Panic buying

[pH]

Our son and family are on holiday out of the country just now. Government advice is to 'self-isolate' for a period on returning from abroad, so we thought we'd get some staple foods in for them, plus a few things we could do with ourselves.

 

So this morning we set off for Costco. The lineup to get into the carpark extended back a block from the entrance - no way were we facing that. Off to a major, cheapish, supermarket - it was mobbed, but the general atmosphere was friendly, lots of people chatting, swapping stories about experiences in other stores etc. (Apparently, if we had been 30 minutes earlier at Costco, we would have been OK.) Then on to a regular-price supermarket for the few things the first one was out of (e.g. baker's yeast). Less busy than normal, time to chat with staff, some surprising things on special. 

 

We reckon, without buying any larger quantities than usual of anything, just buying before our normal 'restock' time, we're probably good for a month. The one possible problem could be fresh produce. A lot of ours comes from California. There's some talk of the border being closed - depends if it would be a one-way or both-ways closure if it happened.

[Dungrange]

37 minutes ago, Dave John said:

So small suppliers, how should we react? Put in some orders and be patient or hang fire till it either all blows over or gets much worse ? 

 

Personally, I'd go with putting an order in and being patient.  Some of the 'one man businesses' operate from the owners home with the owner having a full or part-time job somewhere else to pay the bills.  In such scenarios, if the owner is unable to work for their main employer due to a shut-down, they may actually have more time to dedicate to their sideline business from home.

[Nearholmer]

For us in the UK, southern Spain is our equivalent of California in terms of the supply of a lot of the tastier fruit and veg in winter and early spring, its a big part of how we now have summer produce all year round. 

 

So, I'm beginning to wonder if, with Spain now suffering badly, we might have to up the proportion of UK grown produce ....... which, trying to remember back before we had a lot of imported 'summer stuff' all year, can get a bit dull until spring greens come on stream big-time.

[JohnDMJ]

 

 

 

[Gwiwer]

55 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

When I was younger, the only time we started panic buying,

was when the barman shouted "Last orders"

 

Always a cue for a double-round.  

[Jonboy]

Companies are in a funny place at the moment, if you advertise or support on social media you run the risk of people accusing you of cashing in, as an example one of the major pottery suppliers put up a post yesterday  on how to extend the life of mask filters they supply  (essential in certain areas of pottery) because they cannot obtain new stock and got accused of trying to cash in....if you don’t people go elsewhere for the stock on your shelf...

 

I would echo the above Above post, put your orders in but show patience with your chosen supplier, particularly smaller firms.

[PatB]

19 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Why, are you squeamish? Apologies if I appear insensitive, I guess it's all relative. As a person that's had young children (projectile vomiting etc), dogs (eating horse poo etc) and livestock (pooing everywhere etc), one does get fairly desensitised to bodily output functions.

 

(Insert wellies-and-shovel icon here)

 

If that's too much for you, just wait until we get to the inevitable topics with layperson's descriptions of the terminal effects of Coronavirus...

Quite. I recently had the dubious delight of discovering that Junior Dog has been using her bedding to squirrel away her prizes from the cat-litter lucky dip. Every one a delicious toffee, thoroughly chewed and now also coated in fluff. I thought I hadn't been needing to clear the tray much but, it being summer, I just assumed the cats had been going al-fresco.

[PatB]

And, from Down Under...

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Well, we now have the ‘should we self-isolate?’ Conundrum to solve ......

 

Our youngest had a flying temperature yesterday after school, and well into the night. Thankfully seems back to normal now although she is still ‘peaky’ (stuffed-up nose, but no cough).

 

In ordinary times, give in another 24hrs, and if she seems fine, put it down to the onset of a cold.

 

Advice in her case is 100% clear: no school for a week, as set out in a letter from school.

 

My good lady feels ‘off colour’ and is warmer than usual, but not a fever - looks like a cold. I’m fine, as is son who is driving me mad because football is suspended and he is like a caged animal without a couple of hours running round a muddy field.

 

When we read the NHS advice, it’s all about a person with cough or temperature, and says nothing about those who live with them; NHS 111 phone-line is reserved for very serious cases now; NHS 111 website has a simple ‘yes’ ‘no’ questionnaire, but again that is only about the affected individual.

 

I’m not posing the question to the collective, merely highlighting that what at first appears to be crystal-clear guidance becomes very much a matter of judgement in practice.

 

K

Edited March 14, 2020 by Nearholmer

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, Dave John said:

Actually the question about stocking up with modelling bits is a serious one, particularly if any period of isolation has to be extended. 

 

All my modelling stuff comes from small suppliers, often a single person or a small group of folk involved. If I place an order I don't want to put any of them in stressful position, particularly if they feel the need to isolate themselves. On the other hand I am aware that it is their income and still needed from their point of view. 

 

I would certainly expect to see longer delivery times, all this is bound to have an effect on postal and courier services. 

 

So small suppliers, how should we react? Put in some orders and be patient or hang fire till it either all blows over or gets much worse ? 

 

Either way I'd be happy to do whatever suits. 

 

 

 

 

If you come into my modelling room you will see I have been stockpiling modelling items for years !!!

[EddieB]

20 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

Which is why we have a lack of take up of the MMM jab and a lot of adults now at risk of catching measles.  Sometimes the greater good of the herd is more important than  individuals.

I’m not sure that the example of the triple vaccine supports your point, as having the vaccine doesn’t incur serious health consequences.  I agree that “herd immunity” is a worthwhile aim, but question the human cost of achieving it, in the present situation.

 

The first thing to say is that this country is behind most others in terms of testing and allowing arrivals from other countries to enter untested and with only the suggestion of self-isolation should they develop symptoms (which usually appear around four days after infection, and during which time they are contagious).  The number of confirmed cases in the UK will reach one thousand today, but even the “experts” admit the true number is not known and could be five or ten times as many.  Our failure to act decisively four to six weeks ago (along with many other countries) is having serious consequences.

 

In theory there was a time, for each country, to have isolated any clusters of infection, restricted new entrants and thereby prevented the spread of the virus.  Measures would have to be in place for as long as the virus rampages anywhere else and our population would remain vulnerable until it was completed eradicated.  A noble aim, but (with now the possible exception of New Zealand) a step very few politicians would dare to take, when there were only a mere handful of cases.  Especially given the vocal “it’s no worse than the flu” brigade.

 

If I may unpick the Government’s “expert” advice, letting the contagion spread indiscriminately to achieve a level of “herd immunity” (usually put at 90% plus of the population) would, even at lowest estimates, incur a death toll in the region of half a million - just in the UK.  I’m sorry that this is unpalatable when expressed in such stark terms, but this is where I take issue with the policy outlined earlier in the week.

 

A “better” plan would be to try to manage the spread among the younger and healthier members of society, taking extra care to avoid transmission to the older and weaker.  If it sounds callous, then it is less so than an “untargetted” official policy - but it means that herd immunity could be achieved with fewer deaths.

 

Apart from not knowing the true number of infections, we don’t know the proportion of the population likely to be severely affected.  Comparing rates from China, South Korea and Italy, it could be that Asian peoples have higher natural levels of immunity that Europeans.  There are of course many other factors in the way the virus has been responded to in those countries.

 

Should we achieve a state where a significant proportion of the population have gained immunity, then they can form the front line of defence against a fresh wave (or perhaps a more virulent mutant strain) of the virus.  The analogy of a herd of Musk Oxen is pertinent - when attacked the strongest form a protective circle with the young and weak inside.  Just as attacking pack of wolves meets only with horns backed up by a ton of muscle, so the virus would only encounter resistant immune systems now pre-programmed to make the right antibodies and stop it reaching those who have not had the chance to build immunity.  (Of course, we should remember that “herd immunity” does not mean that immune response can be passed from person to person - that is the realm of vaccines, which we all hope can be developed successfully in short order).

 

This will be my last word on this subject, as I realise that my perspective is unpopular.  I also hope it is wrong.

 

[Nearholmer]

26 minutes ago, EddieB said:

A “better” plan would be to try to manage the spread among the younger and healthier members of society, taking extra care to avoid transmission to the older and weaker.  If it sounds callous, then it is less so than an “untargetted” official policy - but it means that herd immunity could be achieved with fewer deaths

 
While I ‘get’ the UK approach in general, and I definitely ‘get’ the big scary numbers, two things have made me wonder whether our leaders have got everything right:

 

- allowing international air travel to continue at all, anywhere, once the thing surfaced in China; and,

 

- not yet advising vulnerable people to ‘go into siege mode’.

 

The thinking on the latter seems to be that it would do more harm (social isolation etc) than good, but, as I say, I do wonder.

 

Nothing to stop vulnerable people taking the individual decision to go into siege, but judging by the people I have seen out and about this past week, not many elderly people, for instance, can have done so.

[Gwiwer]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 
While I ‘get’ the UK approach in general, and I definitely ‘get’ the big scary numbers, two things have made me wonder whether our leaders have got everything right:

 

- allowing international air travel to continue at all, anywhere, once the thing surfaced in China; and,

 

- not yet advising vulnerable people to ‘go into siege mode’.

 

The thinking on the latter seems to be that it would do more harm (social isolation etc) than good, but, as I say, I do wonder.

 

Nothing to stop vulnerable people taking the individual decision to go into siege, but judging by the people I have seen out and about this past week, not many elderly people, for instance, can have done so.

 

Some moves are likely to cause more harm than good.  Not necessarily in the public health context but to business and society in general.  One cannot simply ask every airline to close down, lay off staff, park up their fleets and go bust.  Airlines, and other transport operators, seem to be taking great care to respond in an appropriate manner with enhanced cleaning regimes and awareness.  

 

Going into "siege mode" is akin to inducing panic.  There is no need for panic and calm order should be promoted instead.  I suspect, having lived through several periods of social unrest in London, that any widespread attempt to lock down the population will bottle up frustration and anger in some and may lead to social unrest - as you suggest - which could be more destructive in overall terms than a virus which as of today has still only claimed 11 British lives.  

 

I would rather carry on as normal aware of the situation and taking sensible precautions than be caged.  I don't want to see Brixton, Walthamstow, New Cross or Croydon (none of which was initiated by disease control but they serve to illustrate my argument) again.  Near-hysterical newspaper headlines are doing nothing to help. 

[Nearholmer]

10 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Going into "siege mode" is akin to inducing panic.  

I was simply wondering why that hasn’t been advocated sooner for vulnerable people.

 

As you say, trying to coop up everybody now and for ages would literally start a riot, and it wouldn’t be a useful thing to do from an epidemic point of view anyway.

 

As to air travel: we all paid to support the banks through a crisis, one model would be to do the same while grounding air-flights, although goodness knows what it would cost. Anyway, too late now, the virus travelled while it could.

Edited March 14, 2020 by Nearholmer

[hayfield]

10 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 
While I ‘get’ the UK approach in general, and I definitely ‘get’ the big scary numbers, two things have made me wonder whether our leaders have got everything right:

 

- allowing international air travel to continue at all, anywhere, once the thing surfaced in China; and,

 

- not yet advising vulnerable people to ‘go into siege mode’.

 

The thinking on the latter seems to be that it would do more harm (social isolation etc) than good, but, as I say, I do wonder.

 

Nothing to stop vulnerable people taking the individual decision to go into siege, but judging by the people I have seen out and about this past week, not many elderly people, for instance, can have done so.

 

Kevin

 

Where the experts cannot agree on what is the best way of protecting people, the politicians must follow the advice they think is best for the country and we must listen to all sides of the story and make up our own minds on which is the best course of actions we should take to protect ourselves. we are told we are 3-4 weeks behind Italy and several more behind China. The latest figures from China show the situation is getting better

 

Certainly things will get worse in the UK over the next few weeks. But we have a few advantages over the countries who have it worse/got it before us. Firstly we will have learnt a lot more about the virus and how to protect ourselves. 

 

Looking at China out of a population of 1,400 million people confirmed cases 81k confirmed cases, even if the real number is 100 x more its a fraction of the population, deaths 3.2k I assume this is far more accurate than the numbers affected. Italy has a population of just over 60 million, 17600 infected but 1200 deaths. This really is far more concerning and we need to know why, I would assume mostly its about the percentage of older people who live in the country, the conditions in which they live and possible under reporting of illness. I would guess its where you have more people living closer together is where the virus spreads easier, in the industrial north of Italy more people are living in apartments (low and high rise) than in other areas, and we know you both need to be in close proximity and for extended periods to catch the virus

 

Those who are in the most vulnerable groups should take much more care to protect themselves than those who would only suffer a minor illness.

 

Its a case of being sensible and reduce your potential risk of infection

 

To me delay seems the best solution and hope the weather picks up

 

[eastglosmog]

1 hour ago, EddieB said:

I’m not sure that the example of the triple vaccine supports your point, as having the vaccine doesn’t incur serious health consequences.  I agree that “herd immunity” is a worthwhile aim, but question the human cost of achieving it, in the present situation.

 

.........................

 

Eddie - It is quite true there were no serious health consequences of the MMR vaccine.  However, owing to some dodgy statistics and public hype, there was perceived to be, with the consequence that many parents failed to vaccinate their children.  They did not want their child to run the imagined risk of autism with the consequence that herd immunity to measles was  dangerously reduced and their children were put at risk of the far more serious consequences of contracting measles as adults.  I am surprised this insalubrious episode has been forgotten - it was not all that many years ago.

[Nearholmer]

The thing I don’t get about the Chinese approach is that they appear to have got the virus under control in Wuhan/Hubaei and prevented it spreading severely to other areas, but must surely be vulnerable to re-infection from what are now external sources.
 

Have they locked their borders so as to prevent that?

 

 

Edited March 14, 2020 by Nearholmer

[KeithMacdonald]

 

16 hours ago, Dave John said:

Actually the question about stocking up with modelling bits is a serious one, particularly if any period of isolation has to be extended. 

 

All my modelling stuff comes from small suppliers, often a single person or a small group of folk involved. If I place an order I don't want to put any of them in stressful position, particularly if they feel the need to isolate themselves. On the other hand I am aware that it is their income and still needed from their point of view. 

 

I would certainly expect to see longer delivery times, all this is bound to have an effect on postal and courier services. 

 

So small suppliers, how should we react? Put in some orders and be patient or hang fire till it either all blows over or gets much worse ?

 

Has Metcalfe Models been reading our thoughts? Email just in:

 

 

[Dungrange]

30 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Looking at China out of a population of 1,400 million people confirmed cases 81k confirmed cases, even if the real number is 100 x more its a fraction of the population, deaths 3.2k I assume this is far more accurate than the numbers affected. Italy has a population of just over 60 million, 17600 infected but 1200 deaths. This really is far more concerning and we need to know why, I would assume mostly its about the percentage of older people who live in the country, the conditions in which they live and possible under reporting of illness. I would guess its where you have more people living closer together is where the virus spreads easier, in the industrial north of Italy more people are living in apartments (low and high rise) than in other areas, and we know you both need to be in close proximity and for extended periods to catch the virus.

 

The problem with looking at China as a single homogeneous country is that it is not.  Around three quarters of cases and deaths occurred in just one province: Hubei.  Hubei province has a population of almost 60 million, so is directly comparable in size to Italy.

 

Hubei province ~ 61,000 cases: Italy ~ 18,000 cases

Hubei province ~ 2,300 deaths: Italy ~ 1,200 deaths

 

The main difference is that China seems to have been better at containing the main impact to Hubei, whereas in Europe, the number of cases spreading to Spain, France, Germany, the UK and many other EU countries has been much less effective, which is the most worrying thing.

[Nearholmer]

But, back to my previous: doesn’t that leave China exposed to a second wave caused by re-introduction of the virus?

[EddieB]

17 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

Eddie - It is quite true there were no serious health consequences of the MMR vaccine.  However, owing to some dodgy statistics and public hype, there was perceived to be, with the consequence that many parents failed to vaccinate their children.  They did not want their child to run the imagined risk of autism with the consequence that herd immunity to measles was  dangerously reduced and their children were put at risk of the far more serious consequences of contracting measles as adults.  I am surprised this insalubrious episode has been forgotten - it was not all that many years ago.

Thank you.  No, I’m fully aware of the perceived risk of autism that caused many parents to avoid vaccination.  The point I was making is quite the opposite, that effective vaccination does not result in serious health consequences - whereas achieving the same herd immunity through “survival of the fittest” does.

[jonny777]

Human stupidity - Not in the UK by the looks of the sign on the store.  

 

[Dungrange]

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

But, back to my previous: doesn’t that leave China exposed to a second wave caused by re-introduction of the virus?

 

Yes, but at the moment, people in lots of other countries still look at the 81,000 cases in China and think "I don't want to go there".   Other countries are still banning travel to/from China, so I guess the demand for foreigners to go and reinfect the Chinese population isn't there yet.  However, I agree that their is a potential vulnerability there.

 

However, the number of active cases in China (~12,000) has now dropped below the number of active cases in Italy (~15,000), so the World Health Organisation (WHO) is correct in identifying Europe as the epicentre of the problem.

 

Ideally Governments around the world would be looking at how South Korea has handled their outbreak.  From 8,086 cases to date, they have had only 72 deaths, which is a case fatality ratio of just 0.89%.  Also reassuring is that of their remaining 7,300 active cases, only 59 are in a serious or critical condition, so the final mortality figure may not be radically different from the current proportion.  Their high testing regime seems to have potentially picked up a lot of mild cases that are probably going undetected elsewhere, but which is causing greater spread.  The data from South Korea points to the WHO estimated mortality rate of 3.4% being too high, which is positive.

 

The alarming point though is when you apply this low mortality rate from South Korea (0.89%) to Italy, where the number of deaths is currently 1,266, that would lead to the conclusion that the number of people infected with Coronavirus in Italy could be closer to 142,179, which is obviously much, much higher than the number of confirmed cases (17,660).  Do I believe that there are more than 120,000 mild cases in Italy that haven't been diagnosed yet?  Probably not, which means that the death rate in Italy seems to be greater than South Korea.  Some of this can probably be attributed to demographic factors, most noticeably a higher proportion of people above the age of 65, but we need to try and understand what other factors are contributing to the differences between South Korea and Italy.

[Nearholmer]

“....... that effective vaccination does not result in serious health consequences - whereas achieving the same herd immunity through “survival of the fittest” does.“

 

True.

 

But while there is no vaccine?

 

Theoretically it might be possible to “cocoon” (seems to be in in-word) the most vulnerable until the rest of the herd is immune, but the practicalities of doing that for many months, and with a widely-drawn definition of ‘most vulnerable’ (= lots of people) must be very questionable.

 

I’m not entirely sure what ‘most vulnerable’ means, but it could easily sweep-in 20% of the population (17% are >64yo, some of whom are presumably very fit and less vulnerable, but then one needs to add back numbers for vulnerable people <64yo).

 

How long could c13M people be effectively cocooned?

 

Which, I suppose is why I keep talking about people “self sieging”, which is practicable for at least some ....... perhaps I should use the term “self cocoon”, which sounds less unpleasant.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2020 by Nearholmer

[jonny777]

11 minutes ago, Lantavian said:

It's perfectly rational behaviour:

 

 

Oh ok. 

 

Are you a troll?