Jump to content

Responsible or Irresponsible Tier 3 Cruising?


PD1964

Featured Posts

3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

 

 

So does semi-skilled from the milkman, provided you put it in a plastic bottle first!

I like the idea of semi-skilled milk: perhaps it knows how to make coffee but can't manage a béchamel sauce?

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

I've been trying to remember the last time I went into a shop.

 

I now buy all my groceries online.  I reckon the last time I went in a shop to buy was around september/october last year.  The one except was about 3 weeks ago.  I was out for a walk and I was desperate for the loo, there was a tesco so I went in to use that.  I was genuinely shocked at how busy it was.  Yes it was in the run up to Christmas, but there were big family groups just ambling around the shop with their masks round their chins.  This was in a tier 3 area.  I think it was at that point that  fully realised how bad things would be getting in the new year. 

 

Some people just never got what a pandemic means in the first place (including some forum members).  Others seem to have gotten bored with doing what they should.

 

It should be really simple.  If you're planning to do a thing, ask yourself these questions:

 

1.  Is there any level of risk involved?

2.  Do I actually need to do it?

3.  If yes, can I do it differently to reduce risk.

 

A pandemic is built in billions of little casual neglectful acts.  Each one adds a tiny bit to the overall picture. 

 

Shopping in pairs or groups is one of these acts.  If you really can't do it by yourself, it's not available to order online, and you really NEED it, then fair enough.  But if you tick those boxes I'd question whether you should even be going out, or whether someone should be shopping for you.

In my (admittedly inexperienced) opinion, the almost complete lack of policing of the rules, and the resulting contacts, are probably the biggest cause of the huge increase in cases.  Just look at the Brecon Beacons fiasco, where at worst people were politely told to turn round.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Proper bacon (cured, not brined) lasts a grear deal longer than that.

 

Indeed, but best if hung in a farm house kitchen, naturally smoked and dried over oak smoke. Years ago we aquired a full parma ham, that was a delight, thin slices in Scottish morning rolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I've been trying to remember the last time I went into a shop.

 

 

 

 

Gosh, so am I....oh hang on, it's coming to me....got it, half past twelve.

 

Obviously my memory isn't what it was.

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

 

A pandemic is built in billions of little casual neglectful acts.   

 

Shopping in pairs is one of these acts. 

I read this a couple of times and tried to find any reason not to dismiss it as twaddle.

I failed, I'm afraid.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Absolutely. We can do a lot more to stop transmission without it really affecting us. We need to get back to one person only in a supermarket and keeping 2m apart. It worked in March/April. The queues were never that long.

Why arent shops using thermometers to screen peeps going in? Bonkers.

The only shop locally that is restricting access to X amount of people is Waitrose, and thats because they have so many staff wondering around there's little room for shoppers!

I know of lots of companies who bought thermometers to scan people at the door etc, without exception they have all stopped as the devices were too unreliable or just broke. I changed by 10oc one day going from one company to another, and i didn't even run!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

I buy filtered milk, in individual litre bottles, they are supposed to last up to three weeks if stored in a fridge unopened, other milks last about seven days, once opened they need to be consumed in three fridge days.

There is only myself to feed, but with no fridge, I have found deliveries every five days is fine, I know my spend per shopping, and I think I've cracked it. Morrisons will give me a next day delivery if I get stuck, which happens because sometimes they don't sub that works very well if people are self isolating or have no car.

I spend quite a bit of time on balancing my groceries, and get plenty of the discounts, bacon in plastic lasts at least a week unopened, so that can be slightly 'over ordered' Buying pre packed foods is probably easier than if bought from the counter service.

I note loo paper is limited today, but most people can manage with a nine pack per week, surely.

That was my point, 1 of you every 5 days but in the last lock down you were able to buy as much as a parent with a family of 4. Its not the shelf life, its the amount you can buy against how fast you use it. I didnt want to store the milk, it wasnt going off, I just wanted it on my breakfast and we couldn't buy enough to last a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I've been trying to remember the last time I went into a shop.

 

I now buy all my groceries online.  I reckon the last time I went in a shop to buy was around september/october last year.  The one except was about 3 weeks ago.  I was out for a walk and I was desperate for the loo, there was a tesco so I went in to use that.  I was genuinely shocked at how busy it was.  Yes it was in the run up to Christmas, but there were big family groups just ambling around the shop with their masks round their chins.  This was in a tier 3 area.  I think it was at that point that  fully realised how bad things would be getting in the new year. 

 

Some people just never got what a pandemic means in the first place (including some forum members).  Others seem to have gotten bored with doing what they should.

 

It should be really simple.  If you're planning to do a thing, ask yourself these questions:

 

1.  Is there any level of risk involved?

2.  Do I actually need to do it?

3.  If yes, can I do it differently to reduce risk.

 

A pandemic is built in billions of little casual neglectful acts.  Each one adds a tiny bit to the overall picture. 

 

Shopping in pairs or groups is one of these acts.  If you really can't do it by yourself, it's not available to order online, and you really NEED it, then fair enough.  But if you tick those boxes I'd question whether you should even be going out, or whether someone should be shopping for you.

I am one of those forum members... I take precautions whatever is prescribed but am never overzealous about it, unless somebody literally sneezes without a mask on, am pretty cool with occasional lapse on other's judgement (about the pandemic). May be because nobody I know has died.

Edited by restlessnomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dor said:

In my (admittedly inexperienced) opinion, the almost complete lack of policing of the rules, and the resulting contacts, are probably the biggest cause of the huge increase in cases.  Just look at the Brecon Beacons fiasco, where at worst people were politely told to turn round.

Not the policing that is at fault, it's the transgressors, but back to reality, it's the day to day failures that have allowed the disease to take hold. 

8 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

I am one of those forum members... I take precautions whatever is prescribed but am never overzealous about it, unless somebody literally sneezes without a mask on, am pretty cool with occasional lapse on other's judgement (about the pandemic). May be because nobody I know has died.

Maybe because you are not high risk? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Not the policing that is at fault, it's the transgressors.

The transgressors are trandgressing because they know if they get caught they will be firstly nicely asked to not transgress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

 

Maybe because you are not high risk? 

yes that too(but wont push my luck, who knows what underlying disease I got).. I get it why some are paranoid though, if I was in high risk group, I will not go outside at all and will get everything delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, restlessnomad said:

guess its to give every household opportunity to buy stuff without waiting too long in queue...

The idea is that people STAY AT HOME, shopping is an essential function, two people do not need to enter a supermarket to shop. That halves the risk, or if you want it in plain English, two people double the risk, it is unnecessary, ie one person is making a non essential journey.

The number of shopping visits should be minimised, individually and nationally.

Edited by LadyG
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The idea is that people STAY AT HOME, shopping is an essential function, two people do not need to enter a supermarket to shop. That halves the risk, or if you want it in plain English, two people double the risk, it is unnecessary, ie one person is making a non essential journey.

The number of shopping visits should be minimised, individually and nationally.

I am not convinced that one person from a couple doing the shopping will necessarily reduce the risk much.   The thinking being if one person of the couple has the disease the other almost certainly will as well.   Therefore the slight risk will be a small increase of virus in the air.

 

I would agree shopping and indeed all non essential movements should be reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am not convinced that one person from a couple doing the shopping will necessarily reduce the risk much.   The thinking being if one person of the couple has the disease the other almost certainly will as well.   Therefore the slight risk will be a small increase of virus in the air.

 

I would agree shopping and indeed all non essential movements should be reduced.

Try the maths, two people breath out twice as much virus laden breaths, and touch twice as many surfaces. The point is that journeys should only be made if they are essential. One person is making an essential journey, the other is not. Everyone can easily justify every journey, the point is that the government have repeated that the requirement is for people to stay at home. It's a broad brush law, it cannot be any other way.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The idea is that people STAY AT HOME, shopping is an essential function, two people do not need to enter a supermarket to shop. That halves the risk, or if you want it in plain English, two people double the risk, it is unnecessary, ie one person is making a non essential journey.

The number of shopping visits should be minimised, individually and nationally.

Also two people going in together makes the bl--dy Q's outside longer as most admit one as one comes out.  Although a couple went in, they may not come out together, one comes out with the grub while the other bug---s about taking ages chucking dosh down the drain buying lottery tickets at the baccy counter, holding me up from buying my baccy!! :) But the worst is folk standing static gassing in an isle usually right where you need to get at a product, likewise someone standing right in the fairway playing smart phones.        The animals went in two by two hurrah hurrah.

Edited by bizzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are quite right. If the numbers in a shop are limited for the benefit of all, then every time a couple goes in that is one unnecessary body taking up space needed by another person. 

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am not convinced that one person from a couple doing the shopping will necessarily reduce the risk much.   The thinking being if one person of the couple has the disease the other almost certainly will as well.   Therefore the slight risk will be a small increase of virus in the air.

 

I would agree shopping and indeed all non essential movements should be reduced.

 

For somebody to become infected with it, somebody else has to transmit it. The numbers of both need to come down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Try the maths, two people breath out twice as much virus laden breaths, and touch twice as many surfaces. The point is that journeys should only be made if they are essential. One person is making an essential journey, the other is not. Everyone can easily justify every journey, the point is that the government have repeated that the requirement is for people to stay at home. It's a broad brush law, it cannot be any other way.

I don't know about the supermarkets you visit but the 3 we have in town are huge.  Viral load is important but the extra body even pre pandemic from a single person would not increase the aerosols in the air much.   Now the numbers in there will be hugely reduced, or are round here.

 

Time spent in café, small shop, pub etc will be much more of a risk.   Yes I know most of those aren't allowed at the moment but small shops are.   I think the "supermarket effect" is over stressed.   As far as I have found there is no evidence they are more of a risk than say a smaller shop with only a steady stream of single shoppers in and out.

15 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

You are quite right. If the numbers in a shop are limited for the benefit of all, then every time a couple goes in that is one unnecessary body taking up space needed by another person. 

 

For somebody to become infected with it, somebody else has to transmit it. The numbers of both need to come down!

This is of course true but if you look at some of the analysed cases of infection it is where people have remained static in comparatively small volumes of air for longish periods.   The supermarkets I know have very high ceilings and are very large the viral load will be less than a small shop with a steady stream of single shoppers in and out.

 

I agree shopping trips need to be reduced across the board but I don't see that as a reason why a couple need to leave one on their own while the other shops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, restlessnomad said:

yes that too(but wont push my luck, who knows what underlying disease I got).. I get it why some are paranoid though, if I was in high risk group, I will not go outside at all and will get everything delivered.

You would soon find, well after six months, that it is better to have that hours exercise, not having any outdoor experiences is a bit of a nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've just defrosted a pint of full fat milk that had been in the freezer for about four months and it was fine (mrs dor made panna cotta and pancakes).  Since I have got used to black coffee we don't keep fresh milk in the fridge at all, but have frozen some milk in an ice tray.  The cubes are kept in the freezer in a bag and gets used for coffee etc if someone wants a white coffee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jerra said:

I don't know about the supermarkets you visit but the 3 we have in town are huge.  Viral load is important but the extra body even pre pandemic from a single person would not increase the aerosols in the air much.   Now the numbers in there will be hugely reduced, or are round here.

 

Time spent in café, small shop, pub etc will be much more of a risk.   Yes I know most of those aren't allowed at the moment but small shops are.   I think the "supermarket effect" is over stressed.   As far as I have found there is no evidence they are more of a risk than say a smaller shop with only a steady stream of single shoppers in and out.

This is of course true but if you look at some of the analysed cases of infection it is where people have remained static in comparatively small volumes of air for longish periods.   The supermarkets I know have very high ceilings and are very large the viral load will be less than a small shop with a steady stream of single shoppers in and out.

 

I agree shopping trips need to be reduced across the board but I don't see that as a reason why a couple need to leave one on their own while the other shops.

You are not prepared to be persuaded by scientific argument above, ie two people are exhaling twice as many aerosols , which contain twice as many virus particles.

You think big sheds will dilute the aerosols, but really  you don't want to alter your behaviours because you think it won't make any difference.

There are a lot of people who ignore the science based advice because they think it does not matter. That is why the disease is spreading, and until individuals change their behaviours we all have to suffer lockdown. This is not a normal situation where if you act selfishly eg leaving a battery in a canal, panic buying of toilet paper, sending re-cycleable wastes to landfill, exporting contaminated wastes to third world countries, it won't makes any difference to you as an individual, it is others who suffer, but you are not affected.

Supermarkets are not designed for forced ventilation, unlike animal housing. The forced ventilation of animal housing requires them to be designed especially. Forced ventilation, big fans, big ducts, is used to remove contaminated aerosols and has to be replaced by clean air via large intake vents.  The mass of animals and the air exchange rate is calculated. Many farm animals would die of pneumonia (a respiratory disease) if they were herded together in to a building designed like a supermarket shed.

I don't know if you've noticed, but cafe's, pubs, and most shops are now closed, this is to stop people congregating, mixing, leaving their home. Essential shopping is for food and pharmacy, these shopping locations are disease transmission hubs.

When you next have a surgical operation, would you expect the surgeon operate on you without a mask and gloves? Should he invite his wife into the operating theatre, would you be happy if he decided to operate on the next patient with the same mask and gown on the basis that he 'thought' it would be unlikely that patient to patient disease transmission would occur?

 

Edited by LadyG
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LadyG said:

You are not prepared to be persuaded by scientific argument above, ie two people are exhaling twice as many aerosols , which contain twice as many virus particles.

You think big sheds will dilutete the aerosols, but really  you don't want to alter your behaviours because you think it won't make any difference.

There are a lot of people who ignore the science based advice because they think it does not matter. That is why the disease is spreading, and until individuals change their behaviours we all have to suffer lockdown. This is not a normal situation where if you act selfishly eg leaving a battery in a canal, panic buying of toilet paper, sending re-cycleable wastes to landfill, exporting contaminated wastes to third world countries, it won't makes any difference to you as an individual, it is others who suffer, but you are not affected.

Supermarkets are not designed for forced ventilation, unlike animal housing. The forced ventilation of animal housing requires them to be designed especially. Forced ventilation, big fans, big ducts, is used to remove contaminated aerosols and has to be replaced by clean air via large intake vents.  The mass of animals and the air exchange rate is calculated. Many farm animals would die of pneumonia (a respiratory disease) if they were herded together in to a building designed like a supermarket shed.

 

We have both had the virus, been tested and found to have antibodies, and now even had a jab. We shop together in a supermarket which opens at 0700 hrs. We each have an individual shopping list, our own trolley, and with our own cards can even check out separately. This means means we are only in there roughly half as long as one of us would be, and other couples may be have a similar modus operandi.

 

It was beginning to get busier as more people started shopping early and were bringing their children with them, but the latest lockdown may (hopefully - to be selfish) have changed that. None of the children were behaving badly but they did significantly slow things down.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.