|
|
Post by harryburrows on Mar 29, 2020 16:27:22 GMT
So you think 30% mortality is ok then . It wouldn’t be 30% total mortality even in that case. That 30% would be a fraction of total cases. Up to 15-20% of those with COVID require hospitalisation. Of these 50% at this point survive. (7.5-10% gross at the highest estimate) With treatments in place increasing that survival rate to around 80% of those in hospital you’d be looking at 16% out of 20% then surviving following admission with 4% mortality gross. That’s before even factoring in the fact so many cases aren’t being counter, mortality is believed to actually be around 1%. This is a very serious situation, and people are going to die, we have to understand that. It’s fucking tragic, but we can’t avoid it at this point. All we can so is our bit and protect those around us and our loved ones. It's not the gross that was mentioned. .with critical care beds being increased to the 10s of thousands how does 30 or even 20% survival rate sound |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 16:32:48 GMT
Can someone clarify this for me( apologies if it has already been answered or if it is obvious....I'm only dipping in and out).... If the strategy is to flatten the number of cases so that the NHS can cope and possibly reach a point when there is a vaccine available.....if the vaccine doesn't become available until after isolation measures are eased off ....then isn't it inevitable that EACH and everyone one of us WILL eventually be exposed to the virus and it is largely in the lap of the gods whether we survive it? Obviously not only is it human nature to try to avoid it , is it logical that we are isolating actually only to flatten the numbers....which obviously should decrease the impact.....is it realistic to think that we can avoid it forever? If the vaccine is delayed or slower than anticipated then the likelihood is, we will all get it at some point. This was the entire idea behind “mitigation” rather than suppression, it would move through the populace at a rate where we’d pick it up and become immune and then carry on. The trouble is, the modelling showed this wasn’t viable as the number of people someone infected then infects was around 2.5 to 3 meaning a controlled spread was completely impossible. Hence the shift to suppress. We are playing for time with suppression until we develop tools for accurate assessment such as the antibody test, getting ppe in for NHS staff etc, suppression is not the end game to avoid the disease it is simply an exercise in making sure our resources stay intact. The main benefit of the antibody test is that it shows you even asymptomatic cases who have had it, which could be a large chunk of the population. Flattening is entirely about reducing the impact, rather than the long term strategy for beating the virus. |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 16:34:53 GMT
It wouldn’t be 30% total mortality even in that case. That 30% would be a fraction of total cases. Up to 15-20% of those with COVID require hospitalisation. Of these 50% at this point survive. (7.5-10% gross at the highest estimate) With treatments in place increasing that survival rate to around 80% of those in hospital you’d be looking at 16% out of 20% then surviving following admission with 4% mortality gross. That’s before even factoring in the fact so many cases aren’t being counter, mortality is believed to actually be around 1%. This is a very serious situation, and people are going to die, we have to understand that. It’s fucking tragic, but we can’t avoid it at this point. All we can so is our bit and protect those around us and our loved ones. It's not the gross that was mentioned. .with critical care beds being increased to the 10s of thousands how does 30 or even 20% survival rate sound No but at this stage, only a subset are actually going to hospital, so 50% surviving in hospital of that subset is obviously not derived from the 80% who are believed to mild or no symptoms and never go to hospital. It will be within that 20% or so unfortunate enough to be in hospital. So it’s not 30% mortality. Dave never said it was ok either, for the record. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 16:35:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 29, 2020 16:40:31 GMT
I'd like clarification on this please, I've not heard it actually spelt out....If a person is stopped whilst out and the Police consider the journey not to be essential then can they be fined? Do the Police have the authority to decide what is essential? Normal rules of justice suspended?....if this isn't currently the case , is there provision for it in the recent emergency Act?
Not wanting to be alarmist but Clearly we may have to resort to martial law and involve the army....there's no point fining someone if they decide not to pay....imho it could not really be enforced because of the restrictions in place.
A principle of our country has always been " Policing by consent"...the principle of the Police acting on OUR behalf...not controlling us on behalf of " the state"...Policing done TO us.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 29, 2020 16:45:11 GMT
Can someone clarify this for me( apologies if it has already been answered or if it is obvious....I'm only dipping in and out).... If the strategy is to flatten the number of cases so that the NHS can cope and possibly reach a point when there is a vaccine available.....if the vaccine doesn't become available until after isolation measures are eased off ....then isn't it inevitable that EACH and everyone one of us WILL eventually be exposed to the virus and it is largely in the lap of the gods whether we survive it? Obviously not only is it human nature to try to avoid it , is it logical that we are isolating actually only to flatten the numbers....which obviously should decrease the impact.....is it realistic to think that we can avoid it forever? If the vaccine is delayed or slower than anticipated then the likelihood is, we will all get it at some point. This was the entire idea behind “mitigation” rather than suppression, it would move through the populace at a rate where we’d pick it up and become immune and then carry on. The trouble is, the modelling showed this wasn’t viable as the number of people someone infected then infects was around 2.5 to 3 meaning a controlled spread was completely impossible. Hence the shift to suppress. We are playing for time with suppression until we develop tools for accurate assessment such as the antibody test, getting ppe in for NHS staff etc, suppression is not the end game to avoid the disease it is simply an exercise in making sure our resources stay intact. The main benefit of the antibody test is that it shows you even asymptomatic cases who have had it, which could be a large chunk of the population. Flattening is entirely about reducing the impact, rather than the long term strategy for beating the virus. Thanks for that, Son of, so in a nutshell is the likelihood that we will ALL be exposed to the virus at some stage no matter what we do? |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2020 16:46:37 GMT
The other one's the racist and you're the homophobe. They say judge a man by the company he keeps. Not looking good for me right now!! Don’t post things like that or folks will believe you😜 Surely you're not trying to tell me that people post stuff on here that's not actually true? I've had my replica shirt with 'Van Persie' on the back for 4 years now because someone on here said he was at Clayton Wood to sign. I guess if it hadn't been for this Coronavirus thing he'd have made his debut by now. |
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Mar 29, 2020 16:47:12 GMT
Can someone that’s had the virus still spread it after a satisfactory period of isolation or are they completely in the clear?
|
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 16:47:36 GMT
If the vaccine is delayed or slower than anticipated then the likelihood is, we will all get it at some point. This was the entire idea behind “mitigation” rather than suppression, it would move through the populace at a rate where we’d pick it up and become immune and then carry on. The trouble is, the modelling showed this wasn’t viable as the number of people someone infected then infects was around 2.5 to 3 meaning a controlled spread was completely impossible. Hence the shift to suppress. We are playing for time with suppression until we develop tools for accurate assessment such as the antibody test, getting ppe in for NHS staff etc, suppression is not the end game to avoid the disease it is simply an exercise in making sure our resources stay intact. The main benefit of the antibody test is that it shows you even asymptomatic cases who have had it, which could be a large chunk of the population. Flattening is entirely about reducing the impact, rather than the long term strategy for beating the virus. Thanks for that, Son of, so in a nutshell is the likelihood that we will ALL be exposed to the virus at some stage no matter what we do? I can’t see how they can feasibly keep us all inside for 12 months, so eventually yes at some point. But hopefully it will be at such a rate that those most vulnerable will be protected through sheer weight of numbers having been infected. And that the time bought now in suppressing it allows treatments to be developed and beds/hospitals to be less pressured. All of which will help those most at risk to survive before the vaccine. The entire reason the experts gave for not moving us to this strategy first (before their own was shown not to be viable) was that suppression is impossible to keep up for vast lengths of time and eventually there will be subsequent peaks. But like I say, hopefilly we learn lessons and really clamp down on any further outbreaks with intense testing and tracing. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 29, 2020 16:49:14 GMT
Italy update. 756 dead today. Accelerating outside of Lombardy now, especially the south. I'm not seeing terrifying numbers there yet, intensive care #s actually dropped from 350 to 348 and there were 40 deaths across the whole south, which has 50% more people than Lombardy. Outside of the big news areas I was worried about Piemonte which is looking a bit ominous but it's still not clear if it'll go really bad. A lot of Turin Tech grad students do internships at my work & I love a load of them so maybe I'm looking a little too hard at it though. Do you know anything about how well people are following the lockdown in the south? The stereotype says they won't be doing as well... |
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Mar 29, 2020 16:50:51 GMT
Looking at the situation nationally there are clearly responsible people who are both complying with the Government advice, and making every effort to help others who might be in more difficult situations than their own. Then you have prats like Mike Ashley who only want what's best for themselves. I am beginning to feel that the big supermarkets are falling into this self serving category as well.
They may ostensibly be exercising "social reponsibility" and encouraging customers to keep a safe distance and so on, but I believe that many measures taken, and some of their experiences, have been used to cover up widespread exploitation of the public and blatant profiteering.
1. As we are well aware there has been extensive panic buying by customers, with shelves cleared and essential commodities sold out. These aisles of empty shelves represent a huge cash flow income peak for the store. They then take advantage of the situation by filling up shelves with more expensive alternatives, rather than the best buy and budget goods, so customers that are buying then have to pay more. So the store gets a second windfall on sales of their stock with bigger margins of profit.
2. Many of the big stores now operate a "one way" system for customers, on the grounds that shoppers can stay a space apart and not have to pass close by to other shoppers. This "control" has the effect of slowing down the movement of customers and they go into browsing mode and potentially shop for products that might be new or of previously unconsidered appeal. Also the one way system means that the poor shopper now has to negotiate every aisle, increasing the likelihood of them passing and seeing a rack and selecting an "impulse" purchase or add on.
3. Some supermarkets are insisting that shoppers use trolleys rather than baskets, as a professed health control measure. Their claim is that they start the day with a known number of trolleys in use. Then according to the number of trolleys at the entrance, they can tell how many are in use and consequently how many shoppers there are likely to be in the store, and they can monitor and control numbers and queues. Use of a trolley as a "buffer" helps to keep customer spacing in effect. They say that each trolley is cleaned after use before being made available to the next customer, although it is hard to say how diligentally this policy is followed. However what is known is that shoppers with trolleys spend substantially more in store than those using baskets. With a trolley you can get misled, as even with several items in the bottom of a trolley it can still look fairly empty, and the shopper doesn't realise quite how much they have chosen and how much extra they have spent. Shoppers with a basket are automatically limited by capacity and are less likely to make multiple panic type purchases, and conversely those with a trolley can more easily disguise the fact that they've bought several units of handwash or whatever, and it is more difficult for staff to visibly see if those customers are behaving irresponsibly. Trolley shopping almost certainly means a bigger shop by every customer and another windfall for the supermarket.
4. Some stores have promoted dedicated shopping hours for priority social groups and those in frontline services. These special arrangements for shoppers may make for good publicity and are presented as caring and responsible by the supermarket, but the fact remains that these "old folk" only hours for example are allocated at the very start of the day, such as 6.00 AM to 7.00AM, or last thing at night. The result is that the supermarket thus encourages an influx or rush of customers into the store at a time that might usually be very quiet. The normally empty store is then filled and there is more trade or profit for the company.
So are the supermarkets to be praised for being both available in staying open, and being responsible and considerate in controlling health issues. Or are they blatently profiteering and putting themselves in a stronger position by taking advantage of a marketing opportunity.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 16:53:50 GMT
Because we don’t know the full pathological effects of Covid, any attempt to boost immunity (which is difficult anyway) or treat without guidance or evidence may be misguided, we’ve seen with something as simple as ibuprofen it’s been recorded as having negative effects. For many people it’s not that their immune system is suppressed, it’s the fact their condition say (COPD) is particularly exacerbated by the respiratory conditions of COVID. COPD is hard enough to manage as is, nevermind with a serious infection on top. For some people, boosting the immune system could also be clinically disastrous as their conditions are caused by the body attacking itself, particularly with stuff like Crohn’s disease. Finally it’s well worth noting, no one has immunity to this, it’s a new disease and if you come into contact with it you will get it, so even if you have the best immune system in the world, it doesn’t have antibodies to this, they will only be created by exposure or an eventual vaccine. The only thing that changes is that your response will be better in suppressing it, but each case would have to be viewed individually, there are no one size fits all treatments atm. So that’s why the best form of immunity “boost” as it were for those at risk is isolation until the transmission chains are severely disrupted or a vaccine is viable. In a sea of political grandstanding your posts are much appreciated by this diabetic with RA. 👍🏼 Cheers mate, that means a lot. I understand this a scary time and lots of science gets flung about, so I’m hoping to keep as on track as possible in language that isn’t completely impregnable. Helps everyone if everyone is as informed as possible and also aware that there are immensely intelligent people working on this all over the globe which gets lost in the media noise. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 29, 2020 16:56:49 GMT
Looking at the situation nationally there are clearly responsible people who are both complying with the Government advice, and making every effort to help others who might be in more difficult situations than their own. Then you have prats like Mike Ashley who only want what's best for themselves. I am beginning to feel that the big supermarkets are falling into this self serving category as well. They may ostensibly be exercising "social reponsibility" and encouraging customers to keep a safe distance and so on, but I believe that many measures taken, and some of their experiences, have been used to cover up widespread exploitation of the public and blatant profiteering. 1. As we are well aware there has been extensive panic buying by customers, with shelves cleared and essential commodities sold out. These aisles of empty shelves represent a huge cash flow income peak for the store. They then take advantage of the situation by filling up shelves with more expensive alternatives, rather than the best buy and budget goods, so customers that are buying then have to pay more. So the store gets a second windfall on sales of their stock with bigger margins of profit. 2. Many of the big stores now operate a "one way" system for customers, on the grounds that shoppers can stay a space apart and not have to pass close by to other shoppers. This "control" has the effect of slowing down the movement of customers and they go into browsing mode and potentially shop for products that might be new or of previously unconsidered appeal. Also the one way system means that the poor shopper now has to negotiate every aisle, increasing the likelihood of them passing and seeing a rack and selecting an "impulse" purchase or add on. 3. Some supermarkets are insisting that shoppers use trolleys rather than baskets, as a professed health control measure. Their claim is that they start the day with a known number of trolleys in use. Then according to the number of trolleys at the entrance, they can tell how many are in use and consequently how many shoppers there are likely to be in the store, and they can monitor and control numbers and queues. Use of a trolley as a "buffer" helps to keep customer spacing in effect. They say that each trolley is cleaned after use before being made available to the next customer, although it is hard to say how diligentally this policy is followed. However what is known is that shoppers with trolleys spend substantially more in store than those using baskets. With a trolley you can get misled, as even with several items in the bottom of a trolley it can still look fairly empty, and the shopper doesn't realise quite how much they have chosen and how much extra they have spent. Shoppers with a basket are automatically limited by capacity and are less likely to make multiple panic type purchases, and conversely those with a trolley can more easily disguise the fact that they've bought several units of handwash or whatever, and it is more difficult for staff to visibly see if those customers are behaving irresponsibly. Trolley shopping almost certainly means a bigger shop by every customer and another windfall for the supermarket. 4. Some stores have promoted dedicated shopping hours for priority social groups and those in frontline services. These special arrangements for shoppers may make for good publicity and are presented as caring and responsible by the supermarket, but the fact remains that these "old folk" only hours for example are allocated at the very start of the day, such as 6.00 AM to 7.00AM, or last thing at night. The result is that the supermarket thus encourages an influx or rush of customers into the store at a time that might usually be very quiet. The normally empty store is then filled and there is more trade or profit for the company. So are the supermarkets to be praised for being both available in staying open, and being responsible and considerate in controlling health issues. Or are they blatently profiteering and putting themselves in a stronger position by taking advantage of a marketing opportunity. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Hard to tell mate, I think if the supermarkets' decisions were made by someone trying to do their best then they would do 2/3/4 and it's possible 1 happened either because everyone bought up the cheap stuff first, or because there's more profit to the manufacturers in premium brands so it's what the supermarkets can get the most of. Of course, if they're run by sly nasty fucks they could also do those things too. The supermarket industry has spent plenty on psych research showing things like how using a trolley instead of a basket, or a bigger trolley, means you buy more. I just think this is a case where greed and sense happen to line up. Tbf I'm happy with 2/3/4. We want to get as much food to as many people as possible while keeping everyone apart. Spreading out the hours that people are shopping is good, and if people buy a trolleyfull in one go then a family only needs one shop a week instead of every other day. I'm worried they've decided to screw us with the posh brands though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:00:01 GMT
Looking at the situation nationally there are clearly responsible people who are both complying with the Government advice, and making every effort to help others who might be in more difficult situations than their own. Then you have prats like Mike Ashley who only want what's best for themselves. I am beginning to feel that the big supermarkets are falling into this self serving category as well. They may ostensibly be exercising "social reponsibility" and encouraging customers to keep a safe distance and so on, but I believe that many measures taken, and some of their experiences, have been used to cover up widespread exploitation of the public and blatant profiteering. 1. As we are well aware there has been extensive panic buying by customers, with shelves cleared and essential commodities sold out. These aisles of empty shelves represent a huge cash flow income peak for the store. They then take advantage of the situation by filling up shelves with more expensive alternatives, rather than the best buy and budget goods, so customers that are buying then have to pay more. So the store gets a second windfall on sales of their stock with bigger margins of profit. 2. Many of the big stores now operate a "one way" system for customers, on the grounds that shoppers can stay a space apart and not have to pass close by to other shoppers. This "control" has the effect of slowing down the movement of customers and they go into browsing mode and potentially shop for products that might be new or of previously unconsidered appeal. Also the one way system means that the poor shopper now has to negotiate every aisle, increasing the likelihood of them passing and seeing a rack and selecting an "impulse" purchase or add on. 3. Some supermarkets are insisting that shoppers use trolleys rather than baskets, as a professed health control measure. Their claim is that they start the day with a known number of trolleys in use. Then according to the number of trolleys at the entrance, they can tell how many are in use and consequently how many shoppers there are likely to be in the store, and they can monitor and control numbers and queues. Use of a trolley as a "buffer" helps to keep customer spacing in effect. They say that each trolley is cleaned after use before being made available to the next customer, although it is hard to say how diligentally this policy is followed. However what is known is that shoppers with trolleys spend substantially more in store than those using baskets. With a trolley you can get misled, as even with several items in the bottom of a trolley it can still look fairly empty, and the shopper doesn't realise quite how much they have chosen and how much extra they have spent. Shoppers with a basket are automatically limited by capacity and are less likely to make multiple panic type purchases, and conversely those with a trolley can more easily disguise the fact that they've bought several units of handwash or whatever, and it is more difficult for staff to visibly see if those customers are behaving irresponsibly. Trolley shopping almost certainly means a bigger shop by every customer and another windfall for the supermarket. 4. Some stores have promoted dedicated shopping hours for priority social groups and those in frontline services. These special arrangements for shoppers may make for good publicity and are presented as caring and responsible by the supermarket, but the fact remains that these "old folk" only hours for example are allocated at the very start of the day, such as 6.00 AM to 7.00AM, or last thing at night. The result is that the supermarket thus encourages an influx or rush of customers into the store at a time that might usually be very quiet. The normally empty store is then filled and there is more trade or profit for the company. So are the supermarkets to be praised for being both available in staying open, and being responsible and considerate in controlling health issues. Or are they blatently profiteering and putting themselves in a stronger position by taking advantage of a marketing opportunity.Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. I can tell you now that the supermarkets are shipping out "essential" items such as flat screen TV's, garden furniture, jet washes etc. to tap into the decent weather we've been having coupled with folk staying at home. The logistics provider I work for has tried to be responsible by moving vehicles normally on Industrial work into our Retail sector to help with the huge volumes we're currently being asked to cover, and this puts extra strain on our network with drivers and office staff starting to drop due to them or their family members showing signs of the virus. Personally speaking I find it a bit of a piss take, one senior manager at one of the big 4 supermarkets has already kicked off with me over the phone this weekend as some of the work out of his general merchandising site has ran late, my response was simply "We prioritised grocery loads into the supermarket as per government guidelines" which my director promptly backed me up on...... |
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Mar 29, 2020 17:01:01 GMT
Looking at the situation nationally there are clearly responsible people who are both complying with the Government advice, and making every effort to help others who might be in more difficult situations than their own. Then you have prats like Mike Ashley who only want what's best for themselves. I am beginning to feel that the big supermarkets are falling into this self serving category as well. They may ostensibly be exercising "social reponsibility" and encouraging customers to keep a safe distance and so on, but I believe that many measures taken, and some of their experiences, have been used to cover up widespread exploitation of the public and blatant profiteering. 1. As we are well aware there has been extensive panic buying by customers, with shelves cleared and essential commodities sold out. These aisles of empty shelves represent a huge cash flow income peak for the store. They then take advantage of the situation by filling up shelves with more expensive alternatives, rather than the best buy and budget goods, so customers that are buying then have to pay more. So the store gets a second windfall on sales of their stock with bigger margins of profit. 2. Many of the big stores now operate a "one way" system for customers, on the grounds that shoppers can stay a space apart and not have to pass close by to other shoppers. This "control" has the effect of slowing down the movement of customers and they go into browsing mode and potentially shop for products that might be new or of previously unconsidered appeal. Also the one way system means that the poor shopper now has to negotiate every aisle, increasing the likelihood of them passing and seeing a rack and selecting an "impulse" purchase or add on. 3. Some supermarkets are insisting that shoppers use trolleys rather than baskets, as a professed health control measure. Their claim is that they start the day with a known number of trolleys in use. Then according to the number of trolleys at the entrance, they can tell how many are in use and consequently how many shoppers there are likely to be in the store, and they can monitor and control numbers and queues. Use of a trolley as a "buffer" helps to keep customer spacing in effect. They say that each trolley is cleaned after use before being made available to the next customer, although it is hard to say how diligentally this policy is followed. However what is known is that shoppers with trolleys spend substantially more in store than those using baskets. With a trolley you can get misled, as even with several items in the bottom of a trolley it can still look fairly empty, and the shopper doesn't realise quite how much they have chosen and how much extra they have spent. Shoppers with a basket are automatically limited by capacity and are less likely to make multiple panic type purchases, and conversely those with a trolley can more easily disguise the fact that they've bought several units of handwash or whatever, and it is more difficult for staff to visibly see if those customers are behaving irresponsibly. Trolley shopping almost certainly means a bigger shop by every customer and another windfall for the supermarket. 4. Some stores have promoted dedicated shopping hours for priority social groups and those in frontline services. These special arrangements for shoppers may make for good publicity and are presented as caring and responsible by the supermarket, but the fact remains that these "old folk" only hours for example are allocated at the very start of the day, such as 6.00 AM to 7.00AM, or last thing at night. The result is that the supermarket thus encourages an influx or rush of customers into the store at a time that might usually be very quiet. The normally empty store is then filled and there is more trade or profit for the company. So are the supermarkets to be praised for being both available in staying open, and being responsible and considerate in controlling health issues. Or are they blatently profiteering and putting themselves in a stronger position by taking advantage of a marketing opportunity. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. What I'm not quite understanding is the rationale for them shutting earlier than they used to. Perhaps it's to redirect staff to the busier times? But I went to Sainsbury's at 10.30pm a couple of weeks ago to deliberately avoid a busy shop and there was barely anyone in. I can't do that now. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2020 17:02:10 GMT
Looking at the situation nationally there are clearly responsible people who are both complying with the Government advice, and making every effort to help others who might be in more difficult situations than their own. Then you have prats like Mike Ashley who only want what's best for themselves. I am beginning to feel that the big supermarkets are falling into this self serving category as well. They may ostensibly be exercising "social reponsibility" and encouraging customers to keep a safe distance and so on, but I believe that many measures taken, and some of their experiences, have been used to cover up widespread exploitation of the public and blatant profiteering. 1. As we are well aware there has been extensive panic buying by customers, with shelves cleared and essential commodities sold out. These aisles of empty shelves represent a huge cash flow income peak for the store. They then take advantage of the situation by filling up shelves with more expensive alternatives, rather than the best buy and budget goods, so customers that are buying then have to pay more. So the store gets a second windfall on sales of their stock with bigger margins of profit. 2. Many of the big stores now operate a "one way" system for customers, on the grounds that shoppers can stay a space apart and not have to pass close by to other shoppers. This "control" has the effect of slowing down the movement of customers and they go into browsing mode and potentially shop for products that might be new or of previously unconsidered appeal. Also the one way system means that the poor shopper now has to negotiate every aisle, increasing the likelihood of them passing and seeing a rack and selecting an "impulse" purchase or add on. 3. Some supermarkets are insisting that shoppers use trolleys rather than baskets, as a professed health control measure. Their claim is that they start the day with a known number of trolleys in use. Then according to the number of trolleys at the entrance, they can tell how many are in use and consequently how many shoppers there are likely to be in the store, and they can monitor and control numbers and queues. Use of a trolley as a "buffer" helps to keep customer spacing in effect. They say that each trolley is cleaned after use before being made available to the next customer, although it is hard to say how diligentally this policy is followed. However what is known is that shoppers with trolleys spend substantially more in store than those using baskets. With a trolley you can get misled, as even with several items in the bottom of a trolley it can still look fairly empty, and the shopper doesn't realise quite how much they have chosen and how much extra they have spent. Shoppers with a basket are automatically limited by capacity and are less likely to make multiple panic type purchases, and conversely those with a trolley can more easily disguise the fact that they've bought several units of handwash or whatever, and it is more difficult for staff to visibly see if those customers are behaving irresponsibly. Trolley shopping almost certainly means a bigger shop by every customer and another windfall for the supermarket. 4. Some stores have promoted dedicated shopping hours for priority social groups and those in frontline services. These special arrangements for shoppers may make for good publicity and are presented as caring and responsible by the supermarket, but the fact remains that these "old folk" only hours for example are allocated at the very start of the day, such as 6.00 AM to 7.00AM, or last thing at night. The result is that the supermarket thus encourages an influx or rush of customers into the store at a time that might usually be very quiet. The normally empty store is then filled and there is more trade or profit for the company. So are the supermarkets to be praised for being both available in staying open, and being responsible and considerate in controlling health issues. Or are they blatently profiteering and putting themselves in a stronger position by taking advantage of a marketing opportunity. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The flip side of that though is (a) people have typically got less money to spend and don't know when they will be earning their full amount again and (b) no-one in their right mind wants to spend a second longer in a supermarket than they have to. Folk haven't got much alternative with regards to eating and entertainment (takeaways and netflix excepted) so supermarkets know they'll get a windfall just by staying open. They will be mindful that if they screw people over as well they may damage longer term brand loyalty. Oh and any gifts I've ever had from my Greek friends have always been genuine!! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:11:51 GMT
Looking at the situation nationally there are clearly responsible people who are both complying with the Government advice, and making every effort to help others who might be in more difficult situations than their own. Then you have prats like Mike Ashley who only want what's best for themselves. I am beginning to feel that the big supermarkets are falling into this self serving category as well. They may ostensibly be exercising "social reponsibility" and encouraging customers to keep a safe distance and so on, but I believe that many measures taken, and some of their experiences, have been used to cover up widespread exploitation of the public and blatant profiteering. 1. As we are well aware there has been extensive panic buying by customers, with shelves cleared and essential commodities sold out. These aisles of empty shelves represent a huge cash flow income peak for the store. They then take advantage of the situation by filling up shelves with more expensive alternatives, rather than the best buy and budget goods, so customers that are buying then have to pay more. So the store gets a second windfall on sales of their stock with bigger margins of profit. 2. Many of the big stores now operate a "one way" system for customers, on the grounds that shoppers can stay a space apart and not have to pass close by to other shoppers. This "control" has the effect of slowing down the movement of customers and they go into browsing mode and potentially shop for products that might be new or of previously unconsidered appeal. Also the one way system means that the poor shopper now has to negotiate every aisle, increasing the likelihood of them passing and seeing a rack and selecting an "impulse" purchase or add on. 3. Some supermarkets are insisting that shoppers use trolleys rather than baskets, as a professed health control measure. Their claim is that they start the day with a known number of trolleys in use. Then according to the number of trolleys at the entrance, they can tell how many are in use and consequently how many shoppers there are likely to be in the store, and they can monitor and control numbers and queues. Use of a trolley as a "buffer" helps to keep customer spacing in effect. They say that each trolley is cleaned after use before being made available to the next customer, although it is hard to say how diligentally this policy is followed. However what is known is that shoppers with trolleys spend substantially more in store than those using baskets. With a trolley you can get misled, as even with several items in the bottom of a trolley it can still look fairly empty, and the shopper doesn't realise quite how much they have chosen and how much extra they have spent. Shoppers with a basket are automatically limited by capacity and are less likely to make multiple panic type purchases, and conversely those with a trolley can more easily disguise the fact that they've bought several units of handwash or whatever, and it is more difficult for staff to visibly see if those customers are behaving irresponsibly. Trolley shopping almost certainly means a bigger shop by every customer and another windfall for the supermarket. 4. Some stores have promoted dedicated shopping hours for priority social groups and those in frontline services. These special arrangements for shoppers may make for good publicity and are presented as caring and responsible by the supermarket, but the fact remains that these "old folk" only hours for example are allocated at the very start of the day, such as 6.00 AM to 7.00AM, or last thing at night. The result is that the supermarket thus encourages an influx or rush of customers into the store at a time that might usually be very quiet. The normally empty store is then filled and there is more trade or profit for the company. So are the supermarkets to be praised for being both available in staying open, and being responsible and considerate in controlling health issues. Or are they blatently profiteering and putting themselves in a stronger position by taking advantage of a marketing opportunity. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. What I'm not quite understanding is the rationale for them shutting earlier than they used to. Perhaps it's to redirect staff to the busier times? But I went to Sainsbury's at 10.30pm a couple of weeks ago to deliberately avoid a busy shop and there was barely anyone in. I can't do that now. Re-stacking the shelves has been the biggest problem, it's why Tesco went from 24 hour trading to closing at 22:00 and opening at 06:00 so they could physically get product out onto the shop floor. Initially the staff were that busy at the tills there wasn't enough of them to move items from the holding area to the shelves. Stores have so little storage space these days that you end up with a bottle neck as trucks then can't offload deliveries as there's nowhere to put the stock...... |
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Mar 29, 2020 17:14:37 GMT
What I'm not quite understanding is the rationale for them shutting earlier than they used to. Perhaps it's to redirect staff to the busier times? But I went to Sainsbury's at 10.30pm a couple of weeks ago to deliberately avoid a busy shop and there was barely anyone in. I can't do that now. Re-stacking the shelves has been the biggest problem, it's why Tesco went from 24 hour trading to closing at 22:00 and opening at 06:00 so they could physically get product out onto the shop floor. Initially the staff were that busy at the tills there wasn't enough of them to move items from the holding area to the shelves. Stores have so little storage space these days that you end up with a bottle neck as trucks then can't offload deliveries as there's nowhere to put the stock...... Right, fair enough that makes sense. Any advice on the quietest time to go?  |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 29, 2020 17:15:28 GMT
Thanks for that, Son of, so in a nutshell is the likelihood that we will ALL be exposed to the virus at some stage no matter what we do? I can’t see how they can feasibly keep us all inside for 12 months, so eventually yes at some point. But hopefully it will be at such a rate that those most vulnerable will be protected through sheer weight of numbers having been infected. And that the time bought now in suppressing it allows treatments to be developed and beds/hospitals to be less pressured. All of which will help those most at risk to survive before the vaccine. The entire reason the experts gave for not moving us to this strategy first (before their own was shown not to be viable) was that suppression is impossible to keep up for vast lengths of time and eventually there will be subsequent peaks. But like I say, hopefilly we learn lessons and really clamp down on any further outbreaks with intense testing and tracing. Estranged ( and I hope that you make it up with Mr Faye) Thanks for your responses...full , clear and logical. Sorry if I am sounding thick...I can fully understand how flattening the peak gives us time capacity to cope and betters the chances of each victim to survive but I don't get how the " sheer weight of numbers having been infected" influences an INDIVIDUAL'S chance of survival.....once you get it I presume it depends upon the load of the virus, your immune system and the NHS facilities available. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:23:17 GMT
Re-stacking the shelves has been the biggest problem, it's why Tesco went from 24 hour trading to closing at 22:00 and opening at 06:00 so they could physically get product out onto the shop floor. Initially the staff were that busy at the tills there wasn't enough of them to move items from the holding area to the shelves. Stores have so little storage space these days that you end up with a bottle neck as trucks then can't offload deliveries as there's nowhere to put the stock...... Right, fair enough that makes sense. Any advice on the quietest time to go? In terms of having the best range of products on the shelves it's the moment the supermarket re-opens, however expect to queue as other people are taking the same approach. The likes of Lidl and Aldi seem to have been relatively calm these last few days and supplies into store are pretty good across all supermarkets, the only gaps you will see mainly now are those where there is a production rather than a distribution problem, for example toilet rolls, pasta, baby wipes, paracetamol. But in some respects it's luck of the draw, if a supermarket decides to wheel out the cages from the store room to the shop floor and you just happen to be in there that is when you'll get lucky with some of the harder to source products..... |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 17:28:58 GMT
I can’t see how they can feasibly keep us all inside for 12 months, so eventually yes at some point. But hopefully it will be at such a rate that those most vulnerable will be protected through sheer weight of numbers having been infected. And that the time bought now in suppressing it allows treatments to be developed and beds/hospitals to be less pressured. All of which will help those most at risk to survive before the vaccine. The entire reason the experts gave for not moving us to this strategy first (before their own was shown not to be viable) was that suppression is impossible to keep up for vast lengths of time and eventually there will be subsequent peaks. But like I say, hopefilly we learn lessons and really clamp down on any further outbreaks with intense testing and tracing. Estranged ( and I hope that you make it up with Mr Faye) Thanks for your responses...full , clear and logical. Sorry if I am sounding thick...I can fully understand how flattening the peak gives us time capacity to cope and betters the chances of each victim to survive but I don't get how the " sheer weight of numbers having been infected" influences an INDIVIDUAL'S chance of survival.....once you get it I presume it depends upon the load of the virus, your immune system and the NHS facilities available. Yes I should clear that up, In terms of individual chances of survival following infection it doesn’t, you are right. If you get it and you are in that at risk population then it’s as you say down to chance, your immune system and the NHS. What I mean by the sheer weight numbers is that if say 8 out of 10 people have had the virus, they can no longer pass it on for a period of time so the chances of the vulnerable population actually picking the virus up are diminished because 8 out of 10 people they meet won’t be able to infect them , thus their overall chances of not dying from this increase as they are less likely to catch it. Does that make sense? In other words It’s more the balance of probabilities that when enough people have had it that they won’t get infected and that factor is what increases their survival chances, but if they do contract it you are absolutely right and they are still obviously in trouble, if they are unlucky and get infected by someone not in that 80% figure for instance. Though hopefully by the time there is a risk of this, beds aren’t as busy and some treatments are in effect which will help. The reason they are so at risk at the moment is that no one has immunity (or a very low number) so the chances of them getting it are so high. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 29, 2020 17:31:42 GMT
Estranged ( and I hope that you make it up with Mr Faye) Thanks for your responses...full , clear and logical. Sorry if I am sounding thick...I can fully understand how flattening the peak gives us time capacity to cope and betters the chances of each victim to survive but I don't get how the " sheer weight of numbers having been infected" influences an INDIVIDUAL'S chance of survival.....once you get it I presume it depends upon the load of the virus, your immune system and the NHS facilities available. Yes I should clear that up, In terms of individual chances of survival following infection it doesn’t, you are right. If you get it and you are in that at risk population then it’s as you say down to chance, your immune system and the NHS. What I mean by the sheer weight numbers is that if say 8 out of 10 people have had the virus, they can no longer pass it on for a period of time so the chances of the vulnerable population actually picking the virus up are diminished because 8 out of 10 people they meet won’t be able to infect them , thus their overall chances of not dying from this increase as they are less likely to catch it. Does that make sense? In other words It’s more the balance of probabilities that when enough people have had it that they won’t get infected and that factor is what increases their survival chances, but if they do contract it you are absolutely right and they are still obviously in trouble, if they are unlucky and get infected by someone not in that 80% figure for instance. Though hopefully by the time there is a risk of this, beds aren’t as busy and some treatments are in effect which will help. The reason they are so at risk at the moment is that no one has immunity (or a very low number) so the chances of them getting it are so high. Thanks Estranged, your contribution to this thread has been invaluable.. |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 17:32:06 GMT
Yes I should clear that up, In terms of individual chances of survival following infection it doesn’t, you are right. If you get it and you are in that at risk population then it’s as you say down to chance, your immune system and the NHS. What I mean by the sheer weight numbers is that if say 8 out of 10 people have had the virus, they can no longer pass it on for a period of time so the chances of the vulnerable population actually picking the virus up are diminished because 8 out of 10 people they meet won’t be able to infect them , thus their overall chances of not dying from this increase as they are less likely to catch it. Does that make sense? In other words It’s more the balance of probabilities that when enough people have had it that they won’t get infected and that factor is what increases their survival chances, but if they do contract it you are absolutely right and they are still obviously in trouble, if they are unlucky and get infected by someone not in that 80% figure for instance. Though hopefully by the time there is a risk of this, beds aren’t as busy and some treatments are in effect which will help. The reason they are so at risk at the moment is that no one has immunity (or a very low number) so the chances of them getting it are so high. Thanks Estranged, your contribution to this thread has been invaluable.. Cheers mate, happy to help! |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2020 17:33:15 GMT
I can’t see how they can feasibly keep us all inside for 12 months, so eventually yes at some point. But hopefully it will be at such a rate that those most vulnerable will be protected through sheer weight of numbers having been infected. And that the time bought now in suppressing it allows treatments to be developed and beds/hospitals to be less pressured. All of which will help those most at risk to survive before the vaccine. The entire reason the experts gave for not moving us to this strategy first (before their own was shown not to be viable) was that suppression is impossible to keep up for vast lengths of time and eventually there will be subsequent peaks. But like I say, hopefilly we learn lessons and really clamp down on any further outbreaks with intense testing and tracing. Estranged ( and I hope that you make it up with Mr Faye) Thanks for your responses...full , clear and logical. Sorry if I am sounding thick...I can fully understand how flattening the peak gives us time capacity to cope and betters the chances of each victim to survive but I don't get how the " sheer weight of numbers having been infected" influences an INDIVIDUAL'S chance of survival.....once you get it I presume it depends upon the load of the virus, your immune system and the NHS facilities available. Butting in I don't think it does affect your individual chances of survival per se for the reasons you say apart from (a) you have less chance of catching it in the first place as there are fewer people around who can be infectious and (b) hospitals will be quieter so if you do get a bad case there's a shorter queue for ITU beds. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Alfareros on Mar 29, 2020 17:46:37 GMT
Yes I should clear that up, In terms of individual chances of survival following infection it doesn’t, you are right. If you get it and you are in that at risk population then it’s as you say down to chance, your immune system and the NHS. What I mean by the sheer weight numbers is that if say 8 out of 10 people have had the virus, they can no longer pass it on for a period of time so the chances of the vulnerable population actually picking the virus up are diminished because 8 out of 10 people they meet won’t be able to infect them , thus their overall chances of not dying from this increase as they are less likely to catch it. Does that make sense? In other words It’s more the balance of probabilities that when enough people have had it that they won’t get infected and that factor is what increases their survival chances, but if they do contract it you are absolutely right and they are still obviously in trouble, if they are unlucky and get infected by someone not in that 80% figure for instance. Though hopefully by the time there is a risk of this, beds aren’t as busy and some treatments are in effect which will help. The reason they are so at risk at the moment is that no one has immunity (or a very low number) so the chances of them getting it are so high. Thanks Estranged, your contribution to this thread has been invaluable.. Agreed, ESOF is the backbone of this thread for information without agenda, thanks mate much appreciated. I, on the other hand, am still thinking of Coronaoke tunes... Inside - Stiltskin |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 29, 2020 17:52:18 GMT
Jenny Harries just confirmed this situation will be constantly reviewed but it could be 6 months before a return to “normality”. If we get a break, with anti-viral treatments and such it could be much less than that. But we have to see, one thing is absolutely correct though, lift this too early and it’s a wasted effort. Despite doing everything I can to observe the rules I still ask the question "is this all worth it"? Are we simply saving those (in the main) who would likely have died from one condition or another anyway? The lockdowns are to help the NHS yes? Most are going to get this, many will be untouched. We are just trying to manage it so we don't all get it at same time, thereby helping the NHS prolong the lives of those who will be suffering from other illnesses anyway? I read something today that said we lose 125 people per day to suicide, 800,000 per year. Is global shut down and an economic disaster really worth all this? I genuinely don't know the answer but I err on the side of it not being, as I've done from the start in truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:57:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 29, 2020 17:59:14 GMT
Jenny Harries just confirmed this situation will be constantly reviewed but it could be 6 months before a return to “normality”. If we get a break, with anti-viral treatments and such it could be much less than that. But we have to see, one thing is absolutely correct though, lift this too early and it’s a wasted effort. Despite doing everything I can to observe the rules I still ask the question "is this all worth it"? Are we simply saving those (in the main) who would likely have died from one condition or another anyway? The lockdowns are to help the NHS yes? Most are going to get this, many will be untouched. We are just trying to manage it so we don't all get it at same time, thereby helping the NHS prolong the lives of those who will be suffering from other illnesses anyway? I read something today that said we lose 125 people per day to suicide, 800,000 per year. Is global shut down and an economic disaster really worth all this? I genuinely don't know the answer but I err on the side of it not being, as I've done from the start in truth. Suicide isn’t contagious, nor does it overload health departments so it’s not a fair comparison to make at all. Suicide is tragic, but doesn’t overload intensive care units, doesn’t all occur over a couple of weeks etc. It’s true there are a lot of things to die from, but simply carrying on as normal simply isn’t an option because if you overload the health service then nothing functions within it. Everything not Covid related, chemo, heart operations, dialysis, a and e beds for stroke, heart attacks you name it simply couldn’t function because all capacity would be taken up by Covid cases, that would cause thousands of additional deaths because we didn’t control the spread at all. Then there’s the staff, being exposed to a high volume of cases puts them at extraordinary risk and if you lose a significant number because of overload, your capacity drops even further and it gets even worse. Then people start dying of superinfections and lack of clinical hygiene and when that starts (This is what pushed the Spanish Flu mainly) you’re out of control completely and if it gets out of control completely the economy plunges anyway. This isn’t easy, but the measures make sense. This is rampant in terms of contagiousness, and because of that it’s a massive threat. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Alfareros on Mar 29, 2020 18:01:36 GMT
Jenny Harries just confirmed this situation will be constantly reviewed but it could be 6 months before a return to “normality”. If we get a break, with anti-viral treatments and such it could be much less than that. But we have to see, one thing is absolutely correct though, lift this too early and it’s a wasted effort. Despite doing everything I can to observe the rules I still ask the question "is this all worth it"? Are we simply saving those (in the main) who would likely have died from one condition or another anyway? The lockdowns are to help the NHS yes? Most are going to get this, many will be untouched. We are just trying to manage it so we don't all get it at same time, thereby helping the NHS prolong the lives of those who will be suffering from other illnesses anyway? I read something today that said we lose 125 people per day to suicide, 800,000 per year. Is global shut down and an economic disaster really worth all this? I genuinely don't know the answer but I err on the side of it not being, as I've done from the start in truth. I am not knocking your opinion mate, but your suicide stats are way off. UK average approx 6,500 per annum, 18 every day ish. |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 29, 2020 18:03:30 GMT
Jenny Harries just confirmed this situation will be constantly reviewed but it could be 6 months before a return to “normality”. If we get a break, with anti-viral treatments and such it could be much less than that. But we have to see, one thing is absolutely correct though, lift this too early and it’s a wasted effort. Despite doing everything I can to observe the rules I still ask the question "is this all worth it"? Are we simply saving those (in the main) who would likely have died from one condition or another anyway? The lockdowns are to help the NHS yes? Most are going to get this, many will be untouched. We are just trying to manage it so we don't all get it at same time, thereby helping the NHS prolong the lives of those who will be suffering from other illnesses anyway? I read something today that said we lose 125 people per day to suicide, 800,000 per year. Is global shut down and an economic disaster really worth all this? I genuinely don't know the answer but I err on the side of it not being, as I've done from the start in truth. What do you suggest that the Government should have done?? |
|
