Coronavirus pandemic: tell us your consumer concerns

You have to use the internet, and be very very patient. There’s usually no slots left at all. Supermarkets (Tesco anyway, unsure of the others) add the next day of slots at midnight, but you have to get in just before midnight as they put people in some weird queueing system starting about 10 to midnight. So log in about 20 to midnight, then go to the screen where it shows you what slots aren’t free, refresh the page every 10 seconds until it says “you’re in a queue”, then watch the screen until it gets you to the list, then hope you ended up near the front of the queue. Beat them at their own game!

https://www.tesco.com/help/priority-slots-faq/
The government have supplied lists of over 70’s to Tesco and they have emailed them to say they are on the priority list
I don’t know how it works though if Tesco don’t have your email address does the Government ? I think thats also unlikely so it might be they can only contact you if you have a Tesco club card because then they will have your email address ?

Are we paying the price for being a liberal society where we don’t like the idea of the government knowing everything about us in case they pass it on to commerce?

Yes I’ve noticed that too. I’m also an OAP and can’t go out for eg to Poundland which saved money, on branded goods. So yes my Sainsburys shop is also more expensive.

Hi June – The current advice is to wear a mask if it is impossible to keep away from others or someone in the house is infected or suspected to be. Employers, shops. etc. should be doing their best to ensure social distancing.

10. Face coverings
If you can, wear a face covering in an enclosed space where social distancing isn’t possible and where you will come into contact with people you do not normally meet. This is most relevant for short periods indoors in crowded areas, for example, on public transport or in some shops.

You can make face-coverings at home. The key thing is it should cover the mouth and nose.

Which? has provided the information and advice on how to protect yourself and other people. It and more can be found in the coronavirus hub accessed via the button at the top of this page –
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/05/coronavirus-should-we-be-wearing-face-masks/

There is bags of information there but it is not easy to find specific subjects because it is organised by categories and a number of topics [like the one I have referenced above] are sub-topics of other articles.

Which? has also provided comprehensive advice separately to members on all aspects of face masks. This includes advice explaining that people should not keep raising and lowering the mask according to the proximity of others or their location [e.g. in the open air or indoors] as that increases the risk of infection through the potential transfer of virus particles from the outside to the mouth and nose. Once put on the mask should be kept on until the wearer returns home and then they should wash their hands before removing it and again immediately afterwards. There is also advice for people who wear glasses and on other circumstances. The advice was issued in a weekly bulletin to members so I am not at liberty to provide a link, but Which? might be wiling to release it in the interests of public health.

I think there is still a lot of confusion over advice surrounding face coverings.

For example selectively quoting parts of the above advice, as quoted by both wavechange and by John:

“Evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you. However, if you are infected but have not yet developed symptoms, it may provide some protection for others you come into close contact with… ….people should not keep raising and lowering the mask according to the proximity of others or their location [e.g. in the open air or indoors] as that increases the risk of infection through the potential transfer of virus particles from the outside to the mouth and nose.”

Sorry but if first part of my quote is true then the second part is silly, because if you’ve already got the virus you are not at any further risk of infection. Conversely, the second item does make sense if the first item is not true.

Given that we want to avoid entrepreneurs stockpiling and profiteering in face masks and we want to maintain supplies to key workers, I’m sure that a lot of the offical advice that been selectively edited to support these aims. Writing good clear and truly unambigous safety guidance is a job for skilled profesionals and usually is best accomplished as a team effort. In my last full time job, the company used daily safety messages, covering a different topic each week. I used to write some of those – with help from fellow team members – and we sometimes got interesting follow up questions from far flung corners of the company.

I do agree that the most significant effect of a face covering will be to protect others, if one already has the virus. But I fear that simple blanket statements like “wearing a face covering does not protect you” may be unduly simplistic. For example “wearing a face covering may not significantly protect you” might be closer to the truth.

In UK workplaces, PPE should generallly be available to assist with reduction of risks unless the cost or resulting inconvenience are grossly disproportionate in relation to the risks averted. For example, consider all those cheap hi-viz “gilet jaune” bibs now worn by our nation’s delivery drivers. I doubt there is any proof that they reduce workplace accidents, but, because they are simple and cheap to provide, it is easy for employers to hand them out anyway, just in case they might help.

So to give my views on June’s questions:

1) Where we cannot socially distance – e.g. on public transport – it is a good idea to use face coverings, to reduce the risk of passing infection on to others. As many of us can contract the virus but not display any symptions, we should probably all wear face coverings in all places where we cannot socially distance (expect perhaps if we know we have already had and have fully recovered from the virus).

2) if we cannot find suitable face coverings offered for sale, we can make our own. I’ve seen plenty of different ways shown on the internet, to suit all talent levels. I’ve got a few industrial ones knocking around at home, so I aim to get by with those for the time being. I certainly won’t be rushing off to the internet to pay ludicrous prices for any.

I think Wavechange might have been quoting government advice on face covering. I was referring to Which? guidance from its ‘coronavirus hub’ but did not quote it exactly word-for-word. I agree that trying to couple the two together does risk confusion.

The guidance issued to Which? subscribers in The Weekly Scoop [15/05/2020] was, in my opinion, comprehensive, extremely detailed, and very well-written. Overall it was a very good way of making the situation as intelligible as possible in real everyday life. I did not provide a link to that guidance but think it would be beneficial if Which? would publish it openly.

John – I wasn’t meaning to criticise either yourself of wavechange for quoting available advice.

I was just trying to illustrate conflicts between different sources of advice.

Not only are there different sources of advice but the advice is likely to continue to change. I forgot to include a link to the source of what I posted, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-safe-outside-your-home/staying-safe-outside-your-home

John – The Weekly Scoop email links to information on this page, which is not restricted to subscribers: https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/face-masks/article/face-masks-where-to-buy-them-and-how-to-make-your-own?&utm_content=large-email-component&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=3984103-C_WS_EM_150520_Which_Switch

I didn’t take your comment as criticism, Derek. You were rightly highlighting the conflicts that have arisen, largely I feel because the government’s messages have been vague or not what people wanted. I think “Stay Alert” is a particularly meaningless command. The emphasis changes from day to day as well, which doesn’t help.

The government seems to be out of step with public opinion on going out, people generally not being so keen to start going into shops, on buses and trains, back to school, and so forth. I think the public’s reluctance is out of a sense of being let down by the government at the start of all this with inadequate preparations and readiness – PPE, testing, hospital capacity, shopping during lockdown, the impact on care homes – which have cumulatively added to the problems, hardships and deaths, so people don’t want to go back to normal prematurely for fear of a second wave. “We started late so we shouldn’t finish early” is the mood music I am picking up.

The UK death toll is a huge embarrassment, at approaching double the anticipated level, so I can understand why the government wants to move on a.s.a.p. The economy is already sunk – a few more billions won’t make much difference now.

I don’t see it as a criticism when either of you offers relevant and useful information. I sometimes start a reply and make coffee or answer the phone and when I have posted I find that one of you has already given similar or better advice. Sorry for that but I do like my coffee.

Thanks, Wavechange. I hadn’t realised it was the same article. There are two or three around with similar contents. The coronavirus hub desperately needs an index, or at least a list of contents by subject.

I agree, though I have sympathy during the present difficulties. It’s very good that staff are beavering away keeping the website up to date. Perhaps we should clap on Thursdays.

I would hazard a guess that many people have found they get more done working from home, with good software providing any necessary individual and group communication and discussion. Those in my family have; they have a good attitude to work but can work flexi hours to fit around family.

A big plus is the banished cost and waste of time in commuting. We need desperately to address the unnecessary overuse of public and private transport.

I hope we have learned from this experience and will, for appropriate people, recognise the advantages and arrange a good balance of home vs office. I wonder if Which? are examining this for their staffs’ benefit, both in time, cost and health given their polluted location.

It is interesting that official advice on facemasks varies according to country: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52439926

Until yesterday I have kept well away from other people, though I have been licked by a friendly cow. Yesterday I was waiting in a quiet car park for a click & collect session and an elderly lady stuck her head through the passenger’s window and proceeded to start chatting.

I think I have a couple of facemasks in the garage but unless instructed otherwise I will keep them for DIY purposes.

Your encounter with a cow sounds worrying, wavechange, as it wasn’t wearing a mask. https://hoards.com/blog-27387-cows-and-coronavirus.html It may also have licked the farmer who may also have been infected………

If you have a big car – like a Hummer – you were probably socially-distanced sufficiently. Was she wearing a masl? You have to wonder, though, why someone should do that? Do they pay no attention to what is said? This is the worrying thing about containing an epidemic – irresponsibility is hard to combat.

I suspect the only thing that might work to prevent infection is this:

No, it was a free range cow on the golf course, Malcolm. All it was wearing was a nice expression, and it was inquisitive. Maybe I should have doused myself in hand sanitiser or grabbed a bar of soap and washed for 20 seconds at the drinking trough.

Ian – I wonder whether wearing Darth Vader masks might encourage social distancing.

That’s an interesting analogy, Sgt. Wilson. Hopefully no-one will run around saying ”Don’t Panic”.

There is just so much we don’t know about the coronavirus so many of us are taking various precautions such as treating letters as potential sources of infection, disinfecting door handles and avoiding going near shops. As you say, we feel the need to do something.

It’s estimated that one in six Londoners have been infected, many without knowing thanks to the fact that the disease can be mild. Maybe if the efforts had been devoted to testing and tracing the outcome would have been better.

We’re all doooomed.. Many seem to proclaim “do panic”.

I understand the resources for testing initially were, for whatever reason, inadequate to pursue a proper test, track and trace. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe we could find the facts of the matter – is there any reliable source? I’m sure, as expressed in John’s dislike of crime fiction, some will work back from the end, in forensic detail, to the beginning. Sorry if I take your name in vain, John.

The aim to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed with infected people and the load on ICUs does seem to have been averted – for now. I expect that was no more than luck……..

As you say, Sgt., it may not be a perfect analogy but there are similarities. I do not think dithering is the right description when a situation is new with a number of significant unknowns. In WW2, what were Hitlers ambitions towards the UK, would France hold out, who should have the limited supply of weaponry – an attack force or a defence – and, in the event, the Home Guard were not needed in the form envisaged. But, as you say, for those left in the UK it gave the feeling they were playing there part. COVID-19 is also – still – full of unknowns with no clear method of attack, rather of assessing progress and adapting strategies in what seems the best way at the time. Historians will always point to poor decisions in WW2, and no doubt on dealing with COVID-19; they have a privileged viewpoint.

This crisis is certainly full of unknowns, a large number of which are unknown unknowns unfortunately.

The PM has tried to rally the bulldog spirit for the response to this epidemic and there have been some gratifying expressions of that in many ways, but many people do not trust the government. The excuses given on Friday for the decision on 12 March to cancel testing seemed designed more to fit the circumstances as they turned out rather than justified by any scientific evidence or sensible appraisal at the time. The Home Secretary’s explanation yesterday was not articulated when the decision was taken and seems rather too convenient for my liking. As in the well-worn analogy, the government uses science like a drunk uses a lamp-post – more for support than for illumination.

I’ve been enjoying these illusions to Dad’s Army. At first, I wondered if Boris Johnson might be a shoe-in for the role of Captain Mainwaring. But, in spite of his other obvious failings, I could not remember any instances where Mainwaring deliberately and wilfully lied to his men or evaded critcism by trying to dodge the issue. So in the Dad’s Army universe, BoJo is probably better represented by the patrician Captain Square, who continually resents Mainwaring, because the latter is only a grammar school boy and not a proper gentleman.

In WW2, everyone was expected to have gas masks, in case of urgent need. And the Government supplied them, as required.

I wonder just how much “trust” there was in government in WW2 when, clearly, news was manipulated partly to confuse the enemy but also to bolster the bulldog spirit. Just how did we view all the mistakes made (I doubt they were deliberate) – hindsight helps. We might have provided all the population with gas masks, using up valuable materials and resources, but they were never needed. Was that another government mistake or a reassuring gesture. Depends, perhaps, on your instincts.

I am told by the end of the war we were producing nearly 90% of our food needs. Whatever the figure the population rallied round to help grow and to harvest. Maybe we will do the same this year – plenty of people with time on their hands who could put them to good use.

In a just war, I think the majority of us willingly join ranks behind our Government. I’m not old enough to have first hand experience of WW2, but I do remember the Falklands war and the 1st Gulf war.

There is futility in war in so many ways – loss of life, maiming, destruction of families in both those recruited and the civilians. Huge material losses. For what? Often just political ends. Very different from tackling COVID19 where we seek not to put people deliberately in harms way.

In tackling COVID-19 it seems some want absolute freedom from danger – returning to schools and work for example – and playing on the emotions arising from the risks that are posed. They do not appreciate, at least publicly, that zero risk does not exist. We have to strike the balance at which a degree of risk is acceptable in the transition between lockdown and more normal life. Like going to work with the threat of an air raid.

The mechanics and science is not fully understood. My impression is from questions asked, criticisms made, alternatives given, in the press and other media, that attention is focused on the negatives rather than the positives because they feed some people’s desire to ascribe blame and exact retribution. And it makes better headlines.

Malcolm when one is travelling in unchartered waters as we are at present, it makes sense to pack a life jacket.

But not if you are on dry land, Beryl.

As the ships in the desert?

It’s not easy to quantify risk when there is good evidence that the consequences of Covid-19 differ so much according to age and certain health conditions.

I’m very glad that irresponsible behaviour such as people congregating in large groups or heading to tourist destinations has been soundly criticised. We know enough about the science to understand that this is putting lives at risk and it’s particularly tough for those at high risk who live in these areas.

I am all in favour of a rational, science-based approach, but it is also necessary to have regard to people’s perceptions of risk – however misguidedly they have been formed. It is a question of getting the balance right in order to carry the public along with the policy. After that, example can do much of the heavy lifting and neutralise the uncooperative, obstinate or perverse behaviour of a minority.

I just don’t want the sacrifices that people have made or suffered so far to be in vain, so feel that for a little bit longer the economy should take second place to public health and safety.

There is one daily newspaper, close to the hearts of many in the government party, that seems to be stoking up the lockdown fever issue in every main article and bull-dozing the reckless lifting of restrictions on behalf of pleasure seekers and the more parasitical elements of commerce. The popular tabloids seem to be much more restrained and responsible in their coverage and are putting public safety and welfare first, even to the extent of not clamouring excitedly for the restoration of sporting fixtures.

I see sporting fixtures, restaurants and pubs as well down the list of my priorites. I would certainly like my sport to be brought back to life but it would be irresponsible for now and I can live without it.

I think perception is often distorted by lack of knowledge. No reason to pander to misconceptions; we need to do our best to inform people.

Wavechange, we just don’t know enough about this virus to eliminate all the risks; how it originated, was it caused by Chinese unethical animal cultural practices or the consequences of laboratory malpractice, orchestrated to cripple other unsuspecting and unprepared global economies?

Why can some people carry the virus without showing any symptoms (asymptomatic), why some immune systems overreact to the virus and others don’t, and why children seem to be more immune than the elderly and how it is able to mutate and be resistant to antibiotics and most antiviral drugs.

Science will come up with answers eventually, they are already exploring the role T cells play in the body’s immune system and how they protect us from invading pathogens and why do some people have more of these than others which increases their survival rate.

We are very much in uncharted waters and until scientists come up with positive solutions such as vaccines and antivirals we need to proceed with caution. The onus at this very worrying time is on the politicians to find a balance between their conditioned and ingrained policies, their ability to govern, and the comprehensive welfare of the population.

Have we evolved sufficiently to learn the lessons of the past or are we prepared to continue to debate about who is to blame for inadequate preparation and readiness? Only time will tell.

It’s possible that we may never find the origin, Beryl. It’s being investigated and we can be sure that there will be films that are based on the pandemic.

There should be a good chance of gaining a good understanding of why some are affected so much more than others. We have a good understanding of the effect of allergies and anaphylactic shock but still don’t understand why people are so different. It’s dangerous to suppress the immune system but in some circumstances that could save lives.

Viruses are very different from pathogenic bacteria, fungi and protozoa. Like prions (relevant to BSE and CJD) they are not alive and cannot replicate without taking over the metabolism of a host cell to produce more virus particles – they are obligate parasites. Antibiotics are of no use whatsoever other than to treat a secondary infection. Trying to draw analogies with bacterial etc. infections may not be useful. I don’t know much about antiviral drugs but I will be surprised if we see a treatment as effective and specific as an antibiotic for certain bacterial infections.

A vaccine seems the best hope. We know that viruses mutate, hence the need to change the composition of the annual ‘flu vaccine. I’m not sure why we are still producing most flu vaccine in eggs because that is slow and some cannot tolerate it.

The scientists certainly don’t have all the answers and advice will change as we learn more. I suspect that the outcome of infections could be improved by better understanding of Covid-19 and minimising that the body causes to itself as a result of infection.

“there will be films that are based on the pandemic.”. I hope it does not follow the same pattern. Police Academy (just as a frinstance) was funny but progressively deteriorated as it went through 2-3. on to 6. COVID is already at 19. Can it, too, only get worse?

As you say, we have a lot to understand about the virus, We must be a little considerate how we lambast all those involved in trying to make the best of it, from politicians to scientists to mathematicians and statisticians.

If I heard correctly – and my head may have made it up – when it was suggested on the radio news today by a reporter that his 250 mile excursion was not excusable while he was infected, to see more vulnerable people Dominic said he didn’t care what the reporter thought. But I’ll say no more as it may be fake news. Non-fake news is that it may be that taking hydroxychloroquine will increase your chance of death if you contract COVID-19. Has that any relevance?

It is encouraging to witness the extent of current research into Immunosenescence and its relation to the ageing process which explains the reason why COVID-19 took the lives of so many elderly people. See: en.wikipedia.org – T cells – Ageing and Immunosenescence

It is widely known the coronavirus is a parasite that needs a host in which to survive, therefore one can assume they are able to co-exist indefinitely in any host species that is asymptomatic.

A second, and perhaps more disturbingly, they are the result of a laboratory experiment that went tragically wrong and the genie was out of the bottle in an asymptomatic laboratory assistant or exploratory research animal such as a primate.

I am confident the truth will come out eventually and something or someone will be held to account,

Are you sure about the laboratory experiment, Beryl? Perhaps you could link to the evidence.

I did include the adverb ‘perhaps’ in my hypothesis Malcolm. If we had evidence someone would have to accept responsibility for the outbreak. Until we obtain that evidence we have to explore all facets in order to find the source of the outbreak and I remain cautiously
optimistic that we will. The future is not looking too bright otherwise 🙁

Here is an article that might be of interest: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006761

Thanks for the link Wavechange. It’s always encouraging to read the input and findings from scientific immunology research and especially in relation to the connection between the microbiome and the immune system.

The current pandemic may do a lot to focus research and funding in these areas.

I’ve looked at some more articles, Beryl. This one (click on the pdf link for the full article) explores some possible reasons why a Covid-19 infection is usually more serious for elderly people: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0548/v1

The current money is on the first (unidentified) case being outside of Wuhan and which affected a man in his fifties who’d never been to Wuhan.

My own feeling is that this, and many other unpleasant diseases that have begun appearing over the past fifty years, has happened because we’re relentlessly exploiting more of the planet than ever, and it’s human activities that are driving animals away from their traditional niches and towards humanity.

I agree, Ian.

I have no scientific basis for thinking this but I have been wondering whether the increasing cross-fertilisation of human communities combined with international travel and the occupation of different territories and ecosystems have massively increased our exposure while at the same time greatly weakened our immunity.

It probably takes generations for the body to absorb and cope with significant changes to climate, diet, soil, water and the general environment but society has compressed these transitions into brief periods and also mixed them up. The unnatural conditioning of some interior environments must also have a part to play.

Just as housing density and insanitary living conditions were recognised in the 19th century as the causes of serious diseases in urban areas and their proliferation, the concentrated movement of masses of people must now be a significant contributory factor to infection.

Has excessive hygiene also lowered our natural defences? Probably not because the consequences of the alternative are far worse and life expectancy is far lower where unclean conditions prevail.

Is prolonged life in a care home a good thing? I’ll park that one and come back to it another day. It’s too sensitive at the moment.

In the past, certain bacteria have been responsible for diseases that have caused much suffering and loss of life. The development of antibiotics that have well understood modes of action has provided very effective tools for fighting these diseases, yet we have squandered these resources by inappropriate use and for commercial gain as growth promoters in farming. Some now die because of untreatable bacterial infections.

Viruses are much simpler structures than bacteria but pose a serious threat. Smallpox is officially eradicated 1980 but is still held in two laboratories. Now that few will have any immunity, perhaps it’s best not to think about what could happen.

Even simpler than viruses are prions. BSE is believed to have been caused by feeding waste meat products to cattle. The prion responsible is simple heat-stable protein. Understanding of the scientific basis of the problem has changed farming practices.

It’s a mistake to state it’s “only as dangerous as flu”. Its unpredictable nature means it’s significantly more dangerous, and a quick glance at the mortality stats for the UK will tell you that in a bad ‘flu season we can expect 14,000 deaths. We’re now past 35,000.

“I am not a medical doctor” – maybe such a health warning should be made on relevant comments.

According to information up to 23 May there have been 338 612 worldwide deaths put down to COVID 19. How many more are not recorded as such?

According to Wiki, there are, worldwide, 250 000 – 500 000 influenza deaths each year. How many are not recorded as such.

The annual gov ‘flu survey for 2014-15 shows around 16 400 excess deaths in the ‘flu season, and we have vaccines for ‘flu (that may or may not well match the particular strain). We have no vaccine for COVID-19.

Yes, the unknowns of COVID-19 and lack of available immunisation do make it dangerous. But ‘flu is also dangerous, and more so than COVID-19 to younger people.