in Iqaluit? Or northern Alberta? Cold, but actually enjoyable. (Admittedly, that changes during extreme winds or blizzard conditions) -15c in Ontario? Frigid, slushy and nasty.
The difference - many northern regions are actually considered desert climate zones due to the low humidity. However - extreme cold can be a bit more dangerous as without that humidity, people may not cover the tips of their nose/ears properly (if a newbie), so - those can get frost-bite more often than in southern regions.
Another hobby I'm looking to pick up to offset the loss of a gym is winter biking. I purchased an electric bike last year and have thoroughly enjoyed riding it long distances in the warmer months on the local trails. I hear that many of the trails are plowed in the winter, so I'm hoping to find safe places to use it that can avoid the ever-present ice.
People tend to use either "Nordic" vs "Alpine" or "Cross-country" vs. "downhill" skiing.
My #1 piece of advice though would be to not give up. I find the most frustrating and unrewarding part of learning an instrument is at the very start. You have to build your foundations from essentially nothing, you have 0 muscle memory built up, and progress can seem non-existent sometimes. But once you get through that initial phase, the sky's the limit! In my experience, it only takes a year or two to get good enough that people will enjoy your playing (provided you practice at a relatively consistent rate over that time).
Have fun!
Bigger problem is gatherings. I already have family talking about Christmas and they just dont understand that things aren't going to be the same this year.
Essentially the whole gathering self-quarantines for two weeks, so that if someone attending has COVID but is not yet showing symptoms, there is plenty of time for them, or those they give it to at the gathering, to start showing. If nobody is showing symptoms at the end of two weeks, people can go home.
If cheap, reasonably speedy testing is available in your area, to be even safer the whole gathering could get tested near the end.
* A better guitar will be easier to play than a cheaper one. There are obviously rapidly dimishing returns as you go up the cost scale, but the difference between a low-end and medium-end guitar really can make the difference between "easy to play and nice-sounding enough to keep going" and "so frustrating that you give up".
* If at all possible, get your guitar set up. ("Set up" means adjusting the action and intonation.) You can try to do it yourself, but taking it to a pro is well worth it. A cheap guitar with a good set up is easier to play and sounds better than a high-end guitar with a shitty set up.
* Electrics are much easier on your fingers than acoustics. All of the sound energy in an acoustic guitar must come from the strings itself. They therefore need to vibrate farther which means they have to be higher up away from the fretboard. That higher action means it takes more force to push them down, which is what hurts your fingers. Electrics rely on amplification so the strings can be really close to the fretboard and only require a gentle touch.
I hope you have a great time playing! Guitars are engineering marvels.
Edit: word. If you're gonna compare A to B, get some B experience...
So you probably don't have a real appreciation of what is happening in the UK.
Surely though the current situation is as bad as it is because of other people's inability to manage themselves during an epidemic, as opposed to the government being to blame? I'm not having a poke, but I notice here in Ireland for example, when the government comes out with clear guidelines e.g. "Don't go around licking people's eyeballs. If you do you might get sick" then the general populace is all like "oh but it's so confusing! What if I only lick one of their eyeballs? What is the definition of 'might'? We need more guidance!". So then the guidance comes back "Do not lick people's eyeballs, ever" and BOOM - someone takes a constitutional challenge High Court because "Civil Liberties".
And I do think it's kind of the same in most countries, the government is not to blame, the general population is.
Just a thought :)
The failures of the various governments to respond promptly is more alarming. Guidance on masking in the US is still regional; and the CDC is seized by political infighting. Testing is a train wreck. Some states are trying to fight the spread while their neighbors are busy pissing in the pool.
Deflecting the blame to the 'general population' might work if there was anything coming close to competence at the federal level but it honestly just strikes me as making excuses.
I think you have to take into account what people are going to be able to do for months on end, and it seems unreasonable to me to expect the population of an entire country to avoid seeing friends and relatives for half a year (as is now looks like will be the case going into the winter). While the US in general seems to have failed at this, we have had here in New England some good regional success thus far, without making human connections illegal (within limits -- I'm all for limits on gathering sizes, keeping bars closed, etc). The longer this goes on, the more the trade-offs need to be considered.
So it really has very direct meaning on what the government does. They really have a lot of responsibility.
Worse for the first six months. Sweden's curve was comparable to Italy and USA in some sense.
Individual behavior is a combination if individual choices, local culture, and surrounding leadership.
Most individuals in the US are making smart choices (though you wouldn't be able to see that from the news since they are by nature not newsworthy). Local culture varies widely across the US. Some places are more science-focused than others. Local and state leadership is all over the place. Trump is obviously doing a catastrophically poor job.
All of these things affect the outcomes we see.
The US has over 200k dead from COVID-19. This could have been avoided if the government had been staunchly pro-mask and social distancing from the start. Instead, they downplayed it as nothing to be worried about at best and a full-on hoax at worst. If the government had done the right thing from the start, all these people who can’t manage themselves would at least be wearing masks and staying away from each other if for no other reason than their president told them it was the right thing to do. I think we can safely blame the government for this one.
It's interesting how the "American" tradition of individualism and self-determination is quietly forgotten when things go wrong on a societal scale.
The Imperial College modelling that was done predicted half a million deaths in the UK and 2 million in the US. That was the justification for lockdown, as such it appears that we have managed it incredibly well avoiding 90% of the predicted deaths.
It's the same crap they have been spewing for months in order to justify the lockdowns and lifestyle restrictions.
We just don't know = lock down the world for months or years with no tradeoffs, no discussion of how to end them, and no questioning the lockdowns because > 1 people will or have died.
This "we just don't know so we're going to restrict the entire world and pretend individuals can't choose for themselves" argument is the reason that lifestyles have been restricted.
I'm not anti-mask I'm pro-choice.
Let individuals choose, not government.
Historically, pandemics are one of the few acceptable reasons for such restrictions in the US, and it's very odd to me that it's been so controversial in that country.
What happens if people infect their elders? Who pays for the hospital costs if not the public? What if ICU capacity is taken up by anti-maskers and people who were taking precautions got unlucky and then have to die?
Unrelatedly, the research summarized in this article seems like a big cliche, so much so, that I wonder if the author chose to use quotes for that reason:
> [...] one vital component may be a particular “mindset” [...]
> People who see stressful events as “challenges” [...]
The government can end this stressful event anytime it chooses.
As much as I appreciate yet another article telling me what to do, how to behave, and why I am wrong how about we take a step back and look at the fundamentals.
There would be no "challenge" without the government's foolish rules.
Get some cheapo cross country skis and hit the trails, learn to identify animal tracks etc.
> a kid that is as depressed about the lack of sun as you are.
igloos, snowball fights, etc. My experience at least is children enjoy mucking about in the snow more than adults
But good article, not critiquing it just hopefully helping some of my fellow swamp rats.
(Native Floridian)
Summer nights tend to be nice I guess. I love the 4 seasons but Wisconsin has like 2:really hot summers and then suddenly one day extremely cold winters that just drag on and on.
Generally though, the heat is pretty bad, particularly if you're stuck inside with no AC. I've had a couple rounds of that and its certainly not comfortable at all. Honestly I'm sick of southeastern weather.
The population of the entire state was very low until after the invention of air-conditioning. The population roughly doubled between 1940 and 1960.
- When you are sufficiently far north, winter means beautiful snowy landscapes, aurora borealis, good stable conditions for cross country skiing, no grey slush. Winter is just straight up better than further south.
- People who live here can move south whenever they feel like it, so those who don't stay by choice. It's not like this region is a hub of great career opportunities and so on, unemployment rates are generally higher than the rest of the country, so people don't get stuck because of work quite as much. So, there is clearly a selection bias towards people who like winter!
Personally I don't think there's too much magic mindset stuff going on. Winter just doesn't suck as much as the author seems to imply. Also, there's plenty of SAD going on so it's not like we are immune..
For me, the key thing to living somewhere with dark winters is to get outside regularly. That's how to catch a "sun break" once in a while. Live in the rainy PNW? Gortex was invented over 50 years ago. Pricey, but it works. Even running in the dark, pissing rain at 5:30 a. m. is better than sitting inside all day, IMO. But, hey, we all WFH now, right? Go run when the sun's up.
And if the outdoors ain't your thing, it's probably time for the annual round of corncob light rigs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21660718
In Sweden, a winter a couple of years ago, I had just dropped off my son at pre-school. I was waiting on an outdoor subway station platform at 8 AM, listening to "Towards the Sun" from the movie Home. When she sings "Turn your face towards the sun" I looked up into the pitch black sky with tiny snowflakes that fell down stretching into infinity. The contrast was so complete that I'll never forget it.
You guys are still going into the office?! We're 100% remote "for the foreseeable future" here.
I meant winters in general, not the current situation. Today is grey, but still more light than it will be in January.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-light-therap...
Cursory googling says it's not an issue. Personal experience says it's like being out in the bright sun. Definitely talk to your doctor if you already have eye conditions or are more at risk.
>Is light on your face enough? What about arms, legs, etc? It's a pretty small surface area really.
Yep, it works for me! But I'd really suggest doing your own research! This article might be a good first step:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affe...
Yes, I know, SF has that. I love the weather in the Bay but the culture just makes it a non-starter.
This is super interesting and points to the idea that emotions are much more of a "what you let yourself feel" versus "what you feel". Was literally just listening to the below podcast from farnam street on a jog a few hours ago... if this was interesting, maybe the below is interesting to you as well:
https://fs.blog/knowledge-project/lisa-feldman-barrett : Lisa Feldman Barrett: Balancing the Brain Budget — Neuroscientist, psychologist and author, Lisa Feldman Barrett discusses the complexities of the brain, our emotions, improving ourselves and our relationship with others, making good decisions and giving yourself an existential break.
The bit of rock the figure is standing on: is it sticking out with empty space underneath it? It looks inserted from a different photograph.
Maybe I've been looking at too many Escher pictures.