"How to cope with the end of the world" Topic

An interesting article from the BBC:

How to cope with the end of the world
link

Interesting. I'm doomed as I failed high school chemistry.

Run abroad

We live in the heart of an agricultural area with a whole bunch of low German speaking farmers (Old Order Mennonites and Amish) who farm with medieval tech – I am guessing that they would be happy to feed someone with a few medical skills and if No 1 son (the cop) comes along the close combat skills would be helpful too

I need drugs for daily pain-free life. My time after the apocalypse is limited, I fear.

I'm with RR. My spirit says "survivalist" but my medicine cabinet says "60 days."

Best advice on this subject I ever read: "I want to be in Kentucky when the end of the world comes, because it's always 20 years behind." -- Mark Twain

This must be an Anglo-centric overview -- there aren't any heavily-armed militia survivalist groups running around seizing control of what they can. And what is the countryside going to be like with millions of city-dwellers suddenly invading and wishing themselves on rural communities?

But there won't be millions of people. The article suggests that almost everyone is dead. Everywhere. Including heavily armed militia survivalists and the inhabitants of rural communities!

So one of the first challenges for anyone still alive is to find other living people.

I've been going over these past comments with some interest:

TMP link

Dan

So one of the first challenges for anyone still alive is to find other living people

That won't kill and/or eat you !

Are we were meant to lie down or put a paper bag over our head or something?

Well right off, I think the title of the article, borders on both, commical and 'answers itself".
"How to cope with the END of the World?"

Helloo… you dont. Its THE END of the World.
"Elvis has left the building." and the building aint doing so good either.

Legion

Cerdic
So one of the first challenges for anyone still alive is to find other living people.

That won't kill and/or eat you!

Yea, not the most optimistic point of view, but Realistically, I'd have to go w/ Legion on that one.

I would LIKE to think, 'my fellow man will work together for mutual survival".. but thats just Not our Nature.
First response in life threatening situations:
Self Preservation (Fight or Flight?)

But the scenario in the article supposes that there are VERY few people left. In order to survive, those that are left will need help from others.

Every human society that has ever existed, from prehistoric hunter-gatherers onwards, has relied on individuals being part of a mutually supporting larger group. Survivors will have to band together to form new, viable groups or they will have no long term future.

To begin with, yes, you will need to be very wary of anyone else that you meet. In the first few months people will be living by scavenging the remains of the modern world and there will be competition for resources. But once the food runs out, what then? We will be back to hunter-gathering and subsistence agriculture. Without modern power and machinery that is very labour intensive work. You're going to need more people. If you have shot everyone you have come across over the last few months, just in case like, that might be a bit tricky….

Be optimistic. At least if you live in the USA. As you will be safe for the near future, and if you live in a rural, or close to rural area as where I live, you will have plenty of the necessities to keep you going and safe for quite while.

The article supposes that the large majority of people will die, which means there will plenty of canned food left in the cities to keep the survivors there without needing to move. A lot of the people there will die because of the rotting bodies and disease that they will cause. Others will murder each other off while looting and trying to gain control of local areas. In cities like Chicago, where urban gangs already exist, they will happily kill each other off. In short, if you live in a city…leave! Transportation out will be readily available, as there will be more automobiles than people to drive them. There will also be plenty of gasoline and gasoline "extenders" that will keep the available supply useable for couple of years.

If you live in an area that is largely farm land as I do, you will very likely own or have access to firearms and ammunition. As has been discussed here before, firearms and ammo will last a lifetime and longer if you keep your weapons properly oiled and the ammo dry. In my small town in western New Jersey there are easily enough firearms to arm every man woman and child right now. If many of them died, that would mean more ammo for everyone. My belief is that the local police would form a militia if we needed one. In fact, there was a local match sponsored by the local police that pitted the cops against the local sportsmen, so the LEO's and locals are friendly with each other, and will certainly cooperate. The network between the county police forces and state police is very solidly in place as well. We are also considered a "hunting community", so there are many men and women that can handle firearms proficiently, and there are several small businesses that butcher deer.

People in areas like mine are usually already fairly well organized. Our town has a volunteer rescue squad, volunteer firefighters, and a Civilian Emergency Response team. There are also quite few veterans and national Guardsmen in the area. We all know each other too. For instance, I play poker with the mayor, and I was at a Christmas party with the Chief of Police. Most of the volunteers also have First Aid Training and are "first responders". The police and local emergency teams frequently hold practice emergency situations, so we are well prepared.

For communications, we have a network of HAM radio operators that extends around the state and into Pennsylvania. I got my license last year to offer my service to the town in case of an emergency.

Game if plentiful here with deer, rabbits, squirrels, wild turkey, ducks, geese and other fowl. The rivers and streams have fish, and the water is running and clean. A nearby town even has a working grist mill. It's a local tourist attraction, but could easily become a working mill as it runs on water power. The local farms can provide corn, fruit and other fresh food. It's also typical for people to have backyard gardens. I grow peppers and tomatoes every year.

Medication will be a problem, but addicts aren't looking for blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol drugs, so I doubt that they would bother stealing them. I was informed by a pharmacist that these medications do not have as short a shelf life as is indicated on the bottles, so they will be safe to use for a very long time.

We will not need to make tools for a long while either. Tools don't wear out easily and the local home depot is stocked up. There is a lot of powered farm equipment here too. It's just a matter of keeping it maintained and operational. There are certainly professional mechanics around here, and lots of hobbyists as well. Many of the men work on their own vehicles.

About every third or fourth home here has a portable generator, and during hurricane Sandy we took turns offering amenities to our neighbors. The town also set up a "warming station" for people to come in out of the cold, get something to eat, power up PC's and Cell phones, and generally offer assistance to each other.

So i'm not worried at all! Of course if you live across the pond where gun control is so strictly enforced, you are probably screwed, but that's your own fault for letting your governments dictate your freedom.

I'd be checking for Triffids.

Yea, not the most optimistic point of view, but Realistically, I'd have to go w/ Legion on that one.

We see how "well" many humans treat each other now worldwide … It probably wouldn't get any better with the end of the world looming in a short order or it's aftermath.

Every human society that has ever existed, from prehistoric hunter-gatherers onwards, has relied on individuals being part of a mutually supporting larger group.

Remember one of the early scenes in "2001". When two groups of Primates met at a water hole. And then they attacked each other … For use of the water.

Legion 4

It depends on where you live. ISIS is giving Europeans fits. Not so much here in the USA. I can see an ISIS uprising all across Europe after a calamity. They would take advantage of that situation to try to enforce Sharia law, and now they have the numbers in Europe to do that. They'd never be able to get away with that in the USA. Not even in limited areas and numbers. The citizens here are too willing to kill 'em all and let Muhammad sort 'em out. And as I said in my previous post; we are better organized than you might think. How would a group of gang bangers, holding their pistols sideways, fare against an organized group of armed police, hunters and veterans? With a telescopic sight I can hit a man at 300 yards, and that's pretty typical for a vet or experienced hunter. Do you think that they would stand a chance? I don't think so. No matter what their numbers.

I think we seem to be discussing different events!

My reading of the article suggests to me that far, far fewer people survive than you guys are thinking. Take Shadow for example. His community may be well prepared for some kind of apocalypse, but what happens if none of your police survive to form a militia? None of your first aid and firefighting volunteers?

Things like having your own generators are good. I think most rural areas have access to those. But what do they run on? How long before the fuel runs out? If you have an old static steam engine you're looking good for fuel, though!

I wouldn't worry about ISIS. They are a tiny number of people, the chances of any of them surviving are minuscule!

Shadow's post is interesting in that it hints at what might happen. Maybe most people, not all, but most, will "offer their service to the town" and "offer amenities to their neighbours" and "generally offer assistance to each other"?

It depends on where you live

Youngstown, OH … not far from the PA Line.

ISIS is giving Europeans fits.

"ROE" would change during and or after an "Apocalypse" for everyone who survives. ISIS, AQ, etc. would be targets regardless. ISIS/Daesh wants to bring about the End Times. The West, East and everybody in between save for their supporters wants them dead. They wouldn't prove to be much of a threat with loose more pragmatic and realistic ROE.

we are better organized than you might think. How would a group of gang bangers, holding their pistols sideways, fare against an organized group of armed police, hunters and veterans?

I know, I served as an Infantry Ofc, '79-'90 in 4 Infantry Bns[1 Air Asslt, 3 Mech, worldwide]. And own a number of Small arms, i.e. rifles and pistols, + knives and even a couple of swords …

Plus back in the day. Youngstown was known as a "Mob Town" … 'nuff said …

With a telescopic sight I can hit a man at 300 yards,

With an M14 or M16 with standard open iron sights. I can hit a target at 300m. Been there, done that may times.

Do you think that they would stand a chance?

Something anyone who plans to attack the USA. Has to consider all the rifles, pistols, etc. in the hands of private citizens. Many who are Vets and/or hunters.

We used to joke if the USSR and/or PRC landed in NY or NJ, etc. The next morning they'd find all their vehicles up on blocks with no wheels and all their radios missing.

Cerdic

In smaller communities people know each other through the church, voluntary organizations, schools, and children's sports and other activities, like the Boy Scouts. My wife is on the CERT team and covers at the library when the librarian is sick or on vacation, and I've volunteered as a radio operator during emergencies. We are unified through our mutual interests, and will help and protect each other during a calamity. This is a radically different situation than when I lived in a tenement in New York City where I didn't even know the names of the people that lived in the apartments on the same floor! We have to understand that people will react differently in urban and rural areas, so there's no set answer to "how we would cope".

The author of the article didn't specify the percentage of people that would die, ot whether the rest of the population was also doomed. So yes, we are discussing "different events". Depending on how many people are left we might have an individual supermarket of canned goods for every survivor, or there might be so many people left that out armed forces and police can get everyone organized and fed rather quickly.

Isn't this basically the same scenario as after the Black Death ?

The survivors will impose some sort of structure to survive. It may be pretty humane or it may not.

A few hundred thousand years of survival instinct as a group oriented species is pretty hard to eradicate.

Most of this stuff seems to come back to survivalist fantasies about the "right people" surviving.

In smaller communities people know each other

Yes, many people I don't think realize how much of the USA is still rural small villages and towns. Depending on the type of civilization ending event. Those areas may have a higher chance of survival. At least initially.

Again depending on the type of event. There are many in places out in the countryside, which are pretty self reliant. E.g. the hills of KY & TN, etc. But eventually they may need something they can't make themselves. Like some Meds, spare parts, etc. …

>>eventually they may need something they can't make themselves. Like some Meds, spare parts, etc.<<

The citizens of our western civilizations have always proved themselves to be industrious and inventive. If there is a need, and some possible way to fulfill that need, someone will step up to the plate. If the facilities to make medication still exist, there will be people at those facilities figuring out how to make them.

I hate to be a killjoy. After all. it's more fun, from a gamer's point of view, to imagine that the entire world will be left with nothing but Mohawk wearing nut jobs, but I very much doubt that that will be the scenario. Just thinking about my own surroundings, and our population, it is much more likely that we will be trying to provide food, shelter and safety for our families and friends. That means organization and unity, not anarchy. Further to that, just as in 17th century America, communities will trade amenities, not go to war with each other. You have a plant to make meds, and you have people that have trained themselves to manufacture them. I have a farm to grow wheat and another to grow corn. And voila!…let's trade. Then we trade our excess goods for lumber and hardware and build and repair. Somewhere along the line our communities get together and organize a militia for mutual protection from the bad guys that will eventually appear. How we will behave and strive is all in the history books.

>>I wouldn't worry about ISIS. They are a tiny number of people, the chances of any of them surviving are minuscule!<<

If I lived in Europe *I* certainly would be worried about the Muslim population. There are approximately 4.7 million Muslims in France and approximately 4.7 million Muslims in Germany. That's a helluva lot of Muslims! OK. I don't want to seem Islamaphobic, But i'm certainly not fool enough to think that Isis believers are friends of Westerners. So you might ask "how many of those Muslims are officially part of Isis"? And I reply that I don't know and neither do you. But the real question is how many of those Muslims could be coerced into joining Isis during a calamity. Again, I don't know, and neither do you. So it seems to me that dismissing Isis as a small percentage of the population seems overly optimistic. Especially since the proportion of people killed and wounded by Isis terrorists to those terrorists is very high.

I live in Britain. We have a large Muslim population as well. I have lived and worked with Muslims for years. The vast majority are fully integrated into British life and have NO interest in fringe fundamentalists like ISIS.

Forget what the media tells you. Scare stories sell newspapers and ad slots. I'm not having a go at the American media, ours is just as bad!

I can only go on my own personal experience, but I have no trouble dismissing ISIS supporters as a tiny percentage of Muslims. If I were to survive the end of the world they would be the last thing I'd be worrying about!

Assuming that 99% of the population is killed by a virus. That still leaves 3.5 million people alive in the U.S. I understand that many of those survivors will be traumatized or die due to secondary events (suicide, lack of medical assistance,…) Assuming that half of them are still functioning, you would still have 1.75 million functional humans.

Society could survive that with the proper leadership. That leadership is what would mean the difference between restablishing a functioning society and degenerating.

There would be an abundance of resources. No reason for hunger for the first ten years. Concentrating the population into one or several regions (Southern California, middle Tennessee, and Virginia maybe? Due to weather and resources, including hydroelectric, solar and nuclear power) would allow sufficient population density to maintain a functional economy.

Survival farming would not be difficult at all. You have the pick of the best farmland and if organized should not have a problem maintaining vehicles and tools.

>>Forget what the media tells you. Scare stories sell newspapers and ad slots. I'm not having a go at the American media, ours is just as bad!<<

I'm not going by what the media tells me. I'm going by experience as an American. We lost thousands of people at the World Trade Center. The murderers were not ISIS, but they *were* Islamic terrorists. So, OK, I was wrong to single out ISIS, as there are *many* Islamic terrorist groups, but they are Islamic. No doubt about it. Which means that we *should* be aware of the possibility of further terrorist attacks, and in a calamitous situation it only makes sense that some of these groups would take advantage of the situation.

OK. I don't want to seem Islamaphobic,

I have been called that a number of times. And banned from the UM boards because of it. I AM NOT, but having spent over 10 year in the Infantry. I'm pretty good at ID'ing the enemy. Those that want to kill me and people like me, etc. And I don't care if they are from Mars and pray to Daffy Duck.

I think if I had said what you have posted, I'd have been dog housed or worse.

But i'm certainly not fool enough to think that Isis believers are friends of Westerners.

No one said ISIS/Daesh, AQ, etc. were. And believe me, I've been called many things, but not a fool.

So you might ask "how many of those Muslims are officially part of Isis"? And I reply that I don't know and neither do you.

Not even many Intel, MI, etc., know. We can't read minds.

But the real question is how many of those Muslims could be coerced into joining Isis during a calamity.

Based on everything I've studied, read, etc. Very, VERY, few of anybody supports ISIS, AQ's, etc. type of "terrorism".

Again, I don't know, and neither do you.

Again I can't read minds and neither can you(?).

So it seems to me that dismissing Isis as a small percentage of the population seems overly optimistic.

IF you had read many of my post in the past, I have done no such thing. I see them for the threat they are to West and the world in general.

Especially since the proportion of people killed and wounded by Isis terrorists to those terrorists is very high.

And let's remember the vast majority of those killed are moslem …

As Cedric posted –

The vast majority are fully integrated into British life and have NO interest in fringe fundamentalists like ISIS.

That seems to be the overwhelming situation. Everywhere …

I can only go on my own personal experience, but I have no trouble dismissing ISIS supporters as a tiny percentage of Muslims. If I were to survive the end of the world they would be the last thing I'd be worrying about!

I totally agree …

I hate to be a killjoy.

I'm a realist and pragmatic. Those 10+ years in the Infantry was very "enlightening", etc.

Which means that we *should* be aware of the possibility of further terrorist attacks,

Again, based on my experiences, etc. Those whose job it is to stop such things are very much aware and capable. Much more so than 9/11 …

How we will behave and strive is all in the history books.

And yet we see how often our history is not known, forgotten or understood, etc., …

I completely loath ISIS/Daesh, AQ, the Taliban, etc. I have made that very clear many times on TMP. I can see no reason to even believe that most are not even able to be rehabilitated into civilized society. And almost everything should be done to remove such types and their supporters from the face of the Earth. But they are a very tiny but very vocal minority lunatic fringe, etc. I believe that very few should even be taken prisoners. Save for those that might be needed for intel. And those that are captured should be brought up on Crimes against Humanity, etc. And go before the Hague, UN, etc. And the Death Penalty should be in effect.

And let me make it clear … Daesh, AQ, etc. and their support represent only a very tiny % of moslems. Deash, AQ, etc. are the enemy.

Legion

Your post is very confusing. Do you see Islamist terrorist groups, of which there are *many*, to be a possible threat during a calamity or not? Do you think that European Islamist terrorists would or would not take advantage of a crisis if they could? Of course the percentage of them that *would* take advantage might be small, but it was a relatively small group that destroyed the Twin Towers and flew into the Pentagon. Close to three thousand people were killed. I don't think that their families would dismiss these groups as not being dangerous because they are small in number.

>>And let me make it clear … Daesh, AQ, etc. and their support represent only a very tiny % of moslems. Deash, AQ, etc. are the enemy.<<

That's about as clear as mud.

Let me clear things up a bit … If I can't well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Only a very small minority of moslems are Daesh, AQ, and other terrorist groups like that.

Do you see Islamist terrorist groups, of which there are *many*, to be a possible threat during a calamity or not?

I see since they are a very small minority and they'd be a small threat. As many people of all types would die in this event. And the fact that many are dead may cause some of them to rethink their "jihad". E.g. as we see with Daesh in the Iraq and Syria, many of their foreign fights are beginning to leave. As their caliphate is not going to survive in those areas very long. Or probably anywhere else for very long either …

Would I trust a Daesh or AQ etc. type ? NO … I'd probably still kill them before they try to kill us.

And yes, there are *many* terrorist groups like that. And in many cases they'd still be fighting among themselves.

E.g. in Syria AQ and Daesh are enemies.

Hezbollah and Daesh are at each others throats as the former are Shia and the later are Sunni.

In A'stan the Taliban & AQ just began to get along and both see the few Daesh there as the enemy.

There would still be the underlining Sunni-Shia divide. Along with tribal, ethnic, etc. hatreds that have been going on for a very long time.

Do you think that European Islamist terrorists would or would not take advantage of a crisis if they could?

Very few … as even you pointed out …

it was a relatively small group that destroyed the Twin Towers and flew into the Pentagon. Close to three thousand people were killed. I don't think that their families would dismiss these groups as not being dangerous because they are small in number.

Very well aware of that … However, I'd think as with many people of all types would die in the event. I'd think the fewer terrorists survivors would be less of a threat.

However, the rest of the world's survivors should not turn there backs on any of remaining terrorists. But I'd think that could be said about many "groups" that today don't get along very well. E.g. the North Koreans and much of the Western world of one.

And unless you can read minds … We really won't know what other survivors would be thinking at any rate. And that is where the anarchy would come in. In some cases …

Unless they are driving around with a big black Daesh flag on their pick up truck. Which is even unlikely now as the learned the hard way not to make themselves a target.

You guys have the entire ultra-modern board to hate muslims, can the rest of us have one thread once in a while without everything having to be about this?

It's like my old room-mate who could somehow turn any discussion to be about pit bull dogs and how society is mean to them.

1) I didn't say anything negative about islam, I only hate terrorists. I can't say enough bad things about terrorist like Daesh, AQ, etc.

2) I was banned from the UM boards … if you remember … I do …

Weasel

I don't hate Muslims and it doesn't sound to me like Legion hates *all* Muslims. Just the ones that are trying to kill non-Muslim infidels. Which is logical and would be expected of a man who had to fight them. As you might have noticed; the thread is about how to cope with the end of the world, which, of course, would include any possible threats to safety. Our disagreement is about the level of danger there would be from Islamic extremists if we experienced a calamity that would dramatically reduce the population. It's as much relevant and objective speculation as any of the other theories in this thread. However, since we've both made our points, i'm willing to drop the Islamist part of the equation from the discussion. Legion already suggested that if we can't agree that we should just agree to disagree, and i'm good with that. Especially if it makes others feel uncomfortable.

I think we agree on most things Shadow. It's just the measure of the threat in the scenario set up here about the very few survivors.

And as you said this discussion, I'm good with that, we made our points.

My bottom line as I have said many times before when terrorism comes up. I don't care who they pray to or where they come from. If they try to kill/harm me and those like me. Well they become nothing but "targets" … to be "serviced" … with "extreme prejudice" …

Appreciate it mate.

This has gone SO FAR Off Track, its ridiculous.

I have to agree w/ *Weasel. Wouldnt those better be listed on the "Ultra modern", "Utter Drivel" and such message boards?

The topic WAS; "How to cope with the end of the world".
Nothng posted in the last week seems to even come close to responding to the TOPIC.

I'm banned from the UM boards … I'm a bad TMPer … < hangs head in shame >

However, this being the Utter Drivel board. Generally almost anything goes … almost … Some have "sensitive feelings", etc. …

+1 part time gamer

Part Time Gamer

My description of how a small community would cope with a "the end of the world" was a very accurate opinion. Why are you saying that "nothing posted seems close to responding to the topic"?

>>this being the Utter Drivel board. Generally almost anything goes<<

You said it man! LOL The "pulp" page is even worse.

Well … better here then on some of the others boards …

Of course if you live across the pond where gun control is so strictly enforced, you are probably screwed, but that's your own fault for letting your governments dictate your freedom.

That's because we don't see the "freedoms" of gang-bangers to mow each other down (and any innocent by-standers stupid enough to be walking by at the time), or the right of some meat-head teen to wipe out an entire class of 5-year-olds because teacher told him a few home truths, as all that important – let alone vital for the proper functioning of society as you seem to do. You have a gun-based spree killing/mass murder event virtually EVERY DAY; theoretically, with 1/5 your population we should have six per month, but have actually had one in the past two decades. That's a lot of innocent people still alive/unhurt, not grieving, not traumatised from being eye-witnesses or first responders. And while continental Europe is awash with firearms, our terrorists have to rely on knives and cars. More potential victims not dead, not injured, etc.

We CHOOSE to do things differently here; and IT WORKS FOR US – nto for you maybe, but then you don't have to live here. We also don't have (a) massive tracts of wilderness where you can't just nip down to the shops or McDonald's, or (b) large wild animals that can tear you to pieces. And yet, despite the myths, we still have around 2 million LEGALLY held firearms in the UK.

Now here's two questions for you – how many US schoolchildren killed by a nuclear/atomic attack in the past 70 years? And how many killed by guns? You may confer……perhaps ask the Sandy Hook PTA for help if it gets too difficult.

Supercilius Maximus

The more freedom that you have, the more likely that someone will misuse that freedom.

Certainly gangsters are a problem, but they don't have to be. Liberals in our country make it difficult to arrest and incarcerate them. Don't blame the guns. Blame the people that make it difficult to imprison the gangsters that misuse them. MS-13, for instance, is running rampant, but they can't be removed from our "sanctuary cities".

The young man who murdered the children in Sandy Hook was insane. Despite that fact his mother encouraged him to use firearms. There are a lot of things that you can fix, but you can't fix stupid.

I really can't help but to feel that you are insulting my intelligence by suggesting that you are safe from gun violence because of your gun laws. Let's examine that philosophy.

On Friday 13 November 2015, 89 people were massacred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, France. The gunmen used automatic weapons, which are totally banned there.

According to Europol, the European Union's law-enforcement agency, "Many firearms are trafficked [illegally] in Europe come from the western Balkans after being held illegally after recent attacks in the area." The black market in France is enormous where "a Kalashnikov or a rocket launcher can be acquired for as little as 300 to 700 Euros [$325 to $750 USD]."

France is right across the channel from the UK.

Still feel safe because of your gun laws? Good luck with that.

Still feel safe because of your gun laws? Good luck with that.

Yes, actually I do – not least because we haven't had a "Bataclan moment" in the UK. However, I couldn't help noticing you didn't mention San Bernadino. What's the matter – didn't that fit your narrative? Explain how YOUR gun laws (or lack of them) made y'all safer, Billy Bub.

>>Explain how YOUR gun laws (or lack of them) made y'all safer, Billy Bub.<<

Isn't there any way that you can have a discussion without being insulting? Do you think that gives you the upper hand? It doesn't. It just makes you look antagonistic and belligerent.

link

Dan
PS. Aren't most murders in the US taking place in just 6 counties, and that these 6 have the toughest gun laws in the country? It was all over the news like two weeks ago or so.

Isn't there any way that you can have a discussion without being insulting?

Yes. Just not with someone who mocks the UK for solving a problem and who believes more guns and fewer restrictions are always the answer.

Supercillius

You are over sensitive about this subject. We were discussing an "end of the world" situation", not the current state. What's more I was referring to *all* countries with heavy restrictions. Not just the UK.