Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Just wanted to put out there that This Week in Virology said this British mutation is NOT a new strain, just a normal mutation. And there is no evidence that it is more virulent or infectious. It is just as likely that it's a coincidence that it popped up at the same time that people's behaviors led to spikes, or that one person who got the new mutation early proceeded to go to a crowded bar or an indoor crowded church service, and boom it looks like it's the mutation's fault.
Just wanted to update - They discussed this again now that they've been able to carefully read through the full report. They still sound doubtful the variant is more transmissable, but said the data warrants further study to determine if this variant is more transmissable, what change makes it so. But they reiterated that the panic is unwarranted because nothing about how to protect yourself, how to prevent infection, or how to treat an infection would change. All the things you should have been doing, you still should be doing. Wear a mask, physical distance, avoid crowds, especially indoors, and get vaccinated when it's available.7 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though5 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
I agree with all of this (and with @Lokihen's point about fewer people wandering the store). The point is, all of this is pretty complicated, IMO, if one thinks through all of the risks. We need to factor our own situations as best we can, and IMO give a little grace to others' decisions (even if different from ours . . . at least as long as we're not talking blatantly and unnecessarily risky behavior that increases risk for others).
An earlier post a few pages back seemed to suggest that someone was not being protective enough of their own family if they went into stores instead of getting delivery, and that delivery was safe for workers because it was contactless. I think that's UNDERthinking this.
Other than the extremes of behavior based on science denialism being IMO completely beyond the pale, these are not easy decisions, and there's not much room to say that any one set of actions is abstractly, universally correct. Can a given course be the best one can do under the circumstances? Sure. Is it moral high ground, from which to take shots at others (especially based on limited info)? Nope.
JMO, as always.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
I was responding to this line in particular from Gale's post: " She mentioned most cases of death she knew about first hand were actually following the "rules" and still died."
And thank you, I also am not comfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it was being irresponsible and that wasn't at all what I was intending to say.
I'm more in the camp that there is a sliding scale of risk. There are people doing everything or almost everything possible, there are people who are doing a very good job based on current knowledge, there are people who are doing some stuff right, and there are people who are fighting tooth and nail against any kind of mitigation. The unfortunate thing about this whole situation is that while people who don't want to do anything are usually pretty easy to spot, the middle two camps can be less clear and we don't always know if the people in our lives are really exercising as many precautions as they could. So if I break my ankle and I have to go to urgent care, who else is in the waiting room with me? If I assume it's okay to see my nieces and nephews because I think their family is being careful (FYI, I am not seeing them), what if my sister-in-law really thinks that neighborhood playdates are no big deal because nobody is coughing at the time?
It feels in many ways like we're all half blind-folded as we work our way through this. We're really at the mercy of the least careful people that we encounter which is why I don't want to blame anyone who gets this. They may have made the exact same decisions as me, but been in the unlucky circumstance that I missed.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
This (the bolded) is, IMO, a common feature of human behavior. When something bad happens to someone, it's common to search, possibly subconsciously, for reasons it can't or won't happen to us: Things they did, risks they took, characteristics they had, that aren't true of us. It's a way of psychologically keeping risk at arm's length. Some personality types are, I think, more inclined to this (or to making it explicit) than others.
I've said this here before, but I'll risk li'l ol' lady style repetion: When I was going through cancer treatment, there were people who would virtually cross-examine me about my lifestyle, habits, environmental chemical exposures, genetic background, trying to understand how such a thing could happen to poor, poor me. 🙄 Usually, at some point, their starting level of tension in the conversation would reduce, and the cross-examination would wind down. After a few repetitions of this, I came to believe that they were mentally accumulating reasons I got cancer, that wouldn't apply to them, so they couldn't possibly have it happen to them. It's like some kind of weird cognitive talisman.
I feel like this kind of protective thinking is almost inevitable in humans and the best thing we can do is be aware of it, try our best to intellectually understand that it is a form of magical thinking, and then make darn sure we aren't inflicting it on people in our lives through our questions/conversations when they're going through things like cancer or economic problems or relationship issues.8 -
paperpudding wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Attention Australians - this video on the Coronavirus Meme thread is a Must Watch
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45590200/#Comment_45590200
That was great, thanks!
While I was over at Coronavirus Memes, I also saw this, which so hit home:
My family and I were watching a baking show made pre-pandemic last week and watched in disgust and horror as contestants blew glitter all over their cakes. With their mouths. We never would have even thought about that a year ago...
I'm hoping this will put an end to the restaurant practice of serving a single dessert with two utensils, because somehow there is a presumption that no one ever eats a whole dessert portion.
Pre-pandemic I regularly dined out with a good friend who does not like sweets, never orders dessert, and is not someone I normally swap spit with. I almost always eat dessert. We used to laugh about the two fork thing.
My husband and I split dessert sometimes. Given that pie a la mode in some restaurants can have 800 or more calories, it's a nice way to get a treat without going overboard. I probably wouldn't do it with a casual friend though.7 -
Merry Christmas to you too SA.5
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
This (the bolded) is, IMO, a common feature of human behavior. When something bad happens to someone, it's common to search, possibly subconsciously, for reasons it can't or won't happen to us: Things they did, risks they took, characteristics they had, that aren't true of us. It's a way of psychologically keeping risk at arm's length. Some personality types are, I think, more inclined to this (or to making it explicit) than others.
I've said this here before, but I'll risk li'l ol' lady style repetion: When I was going through cancer treatment, there were people who would virtually cross-examine me about my lifestyle, habits, environmental chemical exposures, genetic background, trying to understand how such a thing could happen to poor, poor me. 🙄 Usually, at some point, their starting level of tension in the conversation would reduce, and the cross-examination would wind down. After a few repetitions of this, I came to believe that they were mentally accumulating reasons I got cancer, that wouldn't apply to them, so they couldn't possibly have it happen to them. It's like some kind of weird cognitive talisman.
I think that those of us in the Safe Zones (Aus, NZ, other places) need to remember that we are incredibly fortunate that our countries got on top of this quickly, and have managed to stamp out further outbreaks quickly as well. The rest of the world, we can go back and forth forever on how things might have been different if, if, if...but it isn't. And the virus is utterly out of control in many places, and all it takes is one tiny slip up. It can happen to even the most vigilant person.
So, let's remember that we are bloody lucky to be able to enjoy our Christmas Day with relative freedom (sorry, not you, Sydney) and be a bit kinder to those who don't get to have that this year.
Mere Kirihimete from New Zealand, everyone.15 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
UK here, two of my sons work in retail, and both would prefer if customers were only allowed to have collections or deliveries. Then they would only have to mix with their colleagues who would respect each other’s space unlike some customers. It’s probably not financially viable for the companies they work for but it would make their jobs easier and safer.12 -
Who would have ever guessed we would be having conversations on the safety of grocery shopping? What a weird world...
I did do grocery delivery for the first time. It was effective enough to get us through, but weird for me. I am bit particular about some of our staples (produce especially) so I didn’t order as many fresh veggies as I would have purchased normally. I do 95% of my shopping at Aldi, and normally stuff is decent, but some times bananas are so green they never turn, or so ripe they will never get eaten... lettuce/salads might be wilted or brown, cauliflower has spots already, slimy cilantro, wet mushrooms (which spoil much faster), etc. Also, I ordered two whole chickens in hopes of a couple meals out of each (ideally roasted, then bone broth and extra bits for a second meal of soup). For our family of 6, including two that out eat us, I would have chosen the largest chickens available. The ones she picked up for us were tiny (half the size/price of what I ordered) it will probably take both to make a meal as I had originally intended to use them. I can change it up, I am used to being creative in the kitchen after never living near enough to a grocery store to just run out and grab something, but still a bit disappointing since I know I can’t just go back next week. Maybe it’s all they had? Maybe not? She also bagged them with the apples which weirded me out, I always keep raw meat separate/by itself.10 -
I tried the local grocery store's curbside a couple times and was disappointed both in the produce selected and the substitutions. If I order a quart and only a pint is available, I'm not going to be happy when the pint costs as much as a quart. I wasn't surprised to got milk that expired in three days; the store has a bad reputation there.
On the other hand, I don't even like shopping at Walmart, but they've outdone themselves on filling my orders. I've never seen such large, perfect pineapples before.5 -
I tried the local grocery store's curbside a couple times and was disappointed both in the produce selected and the substitutions. If I order a quart and only a pint is available, I'm not going to be happy when the pint costs as much as a quart. I wasn't surprised to got milk that expired in three days; the store has a bad reputation there.
On the other hand, I don't even like shopping at Walmart, but they've outdone themselves on filling my orders. I've never seen such large, perfect pineapples before.
6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I also get a ton of disagrees and don't even pay attention to them. Not everyone will like everything I post.
Something a bit different... dating in the pandemic. I've been single for a very long time and I have some deal-breakers that are not exactly easy to find, especially in the places I've lived. Surprisingly, I found someone recently who checks all of those boxes and is a perfect match on paper. So it was worth getting to know her. We have chatted much more electronically, but met once so far. I had suggested a walk outside (lower risk, right). I wore a mask when we first met, and she asked if I wanted her to wear one. I said I wasn't worried about it as long as we kept moving and I pulled mine down for most of the time also. Yes, it is a bit risky, but we have both been careful otherwise and we are moving along rather than staying in the same airspace. Even if one of us is infected without symptoms, I see it as relatively low risk.
Our next meeting / date / whatever you want to call it (it's complicated because I am likely moving for work soon, so we are just calling ourselves friends for now) - is planned for Sat. We are going hiking. I had suggested hiking for our first, but she didn't want to do that because how would she know if I was a serial killer or something? So she wanted to meet and then stay in a populated area (with cell coverage) so she could text her friend that she's still alive.
Anyhow, I've convinced her I'm not a serial killer - she is very trusting, I guess. So we are going hiking on Sat. at a state park that is past where she lives. So I'll plan to pick her up and then continue on to the park with her. I'm not worried about masks outside, especially if we keep moving because the air is constantly getting replaced by different air and any viral load should be small, if any. However, I'm going to ask her to wear a mask in the car and I'll do the same while she is with me. I am sure she will be alright with that and seems like a practical safe measure to take. Some may say I'm taking too much risk and should exclusively chat electronically. I'm taking reasonable precautions even if not taking every precaution that is possible to be taken. It's a balance of sorts. If you don't like that, go ahead and disagree. If you have better ideas of what I should do differently (besides not seeing her in person at all), I'm open to those ideas. Obviously I'll have hand sanitizer as well.
This is the best news. Have a great time. You deserve it. I have been with my husband since I was a teenager and today my grandson told me how much he loves me tons of times. Nasty people.. we just ignore them. Sad people get what they deserve. Not sad. Bye. You are doing it all perfectly I think. So happy for you.4 -
I won't do grocery delivery or pick up unless forced to. I did 2 deliveries earlier in all of this. They messed them both up. I had chosen specific items if a substitution had to be made or selected no substitution. I have food allergies and restrictions. They just did not seem to pay attention to what I had on the order. Multiple items I could not eat unless I wanted to get sick. Horrible produce quality. It was just bad experiences.
So now grocery shopping is pretty much the only thing I go out for. I go to Aldi and Fresh Thyme first thing in the morning so I miss the crowds. I wear my mask. I keep my distance. I get in and out.
It's also good for my mental health to at least have that.14 -
I do grocery shopping for myself and an elderly friend. I limit it to once every other week IF possible and I go in morning or early afternoon and quick in and out, ONLY a store that I am familiar with so I know where each item is on the shelves. In GA- we still have so many who will not wear a mask or even social distance even when it is marked on the floor of the store
so I just do my BEST to get in- get out - quick quick quick!!!6 -
I also grocery shop for myself. I like to select my own food items. For example, I went to get some bottom round roast recently and selected the cuts with the most fat on them as that is what I'm preferring right now. All I eat is meat, which is something that is nice to pick out my own cuts from what's available - people who eat fruits and vegetables do the same thing.4
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I also get a ton of disagrees and don't even pay attention to them. Not everyone will like everything I post.
Something a bit different... dating in the pandemic. I've been single for a very long time and I have some deal-breakers that are not exactly easy to find, especially in the places I've lived. Surprisingly, I found someone recently who checks all of those boxes and is a perfect match on paper. So it was worth getting to know her. We have chatted much more electronically, but met once so far. I had suggested a walk outside (lower risk, right). I wore a mask when we first met, and she asked if I wanted her to wear one. I said I wasn't worried about it as long as we kept moving and I pulled mine down for most of the time also. Yes, it is a bit risky, but we have both been careful otherwise and we are moving along rather than staying in the same airspace. Even if one of us is infected without symptoms, I see it as relatively low risk.
Our next meeting / date / whatever you want to call it (it's complicated because I am likely moving for work soon, so we are just calling ourselves friends for now) - is planned for Sat. We are going hiking. I had suggested hiking for our first, but she didn't want to do that because how would she know if I was a serial killer or something? So she wanted to meet and then stay in a populated area (with cell coverage) so she could text her friend that she's still alive.
Anyhow, I've convinced her I'm not a serial killer - she is very trusting, I guess. So we are going hiking on Sat. at a state park that is past where she lives. So I'll plan to pick her up and then continue on to the park with her. I'm not worried about masks outside, especially if we keep moving because the air is constantly getting replaced by different air and any viral load should be small, if any. However, I'm going to ask her to wear a mask in the car and I'll do the same while she is with me. I am sure she will be alright with that and seems like a practical safe measure to take. Some may say I'm taking too much risk and should exclusively chat electronically. I'm taking reasonable precautions even if not taking every precaution that is possible to be taken. It's a balance of sorts. If you don't like that, go ahead and disagree. If you have better ideas of what I should do differently (besides not seeing her in person at all), I'm open to those ideas. Obviously I'll have hand sanitizer as well.
Since the day my work and my daughters' schools were shut down last March, my children and I take hikes at a local park with the dog pretty much every day. We've passed by, collectively, hundreds of people, masked and unmasked, as we've walked through the woods and past pavilions. Everyone gives each other space as they pass, and we don't ever congregate. If a group comes over to where we're standing, we move on. Knocking on wood, we've never had a problem.
I think being on a hike and getting outside outweighs the negligible risks; your observation about the small viral load is spot on in my experience. Every precaution you described sounds responsible, and I hope you have a great time! Good luck!10 -
@mockchoc,
I want to ask your forgiveness for being too harsh. While I do strongly disagree with what you said, I was pretty harsh myself.
I hope you are having a great and peaceful Christmas with your family!19 -
greyhoundwalker wrote: »Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
UK here, two of my sons work in retail, and both would prefer if customers were only allowed to have collections or deliveries. Then they would only have to mix with their colleagues who would respect each other’s space unlike some customers. It’s probably not financially viable for the companies they work for but it would make their jobs easier and safer.
I agree that this would be the safest. This would presume the workers were trained and practicing safety protocols. (I have a friend who works in non-grocery retail and most likely caught COVID from a coworker who turned up positive and had been only wearing a mask reluctantly, and then only when in the part of the store where customers could see her.)
But there are numerous drawbacks to delivery. As several people have mentioned and I have experienced myself, there can be problems with quality, expiration dates, and substitutions, etc.
I've checked out all of the delivery services near me. None are free (and I would not expect them to be.) I am fine with Whole Foods delivery costing a tip plus the Amazon Prime membership, as I have this for other things. The other delivery services inflate store prices and/or charge a delivery fee and/or you need a paid membership.
I can empathize with people unwilling or unable to pay these extra fees.9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »greyhoundwalker wrote: »Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
UK here, two of my sons work in retail, and both would prefer if customers were only allowed to have collections or deliveries. Then they would only have to mix with their colleagues who would respect each other’s space unlike some customers. It’s probably not financially viable for the companies they work for but it would make their jobs easier and safer.
I agree that this would be the safest. This would presume the workers were trained and practicing safety protocols. (I have a friend who works in non-grocery retail and most likely caught COVID from a coworker who turned up positive and had been only wearing a mask reluctantly, and then only when in the part of the store where customers could see her.)
But there are numerous drawbacks to delivery. As several people have mentioned and I have experienced myself, there can be problems with quality, expiration dates, and substitutions, etc.
I've checked out all of the delivery services near me. None are free (and I would not expect them to be.) I am fine with Whole Foods delivery costing a tip plus the Amazon Prime membership, as I have this for other things. The other delivery services inflate store prices and/or charge a delivery fee and/or you need a paid membership.
I can empathize with people unwilling or unable to pay these extra fees.
I would be more than happy with pickup (delivery not an option, rural, 12 miles from nearest grocery store) but, mainly for reasons you have stated, expiration dates, quality of meat and produce, I will continue to do my own shopping. I don’t know about other places, but here, grocery prices have gone up during covid. An example for items I buy weekly. Three pack of romaine lettuce was $2.99, now $5.99. Buddig meats were.59 cents. On sale you could get them for 5 for $2.00. Now .99 cents, and never on sale. If I have to pay more for groceries, and I am, I want the best quality available. I’ve always checked expiration dates, and examined produce and fresh meat before putting in my cart. Even pre-covid. I don’t want items that are near or even past expiration dates. The solution for me is doing my own shopping. A 25 mile round trip isn’t feasible for exchanging items because of these issues, it’s just the way it is🤷🏻♀️14 -
I tried to have Amazon Fresh delivered for Christmas dinner last week and my order was canceled with no explanation. So I winded up having to go outside shopping since all the delivery windows were filled and the items I wanted became out of stock.
So there are many reasons why someone can't utilize a grocery delivery service. 🤷♀️13 -
https://youtu.be/NmfLkEuyWdo
This is a doctor out of the UK that I have listened to some over the last nine months. He goes into why we in the USA are going to have a hard Jan-Feb case load because of our holiday travel plans plus he talks about the South Africa Covid-19 mutations.4 -
missysippy930 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »greyhoundwalker wrote: »Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
UK here, two of my sons work in retail, and both would prefer if customers were only allowed to have collections or deliveries. Then they would only have to mix with their colleagues who would respect each other’s space unlike some customers. It’s probably not financially viable for the companies they work for but it would make their jobs easier and safer.
I agree that this would be the safest. This would presume the workers were trained and practicing safety protocols. (I have a friend who works in non-grocery retail and most likely caught COVID from a coworker who turned up positive and had been only wearing a mask reluctantly, and then only when in the part of the store where customers could see her.)
But there are numerous drawbacks to delivery. As several people have mentioned and I have experienced myself, there can be problems with quality, expiration dates, and substitutions, etc.
I've checked out all of the delivery services near me. None are free (and I would not expect them to be.) I am fine with Whole Foods delivery costing a tip plus the Amazon Prime membership, as I have this for other things. The other delivery services inflate store prices and/or charge a delivery fee and/or you need a paid membership.
I can empathize with people unwilling or unable to pay these extra fees.
I would be more than happy with pickup (delivery not an option, rural, 12 miles from nearest grocery store) but, mainly for reasons you have stated, expiration dates, quality of meat and produce, I will continue to do my own shopping. I don’t know about other places, but here, grocery prices have gone up during covid. An example for items I buy weekly. Three pack of romaine lettuce was $2.99, now $5.99. Buddig meats were.59 cents. On sale you could get them for 5 for $2.00. Now .99 cents, and never on sale. If I have to pay more for groceries, and I am, I want the best quality available. I’ve always checked expiration dates, and examined produce and fresh meat before putting in my cart. Even pre-covid. I don’t want items that are near or even past expiration dates. The solution for me is doing my own shopping. A 25 mile round trip isn’t feasible for exchanging items because of these issues, it’s just the way it is🤷🏻♀️
I didn't notice price increases, but I did notice lack of sales for items for which I am very price sensitive, and wait for sales to stock up and freeze.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »greyhoundwalker wrote: »Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
UK here, two of my sons work in retail, and both would prefer if customers were only allowed to have collections or deliveries. Then they would only have to mix with their colleagues who would respect each other’s space unlike some customers. It’s probably not financially viable for the companies they work for but it would make their jobs easier and safer.
I agree that this would be the safest. This would presume the workers were trained and practicing safety protocols. (I have a friend who works in non-grocery retail and most likely caught COVID from a coworker who turned up positive and had been only wearing a mask reluctantly, and then only when in the part of the store where customers could see her.)
But there are numerous drawbacks to delivery. As several people have mentioned and I have experienced myself, there can be problems with quality, expiration dates, and substitutions, etc.
I've checked out all of the delivery services near me. None are free (and I would not expect them to be.) I am fine with Whole Foods delivery costing a tip plus the Amazon Prime membership, as I have this for other things. The other delivery services inflate store prices and/or charge a delivery fee and/or you need a paid membership.
I can empathize with people unwilling or unable to pay these extra fees.
I would be more than happy with pickup (delivery not an option, rural, 12 miles from nearest grocery store) but, mainly for reasons you have stated, expiration dates, quality of meat and produce, I will continue to do my own shopping. I don’t know about other places, but here, grocery prices have gone up during covid. An example for items I buy weekly. Three pack of romaine lettuce was $2.99, now $5.99. Buddig meats were.59 cents. On sale you could get them for 5 for $2.00. Now .99 cents, and never on sale. If I have to pay more for groceries, and I am, I want the best quality available. I’ve always checked expiration dates, and examined produce and fresh meat before putting in my cart. Even pre-covid. I don’t want items that are near or even past expiration dates. The solution for me is doing my own shopping. A 25 mile round trip isn’t feasible for exchanging items because of these issues, it’s just the way it is🤷🏻♀️
I didn't notice price increases, but I did notice lack of sales for items for which I am very price sensitive, and wait for sales to stock up and freeze.
If you request a refund they will just refund you without making you return. Especially if you use amazon delivery services. If there is any bad product or any sub you don't like, just request replacement and they let you keep it for full refund. There is usually always a few things every order I get refunded for. Not saying everyone should be doing delivery (I only do occasionally) but thought I’d let the people who are using them know you can get refunds so easily.1 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »I tried to have Amazon Fresh delivered for Christmas dinner last week and my order was canceled with no explanation. So I winded up having to go outside shopping since all the delivery windows were filled and the items I wanted became out of stock.
So there are many reasons why someone can't utilize a grocery delivery service. 🤷♀️
My pharmacy sent out an email asking us to use mail-order service for prescription refills, because ya know, Covid. I won't be doing that again. It was supposed to take 3-5 business days. It never came. I blamed it on slow mail service, but it wasn't the mail. It never made it to the mail. I called in a couple of times to check on the status and each time a robot voice told me it was still processing and then hung up on me.
I ordered early, so I had a little time to spare, but as the days went on I started to plot out how long I could go without while I waited. I ran out at the weekend, went the pharmacy was closed. After a couple of days without my asthma meds, my lungs started seizing up, and I went in person when they opened on Monday. At the counter they told me the mail order system was overloaded and my prescription was stuck in the system somewhere. It was never filled and probably never would be.
Well, that's fine. If there's a problem with my order, I'm OK with it. I'm not even mad. I get that we've got a pandemic going on and things are challenging. Just tell me so I can go get it in person, tho. Don't leave me wondering. Don't leave me hanging for weeks, waiting for medication that isn't coming.
The in-person pharmacy was great, they had my meds ready in less than 5 minutes. I thought I was doing the right thing by staying away - especially as a person with asthma, but I need my meds or my lungs have a fit, so I'll be going in person from now on. They just started curbside pickup at no charge, so maybe I'll use that.16 -
The pharmacies around here all have drive through windows for pickup of prescriptions and they will even let you add common items like ibuprofen, Nyquil, etc.3
-
LazyBlondeChef wrote: »The pharmacies around here all have drive through windows for pickup of prescriptions and they will even let you add common items like ibuprofen, Nyquil, etc.
I tried one. They were sending the card reader out in the drawer, and people in cars were picking it out of the drawer, holding it bare-handed near unmasked faces to finish the transactions. 😬 Uh-uh, no thanks.
I feel safer going inside: The place is always fairly empty during daytime, and even when a line it's short, well distanced and people are wearing masks. 🤷♀️5 -
I haven't been to a for-people pharmacy, but the pharmacy that used to handle my cat's prescription had a system where you rang and then they'd bring it out to you (no one was allowed to come inside -- they did people prescriptions too, handled the same way). Clearly with the big places like Walgreens and CVS you can come in, and I don't think there's an alternative (I bought wrapping paper at my local Walgreens, as well as some candy for Halloween back in Oct, and it was pretty comfortable to shop in for that).
Unfortunately for me the pharmacy that my vet now works with is in WI, so either a long drive for me or mail-order only, but so far they've been pretty good.4 -
I haven't been to a for-people pharmacy, but the pharmacy that used to handle my cat's prescription had a system where you rang and then they'd bring it out to you (no one was allowed to come inside -- they did people prescriptions too, handled the same way). Clearly with the big places like Walgreens and CVS you can come in, and I don't think there's an alternative (I bought wrapping paper at my local Walgreens, as well as some candy for Halloween back in Oct, and it was pretty comfortable to shop in for that).
Unfortunately for me the pharmacy that my vet now works with is in WI, so either a long drive for me or mail-order only, but so far they've been pretty good.
When picking up a prescription for my cat from my vet, the current protocol is to call and pay over the phone when you park, and they leave it outside the door on the table. Similarly, for vet appointments, I call upon arrival and give them the space number. They come out and pick up the animal, and the vet calls as you wait in your car to discuss anything and obtain approval for any treatment. The only physical interaction is outside when they pick/drop off the pet, and we never got within 6' of each other and were both masked (dropped the carrier off at the curb and then stood back).
I've done all grocery shopping in store since the pandemic began. Since I eat a LOT of fresh produce, I want to pick out my own items. In my area, I've found it comfortable and safe for the most part. I try to go when it's less crowded, and mask wearing, at least at the grocery stores and times I visit, is basically at 100%.8 -
Yeah, that's similar to vet appts here. You park and call, they call back, get info, and then call again and say come to the door and drop off the pet (the emergency vet comes to collect the pet at a numbered space). When the appt is finished they call to give you info and then the payment person calls to give you the cost and get the payment and to say to come to the door (at the emergency vet they call again to tell you they are bringing the pet out and then do).
I've mostly done grocery delivery since it's easy where I live, I think the controls at my local grocery (which I shopped at only 25% of the time anyway, pre covid) are mediocre, and I've found WF through Amazon here to be pretty reliable and to choose good produce (I used it sometimes pre covid and found it an easier way to shop deals than just going when I felt like it and buying what caught my eye, which is what I did). I supplement with fish and farmers' market delivery (which is great for seasonal produce and non fish meat and eggs/dairy). I've done delivery from Target happily too, and do a lot of curb-side pickup (sometimes by car, sometimes when walking from local stores), but have also gone into stores and see no reason to say that going to stores or using delivery is somehow judge-worthy. (I also am in a big city, so don't assume the options open to me are open to all.)
I disagreed with anyone saying going to a store was somehow irresponsible, no matter what, but also strongly disagree with any claim that it's somehow immoral (or careless of others) to use delivery.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions