I’ve not been let down by Tesco at all throughout all the crisis, I get my delivery on a Tuesday then go on site at midnight to book the next one for a month ahead. Tesco are the only one who will deliver to us and they’ve only done that for about two years.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
I shall be carrying on pretty much as I have since the first lockdown. Shopping for myself and my Mum 3 times a week at the local supermarket where my son also works. Have no transport so will walk as per usual. The only difference this time is the supermarket is already up and running with all precautions and I won't have to wait outside for 40 minutes like I did at Easter!
“Every day is ordinary, until it isn't.” - Bernard Cornwell-Death of Kings
Ooh, watch out for booking the Sainsbury's slots for Christmas delivery - ours open for booking on the 22nd Nov (fortuitously I was booking another delivery and only saw this today). Is it bad that I've put a reminder in my calendar...?
Plus, I noticed that Sainsbury's are now giving away the secrets of booking a Christmas delivery slot...book it as early as possible, chuck a load of stuff in the basket to get it over the delivery amount, then amend it much closer to the time. My tried and tested approach has been to book it as soon as the slots opened (midnight or thereabouts), add a couple of bottles of gin to get over the £40 mark, and check out. Then once it's actually closer to Christmas, you can change it to add in the stuff you actually want.
It's worked for me for a few years, and for the friends and family I let in on the plan. Although one set forgot to amend it and just ended up with two bottles of gin.
What's all this talk about Xmas shopping? Xmas won't be happening in 2020, it will be postponed to July or August 2021, according to a proposal by Frédérique Jacobs.
"To slow down the curve, we have to imagine different holidays,"
Frédérique Jacobs, the head of the infectious-diseases department at the
Erasme hospital in Brussels, told the Belgian broadcaster RTBF on
Monday. "Or even postponing those end-of-the-year and Christmas parties to July or August when it is sunny," she said.
And yet daily I have to be on board public transport with selfish tossers not bothering to wear any face coverings as the bare minimum. It's all fine to rationalise the relative dangers but it's probably done from the safety of your home without the need to commute with a bunch of morons who don't give a toss about anybody else.
There's no "rationalization", as I'm not attempting to justify any behavior. I'm presenting facts, which apply to you just as much as they apply to me, whether I'm "in the safety of my own home" or on the bus with you.
The fact is that for the lower risk groups (broadly, for ease, let's say healthy and under 60), this virus does not represent an existential, or even significant, threat. The virus will not disappear any time soon (ever), the current way of life is unsustainable, and the simple fact is that we must get on with things without overreacting to an incorrectly assessed risk. You'll note that all of the "worst case scenario" graphs show a tail off in infections after several months. Unfortunately this is where we have to get to, and the only way is through the hard part. The peaks shown are likely to be significant over estimates, there's a significant divergence between them, so let's leave that and accept that all models allow for a tail off of infections once the peak has passed - but only if that peak is allowed to occur in a compressed period, to account for impact of waning immunity.
(It's also a fact that the "face coverings" rule has little real-world efficacy, so I wouldn't worry too much about your bus journey increasing your overall risk of serious harm. If you're in the higher risk groups, or have other measured concerns, you should change your approach. We can only be responsible for our own behavior).
Unfortunately the least at risk from the virus are the ones negatively more impacted by the control measures. Lock downs unfortunately do not and cannot achieve their goals.
Pandemics have been a feature of life on this planet throughout history. This one is no different. The difference is that we now have enough technology to give us insight, and not enough technology to do much about it. We also have a society and political class that now demands action, any action, in response to any event regardless of whether that action is merited.
Isn't this all just a 'pot' issue? We have a health care 'pot' of resource. All reported illnesses in some way affect that 'pot'. Covid is just one illness - but - its rapid spread and hence its use of the 'pot' causes the issue. Although younger people aren't generally so susceptible to the worst aspects of Covid - they are still being hospitalised and using up the 'pot' (18-64 year olds were circa 50% of hospitalisations as per https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England ).
Isn't then the lockdown reaction justified if it stops or slows down the rate of Covid admissions that stops other illnesses getting their fair share of the 'pot'? Is it the threat/risk to the <60's that's the issue or the amount of resource used up?
Posts
Tesco are the only one who will deliver to us and they’ve only done that for about two years.
Shopping for myself and my Mum 3 times a week at the local supermarket where my son also works.
Have no transport so will walk as per usual.
The only difference this time is the supermarket is already up and running with all precautions and I won't have to wait outside for 40 minutes like I did at Easter!
It's worked for me for a few years, and for the friends and family I let in on the plan. Although one set forgot to amend it and just ended up with two bottles of gin.
There's no "rationalization", as I'm not attempting to justify any behavior. I'm presenting facts, which apply to you just as much as they apply to me, whether I'm "in the safety of my own home" or on the bus with you.
The fact is that for the lower risk groups (broadly, for ease, let's say healthy and under 60), this virus does not represent an existential, or even significant, threat. The virus will not disappear any time soon (ever), the current way of life is unsustainable, and the simple fact is that we must get on with things without overreacting to an incorrectly assessed risk. You'll note that all of the "worst case scenario" graphs show a tail off in infections after several months. Unfortunately this is where we have to get to, and the only way is through the hard part. The peaks shown are likely to be significant over estimates, there's a significant divergence between them, so let's leave that and accept that all models allow for a tail off of infections once the peak has passed - but only if that peak is allowed to occur in a compressed period, to account for impact of waning immunity.
(It's also a fact that the "face coverings" rule has little real-world efficacy, so I wouldn't worry too much about your bus journey increasing your overall risk of serious harm. If you're in the higher risk groups, or have other measured concerns, you should change your approach. We can only be responsible for our own behavior).
Unfortunately the least at risk from the virus are the ones negatively more impacted by the control measures. Lock downs unfortunately do not and cannot achieve their goals.
Pandemics have been a feature of life on this planet throughout history. This one is no different. The difference is that we now have enough technology to give us insight, and not enough technology to do much about it. We also have a society and political class that now demands action, any action, in response to any event regardless of whether that action is merited.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.