Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Howyoudoin]

How can people be so selfish that they want to buy 3 months worth and stop others having any?

Because you're not in their minds at all. If you asked them they'd say that they're protecting their families, which is their primary function in life. They don't really connect with the idea that their being excessively provident is the same thing as somebody else going without.

Basic Daniel Kahneman behavioural economics, of course. There's a logic to it - it's just that it's bloody annoying when you're reduced to using last week's analyst reports for such a (ahem) fundamental purpose. Hope you find some soon....

BJ

Sorry BJ but I don't find this a situation that should be laughed over. Take Labour supporters and the Tory supporters out of the question. Take Leavers and Remainers out of the question.

This is now a matter of whether people have access to enough sanitary and food products. And if they do not, what measures will they take to get them?

I can answer that. I'd beg, borrow and steal. Anything to provide for my family.

And If i'm thinking like that, it means that the streets will become a no go zone if the Government moves on from 'Delay'.

HYD

[bungeejumper]

Sorry BJ but I don't find this a situation that should be laughed over. Take Labour supporters and the Tory supporters out of the question. Take Leavers and Remainers out of the question.

Er, I didn't mention them. You did.

This is now a matter of whether people have access to enough sanitary and food products. And if they do not, what measures will they take to get them?

I can answer that. I'd beg, borrow and steal. Anything to provide for my family.

And If i'm thinking like that, it means that the streets will become a no go zone if the Government moves on from 'Delay'.

I think we're agreed on that, then. If I understand you correctly, you'd like the govt to stop multiple buying altogether? It's just that that's a bit of a mixed message when it's telling us at the same time to hunker down for a month of working at home (without Pret a Manger! ) and to make sure we've got enough stuff in our cupboards for an indeterminate period of self-isolation. Those two requirements aren't mutually compatible.If they try to do the latter, they'll hit the shops much harder than usual and you won't get your bog roll.

Commiserations, anyway. . See, no laughing.

BJ

[gryffron]

Paracetamol has returned. A massive shelf (12'?) containing nothing else in Wilkos.

Gryff

[brightncheerful]

From a customer's perspective, empty shelves.

From a supermarket's perspective, question is rate of stock turn. Would it pay to reorder immediately or reorder as normal. Immediately is risky and a hassle. In terms of cash flow, the latter makes more sense.

Different branches of the same supermarket have different ordering cycles, depending upon normal level of demand. Which is why some might have empty shelves and others not.

I would expect panic buying to be more likely where customers have more space in their homes to store stuff and equally can afford to lay out the extra expense in advance of use.

[JohnB]

I suspect panic buying is less in Remainer areas as they are still working through their Brexit cache. I know I'm eyeing up my tinned fish and custard mountain, buttressed by the washing powder and bog roll piles.

[sunnyjoe]

... it's bloody annoying when you're reduced to using last week's analyst reports for such a (ahem) fundamental purpose. Hope you find some soon....

BJ

It's fitting that some fundamental analysis is applied to one's fundament

[Howyoudoin]

Sorry BJ but I don't find this a situation that should be laughed over. Take Labour supporters and the Tory supporters out of the question. Take Leavers and Remainers out of the question.

Er, I didn't mention them. You did.

This is now a matter of whether people have access to enough sanitary and food products. And if they do not, what measures will they take to get them?

I can answer that. I'd beg, borrow and steal. Anything to provide for my family.

And If i'm thinking like that, it means that the streets will become a no go zone if the Government moves on from 'Delay'.

I think we're agreed on that, then. If I understand you correctly, you'd like the govt to stop multiple buying altogether? It's just that that's a bit of a mixed message when it's telling us at the same time to hunker down for a month of working at home (without Pret a Manger! ) and to make sure we've got enough stuff in our cupboards for an indeterminate period of self-isolation. Those two requirements aren't mutually compatible.If they try to do the latter, they'll hit the shops much harder than usual and you won't get your bog roll.

Commiserations, anyway. . See, no laughing.

BJ

Hi BJ,

For the record, I think it has nothing to do with the Government if people bulk buy.

I would have hoped that people could be sensible about this without intervention but it seems that I was wrong.

I’m not normally one to advocate violence but I can see why people resort to such, when you watch your fellow man take ALL of the supplies off the shelf, right in front of you.

HYD

[bungeejumper]

For the record, I think it has nothing to do with the Government if people bulk buy.

I would have hoped that people could be sensible about this without intervention but it seems that I was wrong.

I’m not normally one to advocate violence but I can see why people resort to such, when you watch your fellow man take ALL of the supplies off the shelf, right in front of you.

As the Blessed Margaret once reminded us:

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no governments can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

Should we be surprised that they do?

BJ

[Howyoudoin]

For the record, I think it has nothing to do with the Government if people bulk buy.

I would have hoped that people could be sensible about this without intervention but it seems that I was wrong.

I’m not normally one to advocate violence but I can see why people resort to such, when you watch your fellow man take ALL of the supplies off the shelf, right in front of you.

As the Blessed Margaret once reminded us:

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no governments can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

Should we be surprised that they do?

BJ

I don’t know what you’re talking about BJ, so I’ll leave it there.

HYD

[Itsallaguess]

This is now a matter of whether people have access to enough sanitary and food products. And if they do not, what measures will they take to get them?

I can answer that. I'd beg, borrow and steal.

Anything to provide for my family.

But aren't the people stocking up simply doing the same thing HYD?

From what you've written above, it would seem that there's less distance between those that are doing 'anything to provide for their families' now, by stockpiling from shops, and the actions that you'd be willing to take at some potential point in the future.

Isn't the difference here just one of timing?

Whilst I can't condone anyone stripping shelves of household goods, I can understand why some people might be panicking enough to think they've got to do it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Howyoudoin]

This is now a matter of whether people have access to enough sanitary and food products. And if they do not, what measures will they take to get them?

I can answer that. I'd beg, borrow and steal.

Anything to provide for my family.

But aren't the people stocking up simply doing the same thing HYD?

From what you've written above, it would seem that there's less distance between those that are doing 'anything to provide for their families' now, by stockpiling from shops, and the actions that you'd be willing to take at some potential point in the future.

Isn't the difference here just one of timing?

Whilst I can't condone anyone stripping shelves of household goods, I can understand why some people might be panicking enough to think they've got to do it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

If you’re pushing your trolley to the checkout and said trolley has 30+ toilet rolls on it, there’s a fair chance that you’re taking the piss.

HYD

[XFool]

If you’re pushing your trolley to the checkout and said trolley has 30+ toilet rolls on it, there’s a fair chance that you’re taking the piss.

Or...

[sg31]

This is an interesting read.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavi ... d3d9cd99ca

Others who have more technical knowledge than I might be able to advise if it has any validity.

Just read the article and logically it seems to make sense to me.

I have a science and peripheral healthcare background.

Hopefully the government will announce stronger measures today.

John

The government are way behind the curve now. The confirmed cases are going up in leaps and bounds, project that forward and we are a few weeks behind Italy. The number of deaths in Italy suggest they haven't tested nearly enough people. With a 1000 deaths they must have 50-100,000 cases probably many more because the deaths occur a couple of weeks after infection.

The only way to stop this is to isolate the population. The Chinese experience (if their numbers are to be believed) suggests this works relatively quickly to reduce transmission. Start early and reduce the numbers infected.

[stewamax]

What should worry people more is the possibility of water, sewerage, gas and electricity being 'off' owing to serious lack of healthy staff.
Many moons ago I was responsible for the operations of a large and complex site in the middle of nowhere that included a major FMCG's head office.
My golden rule was to keep the site open if snowed in, if power failed (we had a huge generator just in case) and even if the water supply failed (we kept potable reserves).
But if the sewerage system failed (with duplexed pumps and duplexed diverse-path pipes), I would 'advise' the General Manager to send everyone home.

[servodude]

But it's also a strong Darwinian likelihood that a brainless, directionless organism will evolve to seek out new targets once it's killed off its first-ranking choice of hosts.

I don't think it makes choices - it's more lethal to the old and already sick but it's just as likely to infect a healthy young person.

Everything parasitic makes choices. Humans don't catch animals' diseases very often, and they don't usually catch ours. The Spanish flu killed off the young first of all, and this one kills off the old. But once the favoured host isn't around so much any more, simple random adaptation will make sure it switches to the next best thing. Not universally, of course, but the quick and successful adapters will be the ones that flourish, and that's how mutations happen. Whether it's flu or antibiotic-resistant bugs, it's a recurring patternm in nature. It wouldn't have surprised Darwin one little bit.

BJ

That's not how it works

Mutations happen, randomly within a population, there is no choice, there is no direction
- if any mutation provides a reproductive advantage it will likely survive to be there in future generations
- if any prevents reproduction it will not
- anything else doesn't have any effect

The organism's environment acts as a filter for it's unadvantageous mutations

That's about it
- sd

[redsturgeon]

This is an interesting read.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavi ... d3d9cd99ca

Others who have more technical knowledge than I might be able to advise if it has any validity.

Just read the article and logically it seems to make sense to me.

I have a science and peripheral healthcare background.

Hopefully the government will announce stronger measures today.

John

The government are way behind the curve now. The confirmed cases are going up in leaps and bounds, project that forward and we are a few weeks behind Italy. The number of deaths in Italy suggest they haven't tested nearly enough people. With a 1000 deaths they must have 50-100,000 cases probably many more because the deaths occur a couple of weeks after infection.

The only way to stop this is to isolate the population. The Chinese experience (if their numbers are to be believed) suggests this works relatively quickly to reduce transmission. Start early and reduce the numbers infected.

Yes I have to say it was a disappointingly sparse response.

John

[JohnB]

I'm sure some of those panic buying are hoping to sell on their stocks at inflated prices to the less fortunate.

I think we are all guilty of changing our shopping habits just that little bit, just in case. And if you normally buy toilet rolls once a quarter, and buy this week....

[redsturgeon]

This is interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKhPbVN_Rbw

The late show with Stephen Colbert airs every night in the US and I usually watch it . It is taped in front of a live theatre audience. Except last night it wasn't. They were due to stop having audiences at these type of shows in New York from next week but they brought it forward. All Broadway shows have been cancelled. The NBA basketball season is cancelled.

We are behind the curve in the UK, we need to look at stopping large gatherings now. I assume West End shows are still going on, they need to be cancelled. I think the time for putting the economy ahead of public safety is over.

The graphs I am looking at show what happened in Italy and where the UK is on the curve...it is not pretty. Every day we delay looks like it will be costly in terms of lives lost.

John

[johnhemming]

Replacing large gatherings with lots of small gatherings is unlikely to reduce infection.

[redsturgeon]

Replacing large gatherings with lots of small gatherings is unlikely to reduce infection.

I'm thinking more of stopping all gatherings.

Go hard or go home (in fact go hard and stay home!)

John