COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[basti313]

I have already mentioned a report by a person who works in Japan, developed a flu-like symptoms and was not tested for the coronavirus. By now she developed symptoms which are consistent with COVID-19. Her doctor tried to arrange for a virus test, and it turned out that each test has to be approved by the higher ups in Tokyo. At the end the person was refused the test.

Mostly tests get not approved in Germany as well.You need to name the infected contact person, otherwise you will not get tested with symptoms.
The other way around is interesting: German doctors started to do more precise Influenza tests in this case and they very often show up positive on simple Influenza A. On the other hand the oversensitive COVID-19 test would have produced 50% wrong positive cases...

[RZS10]

I've read also that no every country count the dead the same way

That's why Germany seems to be so low, counting dead only if Covid is primary cause of death

That's not true ... in the RKI press conference from the 20th Lothar Wieler (RKI president) was asked who counted towards the corona death toll...

"Bei uns gilt jemand als Corona-Todesfall, bei dem eine Corona-Infektion nachgewiesen wurde."

"A corona death is anyone who had a verified corona infection"

The bavarian broadcaster (BR) asked for additional clarification and they count both "died from" (directly from the viral infection) and "died with" (patient had previous illnesses, it's not clear what the actual cause of death was) as corona death cases. They also count those who were tested post mortem when there's strong suspicion of a possible infection.

In the same press conference he also said that 160000 tests are being done per week, just to slap an actual number on "Germany tests a lot" ...

[Raleigh]

Got an old school mate who ended up as a department manager in one of the big retail chains and what he says is that the supply chain only works fast enough to keep up with predicted sales, no more and no less.

All the supermarkets run on the minimum number of staff and minimum backstock levels possible to keep up predicted sales, they spend a lot of time calculating exactly how bare-bones they can cut the staffing and supply levels to meet those targets because profit margins are slim.

Which means that if demand jumps 50% or 100% then shelves empty almost immediately because there is no spare capacity.

According to him the limits make no difference (can't buy 10x one brand pasta? People buy 3x one brand, 3x another, they end up buying the same number and clear the shelves anyway) and are just a PR move to show supermarkets are doing something to fight the shortages.

Even if those limits had been introduced right away the shelves would still be empty because none of those supermakets had the spare capacity to keep up with the unexpected and massive spike in demand.

oh interesting, still it's logistics isn't it. They just had to ramp deliveries up a bit more at the start, stop people piling up multiple trolleys with whole huge packs of everything, being filmed, and it'd never have kicked off. Panic buying is something that feeds on itself, so if you can stop it starting you can stop it starting. One empty shelf goes viral and kerboom!

And supermarkets have been saying they actually have plenty of everything available, they could've reacted much sooner, but obviously they loved the idea of massive sales, until now gradually the PR has gone the other way

There's no major shortage of stock, it's just sitting in depos without enough deliveries to the stores. And even when deliveries catch up to demand there aren't enough staff to put that stock out. Or they put the essentials out and the rest of the store is rapidly decimated, leading to empty shelves everywhere and encouraging panic.

Really the only thing supermarkets could have done to avoid these shortages is to have predicted the panic buying and dramatically increased both supply and staffing rates before the panic kicked off. Which of course carries the risk of losing a lot of money if the timing isn't exactly right.

I don't think supermarkets will make much profit over the panic buying, anything gained in the initial sales rush will be lost when shelves are empty the next week, simply a case where being reactive carries less risk than trying to predict a potential shortage and panic buying.

And as said the limits are mostly a PR move without real effect (even if they had been started right away), they don't change the overall amount customers buy if determined to stock up on essentials.

[Big Tea]

Got an old school mate who ended up as a department manager in one of the big retail chains and what he says is that the supply chain only works fast enough to keep up with predicted sales, no more and no less.

All the supermarkets run on the minimum number of staff and minimum backstock levels possible to keep up predicted sales, they spend a lot of time calculating exactly how bare-bones they can cut the staffing and supply levels to meet those targets because profit margins are slim.

Which means that if demand jumps 50% or 100% then shelves empty almost immediately because there is no spare capacity.

According to him the limits make no difference (can't buy 10x one brand pasta? People buy 3x one brand, 3x another, they end up buying the same number and clear the shelves anyway) and are just a PR move to show supermarkets are doing something to fight the shortages.

Even if those limits had been introduced right away the shelves would still be empty because none of those supermakets had the spare capacity to keep up with the unexpected and massive spike in demand.

oh interesting, still it's logistics isn't it. They just had to ramp deliveries up a bit more at the start, stop people piling up multiple trolleys with whole huge packs of everything, being filmed, and it'd never have kicked off. Panic buying is something that feeds on itself, so if you can stop it starting you can stop it starting. One empty shelf goes viral and kerboom!

And supermarkets have been saying they actually have plenty of everything available, they could've reacted much sooner, but obviously they loved the idea of massive sales, until now gradually the PR has gone the other way

There's no major shortage of stock, it's just sitting in depos without enough deliveries to the stores. And even when deliveries catch up to demand there aren't enough staff to put that stock out. Or they put the essentials out and the rest of the store is rapidly decimated, leading to empty shelves everywhere and encouraging panic.

Really the only thing supermarkets could have done to avoid these shortages is to have predicted the panic buying and dramatically increased both supply and staffing rates before the panic kicked off. Which of course carries the risk of losing a lot of money if the timing isn't exactly right.

I don't think supermarkets will make much profit over the panic buying, anything gained in the initial sales rush will be lost when shelves are empty the next week, simply a case where being reactive carries less risk than trying to predict a potential shortage and panic buying.

And as said the limits are mostly a PR move without real effect (even if they had been started right away), they don't change the overall amount customers buy if determined to stock up on essentials.

The annoying part is people grab toilet paper and it is not a big thing if you get hit, and the shelves are still full of bleach, which is one of the few things that kill it.

[timbo]

I have already mentioned a report by a person who works in Japan, developed a flu-like symptoms and was not tested for the coronavirus. By now she developed symptoms which are consistent with COVID-19. Her doctor tried to arrange for a virus test, and it turned out that each test has to be approved by the higher ups in Tokyo. At the end the person was refused the test.

Mostly tests get not approved in Germany as well.You need to name the infected contact person, otherwise you will not get tested with symptoms.
The other way around is interesting: German doctors started to do more precise Influenza tests in this case and they very often show up positive on simple Influenza A. On the other hand the oversensitive COVID-19 test would have produced 50% wrong positive cases...

Yes, false positives are the problem. In the case I mentioned though, Influenza tested negative.
But what I mean, in the big picture the testing strategy confuses the data greatly.

[izzy]

What supermarkets in UK do not have is delivery slots. Cannot get one for the whole upcoming month

yes same here! 3 weeks, so some queue dodging required here as @DChemTech said

[izzy]

There's no major shortage of stock, it's just sitting in depos without enough deliveries to the stores. And even when deliveries catch up to demand there aren't enough staff to put that stock out. Or they put the essentials out and the rest of the store is rapidly decimated, leading to empty shelves everywhere and encouraging panic.

Really the only thing supermarkets could have done to avoid these shortages is to have predicted the panic buying and dramatically increased both supply and staffing rates before the panic kicked off. Which of course carries the risk of losing a lot of money if the timing isn't exactly right.

I don't think supermarkets will make much profit over the panic buying, anything gained in the initial sales rush will be lost when shelves are empty the next week, simply a case where being reactive carries less risk than trying to predict a potential shortage and panic buying.

And as said the limits are mostly a PR move without real effect (even if they had been started right away), they don't change the overall amount customers buy if determined to stock up on essentials.

there wouldn't be so much panic buying if supermarkets had just made an effort in the beginning. A few extra deliveries, and limits are very easy! Two loo roll packets, how is anyone going to hide more? everything has to be checked out, packet by packet, all coded, it's the easiest system imaginable to apply a limit. Your friend is a loyal employee i think

i suppose they didn't want to set limits in case everyone went to another supermarket instead, or perhaps they weren't thinking very far ahead. And there'll be a lot of wastage

[DChemTech]

There's no major shortage of stock, it's just sitting in depos without enough deliveries to the stores. And even when deliveries catch up to demand there aren't enough staff to put that stock out. Or they put the essentials out and the rest of the store is rapidly decimated, leading to empty shelves everywhere and encouraging panic.

Really the only thing supermarkets could have done to avoid these shortages is to have predicted the panic buying and dramatically increased both supply and staffing rates before the panic kicked off. Which of course carries the risk of losing a lot of money if the timing isn't exactly right.

I don't think supermarkets will make much profit over the panic buying, anything gained in the initial sales rush will be lost when shelves are empty the next week, simply a case where being reactive carries less risk than trying to predict a potential shortage and panic buying.

And as said the limits are mostly a PR move without real effect (even if they had been started right away), they don't change the overall amount customers buy if determined to stock up on essentials.

there wouldn't be so much panic buying if supermarkets had just made an effort in the beginning. A few extra deliveries, and limits are very easy! Two loo roll packets, how is anyone going to hide more? everything has to be checked out, packet by packet, all coded, it's the easiest system imaginable to apply a limit. Your friend is a loyal employee i think

i suppose they didn't want to set limits in case everyone went to another supermarket instead, or perhaps they weren't thinking very far ahead. And there'll be a lot of wastage

Why would anyone need more. Even for the greatest shitshow on earth, two packs should be plenty.
It really shows how poor the general public's sense of proportion is...

[izzy]

Why would anyone need more. Even for the greatest shitshow on earth, two packs should be plenty.
It really shows how poor the general public's sense of proportion is...

yes exactly. it's the kind of thing that one image can set it all off. Someone in Oz is suggesting it started in Singapore or somewhere, then it spreads t across the world with each sunrise. They just needed someone to step in when this kind of insanity appeared at the checkout

[GTO99]

Setting limits to quantities / pkgs does not work. People simply bypass that by buying the limit, then dropping it off in their vehicle and then coming back into the store however many times as they need.

A term has emerged for those misbehaving during COVID-19 pandemic...eg. people hoarding tp, food & essentials, fighting in stores, students partying on spring break, people gathering in pubs for happy hour...etc...can be referred to as a COVIDIOT.

[Just_a_fan]

Well, the UK is now in a lock down although it's not a full one and there is some ambiguity about who can go to work etc. What is "essential" work? Not defined by the Govt so far.

Police to be allowed to break up groups. That's going to be interesting if groups of idiots get together and then refuse to disperse. That's going need more than one or two police officers to sort out.

[izzy]

Setting limits to quantities / pkgs does not work. People simply bypass that by buying the limit, then dropping it off in their vehicle and then coming back into the store however many times as they need.

it works to have limits, just not in an absolute way. That trolley in the photo has at least 36 loo rolls in it and the limit now is two, that's 18 trips through the store. At 10 minutes each that's 3 hours!! Not many people are quite that insane, just a few which is survivable

AND once people know there are in fact limits, they won't feel they have to panic buy in the first place, as it won't be such a desperate race to not run out before the locusts clear out the shelves. Panic buying is really a circular thing

[izzy]

Well, the UK is now in a lock down although it's not a full one and there is some ambiguity about who can go to work etc. What is "essential" work? Not defined by the Govt so far.

Police to be allowed to break up groups. That's going to be interesting if groups of idiots get together and then refuse to disperse. That's going need more than one or two police officers to sort out.

god it's really severe isn't it:

all shops apart from food stores and chemists must close immediately, meeting friends will be banned - and just one form of exercise a day will be allowed.
Mr Johnson declared: "From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home.

for at least 3 weeks

[mmred]

Here in italy it s been two days since the Number of deaths and contagion has slowed down. Quarantine works. But it will be a long spring. Also to eradicate properly the virus other than the vaccine they should start to isolate and identify the asymptomatic carriers...

[Restomaniac]

Here in italy it s been two days since the Number of deaths and contagion has slowed down. Quarantine works. But it will be a long spring. Also to eradicate properly the virus othrr than the vaccine they should start to isolate and identify the asymptotic carriers...

Added to this is that everyone keeps mentioning a second rise after lockdowns are released. The world isn’t returning to normal for at least a year IMHO.