Hygiene at supermarkets during Coronavirus epidemic

[caradoc]

My local Sainsburys has pretty good arrangements in place;

 

Queueing system outside with lines every 2m painted on the pavement

Staff cleaning the handles of trolleys before passing them (at a distance !)  to customers

More staff at the entrance restricting access to ensure the store is not crowded

Separate entrance and exit doors

Every other staff checkout placed out of use

Card-only at staffed checkouts

Plastic screens between checkout operator and customer

 

The one annoying thing is being unable to consistently keep 2m apart in the aisles, partly because these are frequently obstructed by staff, either restocking shelves or picking orders for on line deliveries. But these things have to be done.

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Due to confusion, I went both a big sainsbury, and on the way back a ‘local’ sainsbury to pick-up something I’d missed at the big one.

 

Big one was a model of efficiency and hygiene, apart from the staff in aisles mentioned by caradoc.

 

The small one was a nightmare of indiscipline by staff and customers alike and I can strongly recommend it if you want to get unwell, otherwise not. 
 

The weirdest feature of the latter was a truly ancient woman on/in a mobility scooter/chair thing. She looked about as vulnerable to the illness as you can get, yet wore no gloves or mask, was intent upon picking-up, examining and putting-back as many things as possible, and twice backed her chariot into me on super speed reversal, trapping me in a corner on one occasion and seriously breaching 2m on both. It’s a miracle she’s survived this long!

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Nearholmer

[woodenhead]

I had to visit our local 'local' Sainsburys thinking the queue would be less than the big one for picking up an Argos item.

 

Wrong, one in one out, things are more expensive and they had an Ikea style direction system in operation enforced by the security guard.  I was sent round one way by the guard only to come straight back to him by the directional system in the next aisle to then go straight to till and collect my item.

 

Not been back since, the big Sainsburys which is no further away is very efficient.

[duncan]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

 

The weirdest feature of the latter was a truly ancient woman on/in a mobility scooter/chair thing. She looked about as vulnerable to the illness as you can get, yet wore no gloves or mask, was intent upon picking-up, examining and putting-back as many things as possible, and twice backed her chariot into me on super speed reversal, trapping me in a corner on one occasion and seriously breaching 2m on both. It’s a miracle she’s survived this long!

 

 

 

Wait till you meet them in surgeries, only safer place is A&E  

[vaughan45]

On 24/05/2020 at 13:25, Nearholmer said:

 

The weirdest feature of the latter was a truly ancient woman on/in a mobility scooter/chair thing. She looked about as vulnerable to the illness as you can get, yet wore no gloves or mask, was intent upon picking-up, examining and putting-back as many things as possible, and twice backed her chariot into me on super speed reversal, trapping me in a corner on one occasion and seriously breaching 2m on both. It’s a miracle she’s survived this long!

 

 

 

Unfortunately, It is easy to mistake disability for vulnerability. In this instance other than her disability, the lady on the mobility scooter may have no other health conditions relevant to Covid-19, yet I am classed as extremely vulnerable as I have an underlying health condition, but have had my need to self-isolate questioned as I look perfectly fit & healthy to anyone not in the know.

 

However using  common-sense on protecting herself and not endangering others is another thing altogether!!

[Nearholmer]

I was thinking vulnerability by reason of age.

 

Anyway, I’m noticing that the Great British Public is re-writing the rules of lockdown, something along the lines:

 

”It is OK to see as many of your friends, and family who are not members of your household, as you want to if you are outdoors and keep roughly 2m apart.”

 

Unless I misread the situation, and the entire population now live in large multi-generational households and/or communes, that is what I observe when out cycling through local country parks and in the streets.

 

Whether its a good idea or not, i don’t know, but it is how people are behaving.

 

 

[vaughan45]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Anyway, I’m noticing that the Great British Public is re-writing the rules of lockdown, something along the lines:

 

”It is OK to see as many of your friends, and family who are not members of your household, as you want to if you are outdoors and keep roughly 2m apart.”

 

Unless I misread the situation, and the entire population now live in large multi-generational households and/or communes, that is what I observe when out cycling through local country parks and in the streets.

 

Whether its a good idea or not, i don’t know, but it is how people are behaving.

 

 

Things had started to crumble before the easing of the lockdown in early May, and I suspect we are already seeing signs that the government stipulations will catch up with reality during the next few days. Certainly round here outdoors is taken as front or back garden, providing no one has had to go through the house to get there. None of this is surprising really given the actions of those close to those in power.

 

Looking at pictures from seaside resorts today, social distancing is clearly not being observed and neither will it be when large stores re-open in the middle of June. It will be interesting buying a car whilst social distancing from the sales person and will cars be sanitised before and after you have taken a test drive? If I were a betting man I would bet on the second wave starting in July / August and reaching maximum potential by September as the seasonal flu season starts to kick in. Still it doesn't really matter, as some appear to believe the more oldies that die, the less the state has to pay in pension and associated benefits and elderly care capacity problems are solved as there will be no shortage of care home or other types of accommodation.

 

What I want to know as someone currently 'shielding' is what will miraculously change on 30th June to allow me to go out again - even if I am wearing the face coverings and clear plastic face shields I have acquired ready?

[Andy Hayter]

11 minutes ago, vaughan45 said:

What I want to know as someone currently 'shielding' is what will miraculously change on 30th June to allow me to go out again - even if I am wearing the face coverings and clear plastic face shields I have acquired ready?

 

Sadly nothing.  Without a vaccine, the best you can hope for is that more and more people you come close to have already had the virus - aka Herd Immunity.

 

You can still pick up the virus by touching something that has active virus on it - door handles, the handles on the supermarket chillers and freezers and even the supermarket trolley handle.  Continuous and regular hand washing/sanitisation will remain a key ongoing need for normal people and the situation will be even more critical for those shielding.

 

Where this leads me is to believe that you will have to remain shielded - perhaps you can find some areas where gentle relaxation of the isolation would be possible, but the world is not going to turn upside down at the end of June - or any time soon I am afraid.  

[vaughan45]

58 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Where this leads me is to believe that you will have to remain shielded - perhaps you can find some areas where gentle relaxation of the isolation would be possible, but the world is not going to turn upside down at the end of June - or any time soon I am afraid.  

 

My question was a poor attempt at trying to be ironic, given that those 'in power' like to set mythical milestones which really have no meaning in real life, as you have clearly illustrated.

 

As retired member of the NHS, I know that risk will continue and will rise & fall over time, much as it did during the mid-20th Century for conditions such as TB, Diphtheria etc. It is up to the individual to decide what level of risk they are willing to take. This no doubt will be informed over time as it becomes clearer which of the underlying conditions in the groups already identified by the NHS are likely to cause the greatest risk of death.

 

This is illustrated by the recent death of my father, not from Covid-19, but because he was unwilling to risk going to hospital for another serious condition. Unlike some in power I judged the risk of travelling a long distant to attend his funeral last week was still too great, although I suspect I will soon venture out to walk the dog in the village where we live, suitably protected.

Edited May 25, 2020 by vaughan45

[monkeysarefun]

9 hours ago, vaughan45 said:

If I were a betting man I would bet on the second wave starting in July / August and reaching maximum potential by September as the seasonal flu season starts to kick in.

 

Interestingly, one benefit of the covid-19 impact is a huge reduction in flu cases here.  We usually have a couple of thousand deaths from flu each year, this year we have had none so far.

 

From newscientist.com:

 

Australia’s FluTracking surveillance system, which surveys about 70,000 people each week and records their flu-like symptoms, shows that, in the week ending 26 April, only 0.2 per cent of Australians had symptoms. This figure was 1.4 per cent at the same time last year.

 

 

The sharp reduction in cases is probably due to Australia’s decision to shut its borders on 20 March and ban non-essential gatherings to try to stop the spread of covid-19, says Robert Booy at the University of Sydney. “We’re not importing any flu and anything that stops close contact with others is going to make it harder for the influenza virus to transmit,” he says.

 

The government implemented a ban on non-essential gatherings of more than 500 people on 16 March. This gradually ramped up to a more complete lockdown on 23 March when pubs, restaurants, gyms, cinemas and other non-essential businesses were forced to close.'

 

Read more: Australia seems to be keeping a lid on covid-19 – how is it doing it?

 

Additionally, very few children have been attending school since mid-March, when states and territories began encouraging remote learning where possible.

This is probably another reason why flu cases are down, since schoolchildren are known to be major spreaders of the influenza virus in normal years, says Kirsty Short at the University of Queensland.

Covid-19 lockdown measures also seem to have brought an early end to the flu season in Hong Kong, which normally extends to March or April, but this year tailed off in February.

Fewer deaths?

Australia has seen a drop in covid-19 cases since its lockdown measures began, with 20 or fewer new cases being reported each day in the week ending 1 May. The government says it will decide whether to wind back social distancing measures on 8 May.

 

If strict measures to control covid-19 are kept in place, flu cases should continue to be suppressed, says Booy. “That could mean we see fewer deaths from respiratory infections overall this year,” he says. Covid-19 deaths in Australia have been relatively low at 92 so far, while between 1500 and 3000 Australians die of influenza in a normal year.

But even if the restrictions are eased, we could still see a reduction in flu cases due to changes in people’s behaviour, says Short. “People are washing their hands more and instead of having the attitude that they can still go to work if they’re sick, they now know to stay home if they have respiratory symptoms,” she says.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242113-australia-sees-huge-decrease-in-flu-cases-due-to-coronavirus-measures/#ixzz6NWWOoqAz

Edited May 26, 2020 by monkeysarefun

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

Interestingly, one benefit of the covid-19 impact is a huge reduction in flu cases here.  We usually have a couple of thousand deaths from flu each year, this year we have had none so far.

 

From newscientist.com:

 

Australia’s FluTracking surveillance system, which surveys about 70,000 people each week and records their flu-like symptoms, shows that, in the week ending 26 April, only 0.2 per cent of Australians had symptoms. This figure was 1.4 per cent at the same time last year.

 

 

The sharp reduction in cases is probably due to Australia’s decision to shut its borders on 20 March and ban non-essential gatherings to try to stop the spread of covid-19, says Robert Booy at the University of Sydney. “We’re not importing any flu and anything that stops close contact with others is going to make it harder for the influenza virus to transmit,” he says.

 

The government implemented a ban on non-essential gatherings of more than 500 people on 16 March. This gradually ramped up to a more complete lockdown on 23 March when pubs, restaurants, gyms, cinemas and other non-essential businesses were forced to close.'

 

Read more: Australia seems to be keeping a lid on covid-19 – how is it doing it?

 

Additionally, very few children have been attending school since mid-March, when states and territories began encouraging remote learning where possible.

This is probably another reason why flu cases are down, since schoolchildren are known to be major spreaders of the influenza virus in normal years, says Kirsty Short at the University of Queensland.

Covid-19 lockdown measures also seem to have brought an early end to the flu season in Hong Kong, which normally extends to March or April, but this year tailed off in February.

Fewer deaths?

Australia has seen a drop in covid-19 cases since its lockdown measures began, with 20 or fewer new cases being reported each day in the week ending 1 May. The government says it will decide whether to wind back social distancing measures on 8 May.

 

If strict measures to control covid-19 are kept in place, flu cases should continue to be suppressed, says Booy. “That could mean we see fewer deaths from respiratory infections overall this year,” he says. Covid-19 deaths in Australia have been relatively low at 92 so far, while between 1500 and 3000 Australians die of influenza in a normal year.

But even if the restrictions are eased, we could still see a reduction in flu cases due to changes in people’s behaviour, says Short. “People are washing their hands more and instead of having the attitude that they can still go to work if they’re sick, they now know to stay home if they have respiratory symptoms,” she says.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242113-australia-sees-huge-decrease-in-flu-cases-due-to-coronavirus-measures/#ixzz6NWWOoqAz

That article must be a few weeks old, as the number of deaths has crawled up to 102.

[Nick C]

Had to go into Morrison's this evening, as we'd run low on enough stuff that a big shop was needed. Still awful :-(

 

Not too many people, but a large proportion of them didn't seem to care at all about keeping their distance.

 

Most stuff was in stock though, the only thing we needed and couldn't get was baking soda - the whole home baking aisle was rather depleted.

[Hal Nail]

On 28/05/2020 at 22:09, Nick C said:

Not too many people, but a large proportion of them didn't seem to care at all about keeping their distance.

I'm still undecided if the substantial proportion of the population who are, after all, not very bright, just dont care or simply have no idea what 2m looks like.

 

It's no exaggeration to say most people, as evidenced all over the media, are probably allowing less than 2 feet 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

13 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

evidenced all over the media, ar

I don’t think that the media provide any meaningful evidence at all, what they tend to do is highlight exceptions, and use telephoto lenses to take pictures on beaches and in parks, which naturally fore-shorten  and make people look squashed together.

 

The evidence of my own eyes is that about 80% of people do ‘distance’ well or fairly well, but that c20% are way too casual about it. The same almost certainly applies to self isolation, only more so because many of us have possibly been asymptomatic carriers at some stage.

 

Some are clearly simply too dim to get it, or determinedly disobedient out of cussedness, but plenty aren’t (we have a neighbour who is generally a very intelligent chap, but is an SD nightmare, for instance) so I conclude that they just don’t care (enough). 

 

Given that 80% compliance has probably been true throughout, and will probably always be the case, one can only hope that the government is factoring that in.

 

The only meaningful evidence is the continuing rate of infection. 

[Hal Nail]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The only meaningful evidence is the continuing rate of infection. 

That's very true. It's hard to estimate really as probably varies by area and thus ones view can be clouded. 

 

3 or 4 households in my immediate vicinity have had regular visitors, people staying, supervised grouos of several peoples kids allowed to climb into neighbours garden to retrieve balls etc etc so it clouds judgement a bit to be fair. Plenty of others havent even left the house but you tend to notice the exceptions.

[Nearholmer]

The thing that worries me is that if the 80% compliance thing applies to “test and trace”, which it probably will, and that a high proportion of carriers don’t know that they (we?) are carriers, I can’t see how the virus will do anything other than burn through the population (say 80% will all get it at some stage), with strong probability of there being an autumn/winter peak once the weather gets worse and outdoor socialising goes off the agenda.

[Hroth]

On 28/05/2020 at 22:09, Nick C said:

Not too many people, but a large proportion of them didn't seem to care at all about keeping their distance.

 

The problem with supermarkets (or shops in general) is that you may have a good idea about what you want and where it is and want to keep your distance, but the shopper in front is dithering at a shelf over items and is standing over what you want, or you just want to move ahead to where you want to go.  What do you do?  The aisle width is inadequate for a 2m gap so you either hold your breath and pass them, or wait until they've decided they don't want the stuff anyway and potter on, to repeat the process a few feet later.

 

[Fat Controller]

5 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

The problem with supermarkets (or shops in general) is that you may have a good idea about what you want and where it is and want to keep your distance, but the shopper in front is dithering at a shelf over items and is standing over what you want, or you just want to move ahead to where you want to go.  What do you do?  The aisle width is inadequate for a 2m gap so you either hold your breath and pass them, or wait until they've decided they don't want the stuff anyway and potter on, to repeat the process a few feet later.

 

The supermarkets also have an annoying tendency of moving things between aisles, and of having curious juxtapositions of products, which inevitably means zig-zagging around the store.

[Rivercider]

4 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

The problem with supermarkets (or shops in general) is that you may have a good idea about what you want and where it is and want to keep your distance, but the shopper in front is dithering at a shelf over items and is standing over what you want, or you just want to move ahead to where you want to go.  What do you do?  The aisle width is inadequate for a 2m gap so you either hold your breath and pass them, or wait until they've decided they don't want the stuff anyway and potter on, to repeat the process a few feet later.

 

In the supermarket where I work part time our manager engaged a local firm to do marshalling work, and things have been quite civilised after the initial panic buying was over.

For the last 2 months most folk shopped singly, often with a list, and a purpose, there were a few parent/child or adult/carer combinations. Mostly it was possible to keep a 2m gap, or as Hroth suggests I sometimes hold my breath and scoot through a smaller gap.

However in the last week there is a noticeable change. I now note an increasing number of couples shopping together, or family groups or small groups of friends (how many people does it take to carry one box of lager?). There is much more browsing or general meandering purposelessly around the store. It makes it more difficult to work or shop now.

I did hear it suggested that the store might have to reinforce the one shopper only rule, we will see.

 

cheers 

[woodenhead]

What I am noticing more is a crave for normality but at the same time a full maintenance of social distancing, I don't think the two go hand in hand.

 

Reading over the weekend about the potential true scope of infection it makes me wonder if the government were not completely honest with us because we would have simply ignored them.

 

There is a view that there are many many people who are asymptomatic - i.e they have it with absolutely no symptoms and just spread the illness unwittingly.  The only way to truly know the number of people who are asymptomatic is through testing and so far for us in the UK we have only been testing people showing symptoms which rather skews statistics.

 

Perhaps when the Government abandoned testing and went straight into full lockdown it was precisely because they couldn't trust people to keep apart but also as proven by the testing debacle so far they simply couldn't test enough people.  Perhaps the number of asymptomatic people is a lot higher than we would like to think and it would massively change perceptions about this illness.  Think about it, if you know a large percentage of people don't even get ill then you start to believe your luck's in, you take more chances and if you are asymptomatic well you're a danger only to others and we know how selfish a lot of people are.  Cummings shooting up to Durham, perhaps he knows more about the danger of Covid than the rest of us, he is of course on the inside of policy.

 

On a ship with 700 people infected - 75% were asymptomatic - that is a staggering figure, a care home in America where 50% of infections were asymptomatic.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52840763

 

Just to be clear, I am not calling the pandemic a hoax, I am not saying this virus isn't a killer and I am not saying this situation was not a clear and present danger to our way of life and a functioning health system.  But perhaps the Government had to play a very hard card in order to get more than 80% of people to keep apart from each other so that we didn't spread this virus unwittingly.

[Nearholmer]

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

situation was not a clear and present danger to our way of life and a functioning health system

At long last, randomised antibody testing is now taking place, and that indicates that c6% of the population have, so far, had the disease, about 4 Million across the UK.

 

That ‘burn rate’ got close to crashing the health service’s ability to deal with the most ill, so an unrestrained, lockdown-free, epidemic would definitely have crashed the system, causing people who have survived it to die. In big numbers.

 

No government could countenance a period of three to six months in which probably a quarter to a half a million people died when by locking-down they could control that to maybe a tenth of a million spread over a year (which is probably where we’re headed).

 

 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

At long last, randomised antibody testing is now taking place, and that indicates that c6% of the population have, so far, had the disease, about 4 Million across the UK.

 

That ‘burn rate’ got close to crashing the health service’s ability to deal with the most ill, so an unrestrained, lockdown-free, epidemic would definitely have crashed the system, causing people who have survived it to die. In big numbers.

 

No government could countenance a period of three to six months in which probably a quarter to a half a million people died when by locking-down they could control that to maybe a tenth of a million spread over a year (which is probably where we’re headed).

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Just to be clear, I am not calling the pandemic a hoax, I am not saying this virus isn't a killer and I am not saying this situation was not a clear and present danger to our way of life and a functioning health system.  But perhaps the Government had to play a very hard card in order to get more than 80% of people to keep apart from each other so that we didn't spread this virus unwittingly.

 

I'm just putting my full quote back in there in case anyone misreads - as the bit you cut unwittingly made it look like I was saying that the covid situation wasn't a clear and present danger and I know it was very much a clear and present danger and remains so.

[Nearholmer]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to quote in a way that was misleading.

 

 

[Reorte]

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

 

I'm just putting my full quote back in there in case anyone misreads - as the bit you cut unwittingly made it look like I was saying that the covid situation wasn't a clear and present danger and I know it was very much a clear and present danger and remains so.

 

One of the big problems in dealing with it is that it's very much a danger to some sections of the population but rather less than all sorts of common risks to others. In such a situation it's inevitable that you'll end up with a lot of both "doing too much" and "not doing enough" at the same time.

[Nearholmer]

Added to which, nobody actually knows in any detail which people are vulnerable to the worst of it and which aren’t.

 

There seem to be suggestions that genetics plays a part, so that two equally fit and healthy people could fall into the lucky and unlucky buckets.

 

Scary enough without the element of Russian Roulette!

Edited June 1, 2020 by Nearholmer