Panic buying

[jjb1970]

I have found that the normal things we buy are pretty much unaffected but there are bare spaces on the shelves for certain long life stuff. And for some reason anti-bacterial products seem in short supply.

[Nearholmer]

11 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

I'm therefore swaying towards the group who feel that the current UK Government are not doing enough.

Ditto, in the case of ‘cocooning’ older and otherwise more vulnerable people.

 

Telling people to stay at home is a good idea, and probably workable for a fair proportion, but it might be wise to create ‘temporary old folks homes’ too, for the slightly more vulnerable. I’m thinking that country house hotels could be requisitioned and re-purposed, for instance. Put a ‘cordon santaire’ around each, with the staff (partly community service volunteers drawn from students?) staying on site.

They sure as heck ought to be cancelling holding conferences about sales figures and corporate training courses right now, so should be vacant.

 

I like the fact that politicians are now starting to use WW2 analogies, because that is definitely the sort of focus that is needed.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

I agree that it's not pleasant reading for older people and those with health conditions, but it makes perfect sense for society as a whole.  Do you use one critical care bed for an old person who would require it for four weeks and then if they survive thy might only live for another five years or do you use it for two younger healthier people who may each only require such care for two weeks and both may go on to live for another 20 or 30 years?   Whilst it's medical staff who have to perform that triage, it's sound enough economic theory to choose the option that has the greatest benefit to society as a whole.

A good reason why economic theory, whether it's Marx or Friedman, is a lousy basis for running a civilised community. Once you start ascribing differential value to people's lives you're on a very slippery slope. Supposing the older person is a distinguished medical rsearcher and the two younger healthier people are drug dealers who would you then give the critical care bed to? 

[Nearholmer]

The ‘trick’ is not to become so resource-constrained and/or overwhelmed as to force doctors into making those decisions for us.

 

Mobilise, now.

[Dungrange]

6 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

A good reason why economic theory, whether it's Marx or Friedman, is a lousy basis for running a civilised community. Once you start ascribing differential value to people's lives you're on a very slippery slope. Supposing the older person is a distinguished medical researcher and the two younger healthier people are drug dealers who would you then give the critical care bed to? 

 

But we're NOT talking about running a civilised community.  We are talking about responding to a crisis caused by political inaction.

 

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The ‘trick’ is not to become so resource-constrained and/or overwhelmed as to force doctors into making those decisions for us.

 

Mobilise, now.

 

Absolutely, that's the answer which we seem to be reaching. 

 

I'm coming to the opinion that the authorities in Italy were too slow to react.  The media seem to be indicating that the UK is three or four weeks behind Italy in terms of the proportion of the population that may be infected but the Government here seems to be saying that we should wait until we get to where Italy was before they introduced their lock-down before we need to do the same, which in my opinion is wasting time and not really learning from the experience of China and Italy.

[JJGraphics]

13 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The ‘trick’ is not to become so resource-constrained and/or overwhelmed as to force doctors into making those decisions for us.

 

Mobilise, now.

 

I think we got way past the the point where sensible decisions were made on resources for the NHS which might have relieved doctors of the need for life or death decisions due to the current crisis quite a few years ago. Years of Austerity under the idiot chancellor anyone?

[Nearholmer]

Pointless getting it that now though; it’s a subject for later.

 

The important thing now is to make the best of what is available and what can be obtained in short-order.

[Rivercider]

I speak as a very tiny cog in a very big machine, I work in a medium sized supermarket, and have been there for 13 years.

When I started there in 2007 I would guess the warehouse might be between 40-60% full after the nightly replenishment routine was completed. In recent years it would be between 10-20% full, once the night shelf stacking is done.

As a complete guess in 2007 there might have been stock for 2.5 days trading held in the store/warehouse. Currently I would estimate the store/warehouse might hold stock for 1.5 days trading, (bear in mind some lines might last for months, others will sell out in 12 hours).

 

In the last week or so the dot-com home delivery people tell me their daily pick routine has significantly increased, often being out of stock for the expected items (toilet rolls, sanitiser, pasta). As far as I am aware the store has so far had no additional deliveries from the distribution centres, worked no additional overtime (that I can see), and has definitely not employed any additional contract staff. 

 

Speaking personally, as someone who shops and helps to look after a relative at increased risk, and also have a slightly increased risk myself, I have taken the precaution of buying some additional items in case I have to self isolate.

Panic, or preparation? I guess we must each make our own decision.

 

cheers

[griffgriff]

I felt bad buying 6 tins of Heinz Spaghetti.... it was a multi buy but I still felt bad buying them because I’m not going to eat them this week but £3 for the lot I couldn’t say know...... funny how white bread has sold out though. Not making any judgements 

[woodenhead]

Just back from the local supermarket - the only thing I couldn't purchase was chicken - unless I wanted a cooked one - loads of them.

 

Finally there are restrictions and at Aldi they limited everything to a maximum of 4 items of any one thing.

 

My wife has just made the observation, the British public finally got the Brexit they'd been expecting and we're finding the shops empty as people panic buy even though no-one has even remotely suggested closing supermarkets.

 

Which made me think, how would the end of the world come, some thought it might be an asteroid - all over quickly; no, it will be a slow demise in the best British way

[sjp23480]

I am no expert and emotions seem to be running high regarding the most appropriate strategy for dealing with the situation. I suspect there is no right or wrong answer, but this explanation helped throw some light on the UK govt approach.

 

 

[woodenhead]

20 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

Speaking personally, as someone who shops and helps to look after a relative at increased risk, and also have a slightly increased risk myself, I have taken the precaution of buying some additional items in case I have to self isolate.

Panic, or preparation? I guess we must each make our own decision.

 

cheers

It starts as a panic, but then the more cautious apply their own view on the situation and purchase more to overcome the challenges created by the panic buyers.

 

Personally, I don't think the supermarket senior management applied the brakes soon enough, they let people buy all this stuff, creating the shortages which they are now playing catch up with.  Surely, they could see what was happening on their systems from the moment it started but they let it happen because it meant very good trading conditions - now they have cashed in they come out all concerned and restrict purchases - only because the supply chain cannot cope like this for long periods and their costs will rise as a result, wiping out the additional profit made from the panic buying.

 

As I keep saying there is money in misery.

[Gwiwer]

Curiously perhaps there seems to be a problem with shoppers splitting multipacks.  Case in point yesterday where Baked Beans in multipacks were unavailable but there was a large sign saying Do Not Split Multipacks - you will be charged for the whole pack if you do.  There was no shortage of single cans however.  D'oh!!!

[Baby Deltic]

I don’t know where you find this panic that everyone’s buying. I visited several supermarkets today and there was none on the shelves anywhere.

[Rivercider]

19 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Curiously perhaps there seems to be a problem with shoppers splitting multipacks.  Case in point yesterday where Baked Beans in multipacks were unavailable but there was a large sign saying Do Not Split Multipacks - you will be charged for the whole pack if you do.  There was no shortage of single cans however.  D'oh!!!

As part of the drive to reduce single-use plastic our supermarket no longer stocks plastic-wrapped  multipacks, (including baked beans)

 

cheers 

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The social sin at the start of WW2 was ‘hoarding’, and I think the Government issued guidance that a week’s worth was OK, but more, other than homemade stuff like jam, was getting greedy. 
 

Then they introduced rationing.

 

(different case, of course, u-boats rather than poorly lorry drivers, being the logistical challenge)

When I went to college in 1973, my grandmother gave me a pile of tablets of soap, that she had kept from 1939..

[Dungrange]

33 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

I am no expert and emotions seem to be running high regarding the most appropriate strategy for dealing with the situation. I suspect there is no right or wrong answer, but this explanation helped throw some light on the UK govt approach.

 

 

 

I agree with what is said in that video about timing, albeit it is a little simplistic.  The problem is that there is a big difference between the number of confirmed cases (ie those who have tested positive to date) and the actual number of infected people, which is probably at least 10 times higher.  There is a time between infection and a person showing symptoms known as the incubation period (2-14 days according to the World Heath Organisation (WHO)).  The UK Government's current advice is that people displaying symptoms should self-isolate for seven days and only if their symptoms are getting worse will they be tested for Covid-19.  It will then take a further 24 hours before the test results are known.  That therefore means that the time from infection to being confirmed Covid-19 positive is somewhere in the region of 10 - 22 days (incubation period + self isolation period + test result wait).  I believe the median figure is probably around 12-13 days.  That therefore means that the 'lock-down' needs to start 12 or 13 days before the health service reaches capacity taking account of the fact that the number of new cases in the UK is increasing by several hundred per day and the rate of increase is increasing.

 

What we are likely to see from Italy is that the number of cases and deaths will continue to rise until we get to around two weeks after their full lock-down and at that point the number of new cases will stabilise and then start to slow.  There will still be further cases and further deaths but the numbers will be lower than the trend that we are currently seeing in Italy.

 

My concern is that the UK Government are overestimating the capacity of the NHS to cope with not today's cases, but today's cases plus the likely increase over the next two weeks plus whatever additional cases are caused by not taking action today.  I just hope that they make the call at the right time, otherwise there will be needless deaths.

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

A good reason why economic theory, whether it's Marx or Friedman, is a lousy basis for running a civilised community. Once you start ascribing differential value to people's lives you're on a very slippery slope. Supposing the older person is a distinguished medical researcher and the two younger healthier people are drug dealers who would you then give the critical care bed to? 

 

It's interesting that you've asked that question and I suspect your opinion on economic theory and your answer to your own question probably don't align.  I'll be evasive and say that the correct answer is to choose two alternative younger people, as there will probably be another ten admissions wanting that bed in the next hour!

 

However, ignoring that option, if you choose the distinguished medical researcher then you are on the slippery slope that you advise against - that is, you will have assigned a value to one life that is double the value that you have assigned to the others.  What is the basis of assigning that higher value to someone simply because they had a distinguished career?  It's subjective and an a elitist attitude: one where you are not valuing everyone equally.   It's an attitude that is reminiscent of the pigs in George Orwells 1984: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".  Ultimately, someone's past should be separated from their future because it is only their future that a doctor is trying to save. 

 

If you want a truly civilised society, then you need to save as many individuals as possible with the available resources and that outcome demands focusing on the ones that are most likely to survive.

[jpendle]

Well I've decided to self isolate from this thread as I don't have enough loo roll to deal with all the carp being spouted.

 

 

John P

[Pacific231G]

55 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

A good reason why economic theory, whether it's Marx or Friedman, is a lousy basis for running a civilised community. Once you start ascribing differential value to people's lives you're on a very slippery slope. Supposing the older person is a distinguished medical researcher and the two younger healthier people are drug dealers who would you then give the critical care bed to? 

It's interesting that you've asked that question and I suspect your opinion on economic theory and your answer to your own question probably don't align.  I'll be evasive and say that the correct answer is to choose two alternative younger people, as there will probably be another ten admissions wanting that bed in the next hour!

 

However, ignoring that option, if you choose the distinguished medical researcher then you are on the slippery slope that you advise against - that is, you will have assigned a value to one life that is double the value that you have assigned to the others.  What is the basis of assigning that higher value to someone simply because they had a distinguished career?  It's subjective and an a elitist attitude: one where you are not valuing everyone equally.   It's an attitude that is reminiscent of the pigs in George Orwells 1984: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".  Ultimately, someone's past should be separated from their future because it is only their future that a doctor is trying to save. 

 

If you want a truly civilised society, then you need to save as many individuals as possible with the available resources and that outcome demands focusing on the ones that are most likely to survive.

I wasn't suggesting that you should choose the distinguished researcher, that is indeed an equally slippery slope,  but was trying to make the point that attempting to make that choice on any grounds other than immediate medical outcome  raises serious moral issues. The underlying principle surely has to be that every life if equally valuable so you focus on saving as many lives as possible, not on trying to judge whose life more deserves to be saved or how much of it the individual might have left. I've always understood this to be the principle behind triage in natural disasters etc. where the medics have to prioritise their resources.  

Edited March 15, 2020 by Pacific231G

[pH]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

A good reason why economic theory, whether it's Marx or Friedman, is a lousy basis for running a civilised community. Once you start ascribing differential value to people's lives you're on a very slippery slope. Supposing the older person is a distinguished medical rsearcher and the two younger healthier people are drug dealers who would you then give the critical care bed to? 

 

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

However, ignoring that option, if you choose the distinguished medical researcher then you are on the slippery slope that you advise against - that is, you will have assigned a value to one life that is double the value that you have assigned to the others.  What is the basis of assigning that higher value to someone simply because they had a distinguished career?  It's subjective and an a elitist attitude: one where you are not valuing everyone equally.   It's an attitude that is reminiscent of the pigs in George Orwells 1984: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".  Ultimately, someone's past should be separated from their future because it is only their future that a doctor is trying to save. 

 

Dungrange, with a specific assumption I think you have made, I would agree with your conclusion. However, without that assumption, I'm not so sure. You seem to be assuming that the medical researcher is retired, since you refer to him having had a distinguished career. However, Pacific231G says the older person " is a distinguished medical researcher", not " was a distinguished medical researcher". If he's still active, does that make him more valuable to the community in the present situation, and so more worthy of saving?

 

I have great sympathy for medical personnel in situations like this. They literally have to exercise the power of life and death over others.

[tigerburnie]

[Baby Deltic]

28 minutes ago, jpendle said:

Well I've decided to self isolate from this thread as I don't have enough loo roll to deal with all the carp being spouted.

 

 

John P

Do you have enough loo roll to do that then?

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by Baby Deltic

[stewartingram]

Personally, I NEVER use Facebook or similar. I don't buy a paper, so I'm not affected by the dramatic headlines; I don't watch the TV news either. Anything I do can't affect what is happening around the world, so why should I bother to watch it. (And why is it so full of world events rather than items of more local (UK) interest anyway).

I do pick up the free local newspaper weekly from the supermarket though. Much of that is even irrelevant as it is a Fenland area newspaper and I'm only interested in the more immediate area. And I don't do the sport pages either, nor the large housing supplement advertising properties for sale.

I do have a quick look at the headline news on Teletext though; gives me a quick insight into what is going on.

From all of this I trundle along quite happily and I'm not too concerned about what is happening elsewhere. I also get a lot of info off RMWeb, perhaps a little surprising, but I don't feel out of touch.

Perhaps at 71, I feel I've been there & seen it all before, let everybody get on with it!

 

Stewart

[woodenhead]

Just now, stewartingram said:

I do have a quick look at the headline news on Teletext though; gives me a quick insight into what is going on.

From all of this I trundle along quite happily and I'm not too concerned about what is happening elsewhere. I also get a lot of info off RMWeb, perhaps a little surprising, but I don't feel out of touch.

 

TELETEXT - where do you you live, the past

 

Even the old teletext holidays is now a website.

 

However, you're right, if you avoid sensationalist headline type newspapers and such like then all you're left with is the common sense approach