The panic is worse than the disease!

[eider]

So, one woman's pushing and shoving her way through a crowded market with her trolley, trying to get her hands on as much bath tissue as she can, for her household's needs, is common-sense--and calm, careful preparation and planning--in action; whereas another woman's doing the same is, instead, due to panic and fear?

Both sound like really bad mannered shoppers.

Tell me........ if you did not go shopping again, in a lock-down or curfew situation, how long would your household, food and drink stocks last?
Just give me a time in hours or days.

 

[eider]

If you have 25 minutes, I highly recommend this video on the actions of the Chinese government from the initial wake of the outbreak to last month, quite shocking:

We have had property cleansings a bit like that here.
Wait a short while and see how things go in your country.

 

[7djengo7]

Both sound like really bad mannered shoppers.

Fine. Don't answer the question I asked you.

​

Tell me........ if you did not go shopping again, in a lock-down or curfew situation, how long would your household, food and drink stocks last?
Just give me a time in hours or days.

Why?

 

[User Name]

We have had property cleansings a bit like that here.
Wait a short while and see how things go in your country.

It's about far more than that. Watch the video if you can.

 

[eider]

Fine. Don't answer the question I asked you.

It was a loaded question. I didn't like either shopper from their descriptions.

Why?

Why not. It is an easy question.
How long could you manage for food, drink etc if your home was in a lock-down or curfew situation?
Easy question.
A day? three days?
A week/ A month?

How long?

 

[eider]

It's about far more than that. Watch the video if you can.

I did.
We watched much of this footage on Brit telly.
The Chinese could build an entire hospital in days. We can't. You can't.
The city of Wuhan (11 million) was locked down to slow the virus spread.
Urgent needs produce urgent measures.

The thing is..... the infection rate has leveled off in China. But will it level off so quickly in the West?

As from today you should not be going to restaurants, clubs, pubs or cafes in the US.
Cities are going in to lock-down. Some are in curfew.
Flights across the US are now in jeopardy if not curtailed.

We are closer to peaking than you. Our businesses and even our banks are closing now.
All households must self isolate if only one person has viral symptoms.
All flights are cancelled. All sports events are ended.
And the reduction requirements have hardly started.
All shops will soon be closing unless they provide food or medical equipment.

 

[eider]

So, one woman's pushing and shoving her way through a crowded market with her trolley, trying to get her hands on as much bath tissue as she can, for her household's needs, is common-sense--and calm, careful preparation and planning--in action; whereas another woman's doing the same is, instead, due to panic and fear?

Wrong. Both women shoppers are unreasonable, and just for shoving and pushing they should be banned from the shop.
Your question did not show calm sense in either description.

Fair enough?

Now..... How long could your home manage for food, drinks essentials in a curfew or lock-down?
Easy question.

 

[7djengo7]

It was a loaded question.

What (if anything) do you mean by that, if not merely, "It was a question which, according to my calculation, if I try to answer it, I can't but embarrass myself in light of the other things I've already said, so I best not try to answer it"?

Well, at least you admit that it is a question, and that you refuse to answer it. Notice that it was not immediately after I had asked you it that you reacted to it by calling it a "loaded question", but, rather, you first played the futile card of trying to deflect attention from the question by handing me an irrelevant comment: "Both sound like really bad mannered shoppers." That attempt at deflection failing, you then resorted to the equally futile, common, cheap, transparent ploy of calling the question you were asked a "loaded question".

With what (if anything) would you say the question I asked you is "loaded"?

I didn't like either shopper from their descriptions.

Oh. I'm sorry. I guess I should have described the shoppers as men, rather than as women.

Why not. It is an easy question.
How long could you manage for food, drink etc if your home was in a lock-down or curfew situation?
Easy question.
A day? three days?
A week/ A month?

How long?

Ah, what you're doing, here, is you're fishing for material in hope that you could use it to try to set up an ad hominem against me--since you know, as well as I, that you have nothing against my objections to what you've written.

How long a "lock-down...situation" are you talking about?

And, in a "curfew situation", just how much food (a pound? three pounds?), drink (a gallon? three gallons?), etc., do you say a person needs to have stockpiled so as to be able to (as you say) "manage" overnight--until the immediately following daylight hours, when the curfew is not in effect, and grocers are once again open for another day's business? You know? Because curfews are not 24+ hour periods--they only run through nighttime hours, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[7djengo7]

Wrong. Both women shoppers are unreasonable,

Unreasonable?

Shopper 1: "If I do not get to the bath tissue before it has been got to by others in this crowd, there may be none left for me to buy, by the time I get to where it presently is on the salesfloor. Therefore, I best make haste to get to it, because I need to buy some--and as much of it as I can, at that."

Shopper 2: "What she said."

How, exactly, do you imagine that that is unreasonable?

and just for shoving and pushing they should be banned from the shop.

Maybe, maybe not; in any case, the decision to implement such a ban is wholly up to the shop owners. Have you ever been trying to get somewhere through a crowd, like in a really busy marketplace? I guess if you feel you must take my phrase, "pushing and shoving her way through a crowded market", to mean, literally, that these women were physically assaulting others in the crowd, or inflicting bodily harm (whether or not deliberately), then what can I do about that? But how is saying they should be banned from the shop relevant to the question I asked you? It's not.

Your question did not show calm sense in either description.

A distinction between "calm sense" and "not-calm sense" is not a part of my vocabulary; I do not know what (if anything) you mean by modifying the noun, 'sense', by the adjective, 'calm', here. I can think of a person simultaneously being calm and having sense, and of a person simultaneously being not-calm and having sense; but I do not know what (if anything) I should think of sense, itself, being called "calm sense", rather than just "sense".

Now, why don't you describe a third shopper, one who is vying for a share of the same merchandise, for a share of which each of these two women are each vying, and in the same grocery store, and the same crowd in which these two women are trying to make their way to the same scarce product. Describe this third shopper in such a way as you like a shopper to be (inasmuch as you told me you don't like the shoppers I described). This third shopper, just as the two women I have described, also needs to get his hands on as much of the same scarce product as he can. Now, each of these two women, plus this third shopper, "only [has] a week's supplies at home" (to use your words). Now, if I'm not mistaken, you would not like to apply your phrase, "calm careful preparation and planning", to a description of the two women whom I've described. So, please tell me exactly what (if anything) about this third shopper would need to be true--differentiating him from the two women shoppers--to make you willing to apply your phrase, "calm careful preparation", to a description of him, while denying application of it to the two women.

 

[7djengo7]

Some are, but preparing for difficulties is common-sense.
Common-sense is calm careful preparation and planning.

It's not all panic and fear.

But, earlier, you said: "

it would be hard to know (or judge) what preparations are not 'panic' actions". Whereas, now, you seem to know (or judge) that "some are". So, try to explain why one shopper--on account of his vying through the crowd after scarce commodities--would be characterized by you as exhibiting "common-sense" and "calm careful preparation and planning" and as not motivated by "panic and fear"; and why another shopper, in the same marketplace, in the same crowd, at the same time, after the same scarce commodities as the other, would be characterized by you as engaging in "panic actions".​

 

[Aimiel]

it's safe to assume that many of those would be from the group of 7,452 Americans who die every day under normal conditions

No, that's from a group of epidemiologists who met with the President and speculated a conservative estimate of 750,000 to 1,500,000 dead by the end of 2020 from JUST COVID-19.

 

[eider]

What (if anything) do you mean by that, if not merely, "It was a question which, according to my calculation, if I try to answer it, I can't but embarrass myself in light of the other things I've already said, so I best not try to answer it"?

Well, at least you admit that it is a question, and that you refuse to answer it. Notice that it was not immediately after I had asked you it that you reacted to it by calling it a "loaded question", but, rather, you first played the futile card of trying to deflect attention from the question by handing me an irrelevant comment: "Both sound like really bad mannered shoppers." That attempt at deflection failing, you then resorted to the equally futile, common, cheap, transparent ploy of calling the question you were asked a "loaded question".

With what (if anything) would you say the question I asked you is "loaded"?



Oh. I'm sorry. I guess I should have described the shoppers as men, rather than as women.

Pathetic! Both shoppers were violent....... pushing and shoving and selfish. There was no difference between these two descriptions which you seemed to think included a calm sensible shopper.

And you think you are a balanced debater?

Ah, what you're doing, here, is you're fishing for material in hope that you could use it to try to set up an ad hominem against me--since you know, as well as I, that you have nothing against my objections to what you've written.

How long a "lock-down...situation" are you talking about?

And, in a "curfew situation", just how much food (a pound? three pounds?), drink (a gallon? three gallons?), etc., do you say a person needs to have stockpiled so as to be able to (as you say) "manage" overnight--until the immediately following daylight hours, when the curfew is not in effect, and grocers are once again open for another day's business? You know? Because curfews are not 24+ hour periods--they only run through nighttime hours, if I'm not mistaken.

Ah...... what I was doing was showing beyond any doubt that you are not prepared to tell us how long your household could continue without a resupply of basics. I think I've got my answer and more. You waffle your way through, and as you realise you look silly now your posts will increase....... waffling on, trying to look smart..... let's see..

 

[eider]

Unreasonable?

Duh! They were both violent! Which part of violent don't you understand?

How, exactly, do you imagine that that is unreasonable?

Duh! If you were out shopping and you got shoved and pushed out of the way, I know that you would be upset, frightened and squealing for the manager.

Maybe, maybe not; in any case, the decision to implement such a ban is wholly up to the shop owners.

If you think that retailers would be happy with either shopper then you have lost the plot.
Neither of them would reach the tills with anything to buy..... they'd be banned, might even be arrrested/held if they had hurt somebody.

What on earth do you do for a living? You can't need much common sense for it, whatever it is.

Now, why don't you describe a third shopper, one who is vying for a share of the same merchandise,.......

Because you picked those two, and that makes you look quite incompetent imo. I dodn't need to dop anything.



And I was right.......... you still cannot answer my easy question about how long your household could manage without a resupply shopping trip, which does make you look rather silly, because it does suggest that you have been filling your place up to the ceilings with stuff (panic) or have empty cupboards (silly). Which are you? Running scared or daft?

 

[eider]

No, that's from a group of epidemiologists who met with the President and speculated a conservative estimate of 750,000 to 1,500,000 dead by the end of 2020 from JUST COVID-19.

Yes, that is a very low estimate.
The death rate % in Italy is way above that.
The problem for some countries is that the % of self-appointed experts who think that the virus is no more than a sniffle, and that our government medical officers are all daft, is that they won't be following the common sense advice and guidelines communicated in daily news flashes.

This means that the virus might spread much more quickly than hoped ........

In a few weeks these could well be the people that are panicking and hysterical........ knee-jerk reactions and stampedes.

You can't help them, I'm afraid to say.

 

[eider]

No, that's from a group of epidemiologists who met with the President and speculated a conservative estimate of 750,000 to 1,500,000 dead by the end of 2020 from JUST COVID-19.

The % mortality rate in Italy has risen above 7.2%, seven times higher than is being predicted in most other Western countries.
But Italy does has the 2nd oldest population in the World after Japan.

I reckon that London is going to exceed any predicted death rates. I wonder if there is a connection between infection/mortality rates and (earlier) danger-denialism ??

This morning, all folks over 70 yeasrs have been told to isolate for 12 weeks (UK).

 

[Aimiel]

Yes, that is a very low estimate.

That's the relevance of saying that it was a 'conservative' estimate; I'm sure the epidemiologist who said it was trying NOT to alarm anyone by being radical.

The death rate % in Italy is way above that.

Their government should have acted faster and the person who came into their country from China brought the virus... not showing symptoms, which can be five days or more, especially if they never do show any symptoms.

The problem for some countries is that the % of self-appointed experts who think that the virus is no more than a sniffle, and that our government medical officers are all daft, is that they won't be following the common sense advice and guidelines communicated in daily news flashes.

The problems are broader than that, but that is one aspect.​

This means that the virus might spread much more quickly than hoped ...

It's spread around the globe due to air travel and poor hygiene, for the most part.​

In a few weeks these could well be the people that are panicking and hysterical... knee-jerk reactions and stampedes.

The only solace I find in those who are hoarding and binge-shopping is that they're most likely the ones who will catch it and deservedly so. Standing in line at the checkout or even dirtier: the self checkout... they're more exposed to germs than the rest of us, who shop every week or two.​

​

You can't help them, I'm afraid to say. ​

Ignorance is a self-inflicted disease for which there is no cure.​

I reckon that London is going to exceed any predicted death rates. I wonder if there is a connection between infection/mortality rates and (earlier) danger-denialism ?

​

Sure is... here it is: "Whatsoever a man soweth: that shall he also reap."​

​

This morning, all folks over 70 yeasrs have been told to isolate for 12 weeks (UK).

I'm 65, but I'm not going to miss work simply because there's some flu bug on the loose.

 

[WYRose]

Now why don't I believe a word that you say?

because he's an idiot?

 

[WYRose]

Be interesting if the Bush Family in Alaska feature Covid. I must remember to watch the show.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Get Ready for the Hysteria When More Tests Find More Infections
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/...ysteria-when-more-tests-find-more-infections/

RUSH: I’ll tell you something else to look forward to now or to look down the road at. We’re gonna be getting more and more test kits out there ’cause Dr. Fauci, Dr. Anthony Fauci from Trump’s own CDC is out there saying, “This is a major failing that we do not have enough test kits. A major, major failing.” And so, bingo, right there on the Drudge Web page and every other major site, “It’s a failing.” “Trump CDC: We don’t have enough test kits.” And then the bottom headline: “150 million could become infected.”

No. But here’s what’s gonna happen. As these test kits get out there, more people are gonna get tested. What do you think that’s gonna show? More people infected. It’s gonna feed on itself. It’s not gonna tell you how many people infected don’t suffer from it, and that’s a large number of people. The number of people who actually test positive for this and never show any symptoms, it’s a pretty big number. It was true in China. It’s true in any number of places. But they’re not gonna report that.

So as these test kits get out there, you are going to be hammered with how many more people have the disease

He is right. The hype will skyrocket before it dies down

 

[eider]

That's the relevance of saying that it was a 'conservative' estimate; I'm sure the epidemiologist who said it was trying NOT to alarm anyone by being radical.Their government should have acted faster and the person who came into their country from China brought the virus... not showing symptoms, which can be five days or more, especially if they never do show any symptoms. The problems are broader than that, but that is one aspect.​

It's spread around the globe due to air travel and poor hygiene, for the most part.​

The only solace I find in those who are hoarding and binge-shopping is that they're most likely the ones who will catch it and deservedly so. Standing in line at the checkout or even dirtier: the self checkout... they're more exposed to germs than the rest of us, who shop every week or two.​

Ignorance is a self-inflicted disease for which there is no cure.​

Sure is... here it is: "Whatsoever a man soweth: that shall he also reap."[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

I'm 65, but I'm not going to miss work simply because there's some flu bug on the loose. ​

Fair comments all
The Brit government has just announced that all pubs, cinemas, restaurants etc which have needed to close will be given a full annual rates holiday for a whole year, in order to help them with their financial uncertainties

i am very impressed with the way that our government, specialists and PM have handled this so far. It's beyond politics here now.

​​​​​​London's streets are empty now, and many households closed down.​