Supermarkets are bad towards disabled people

[Coneheadjohn]

This is what I’ve spent the last few weeks doing and it’s difficult for numerous reasons.

Not least of which is people poking their beak in and telling me I shouldn’t let this person in or Ishouldn’t let that person in etc.

Or even worse scuttling off to the managers office with their hand up going...that bald git  from Derby has just let 3 people in...but I don’t want to get anyone in trouble...ffs!

Because of this the rules are 1 membership and one guest, including children of any age.

You always do whatever you can for elderly,sick,disabled etc,

Someone grassed me up for letting a mother and 2 kids in,I actually let them in to refund her husbands membership who’d died but they didn’t know that.

I’ve backed away a bit from it now.

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Perhaps we ought to consult Heisenberg?

[Steve How Hard?]

14 minutes ago, Van Cone De Head said:

This is what I’ve spent the last few weeks doing and it’s difficult for numerous reasons.

Not least of which is people poking their beak in and telling me I shouldn’t let this person in or Ishouldn’t let that person in etc.

Or even worse scuttling off to the managers office with their hand up going...that bald git  from Derby has just let 3 people in...but I don’t want to get anyone in trouble...ffs!

Because of this the rules are 1 membership and one guest, including children of any age.

You always do whatever you can for elderly,sick,disabled etc,

Someone grassed me up for letting a mother and 2 kids in,I actually let them in to refund her husbands membership who’d died but they didn’t know that.

I’ve backed away a bit from it now.

Nowt stranger than folk so they say. You're doing a great job in very difficult circumstances and don't let the moaners detract you from thinking any different. What's grinding my gears at supermarkets at the moment is people discarding their used gloves into the trolleys. I mean what kind of person thinks that it is acceptable in normal circumstances never mind in these heightened times. Strewth I've just turned into one of those moaners too.

As you where. ?

[Coneheadjohn]

6 minutes ago, Steve How Hard? said:

Nowt stranger than folk so they say. You're doing a great job in very difficult circumstances and don't let the moaners detract you from thinking any different. What's grinding my gears at supermarkets at the moment is people discarding their used gloves into the trolleys. I mean what kind of person thinks that it is acceptable in normal circumstances never mind in these heightened times. Strewth I've just turned into one of those moaners too.

As you where. ?

Our car park is full of gloves and masks but it’s also full of crap people leave instead of taking it to the tip.

I’ve had to laugh at people standing next to the NHS line in a morning asking what they do and why can they come in ?‍♂️.

Funny thing is @Mrs Cone is doing the job at the door now as people are buying less cakes so she volunteered.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Not solely. We know the virus can live for a long time on surfaces, hours in fact. If you touch it, then touch your face, you risk exposing yourself to infection.

The less people going into places, the less those surfaces get exposed to people. That infected person who picks up a tin of beans and puts it back, who hadn't washed their hands after scratching their nose, transfers the virus to it. The next customer who picks it up transfers it to their hand, and around and around we go.

The less people around, the less chance of infected people being around. The less infected people being around, the less chance for the virus to be spread to the things people are touching.

I'm not denying the number of people has in impact. I just think more than halving the period of exposure is better than halving the number of people.

2 hours ago, 1967RAMS said:

Don’t confuse viral load with catching the virus. You can catch the virus by instant contact with a infected person or infected surface, if you rub your eyes or touch your mouth. If the amount of people is double what it needs to be in any one day the chance of catching the virus or passing it on is increased greatly. By your logic it would be safer to see 59 people for 1 min than 1 person for 60 mins, which is obviously nonsense. To suggest 2 people will spend 20 mins in the shop, whereas 1 person will spend 1 hour is also fanciful. Hope this helps your understanding and stay safe?

No.... I'm fairly certain if you're wrong. Let's imagine a scenario where you're exposed to 1 person for 1 hour, and that person has the virus. It's therefore stands to reason that if you're exposed to 59 people with the virus for 1 minute (either consecutively or concurrently) you'll have a reduced chance of catching the virus.
Going back to my example of a couple vs just 1 person... if one has the virus then odds are the other does. So more than halving the period of exposure will likely reduce the chance of someone else catching it. Bringing probability in to it makes things a bit more difficult to judge. Let's say there's a 33% chance of each person having it (likely over-egging it a bit). That means there's a 55% chance one or both have it (11% both, 22% just person 1, 22% just person 2, and 45% neither). If my maths is correct then that means the couple need to 30% of the time in the shop than the 1 person ordinarily would. In this case 18 mins for the couple vs 1 hours for just one of them. [100% chance = 50% of the time (30 mins), 10% chance = 26% of the time (16 mins)]. 
Knowing how long a couple spends shopping vs just one of them is almost impossible to prove, so kind of makes this conversation pointless.

"Fanciful" in your opinion, but fact from my personal experience. 

[rammieib]

Been some selfish people on this thread - probably the same bamfords who cant stick to the government rules.

1 person per household goes in shopping. Respect other people (shoppers and staff). It's really not that difficult.

B4 - Although I don't see the need for the three of you to go shopping, only one of you should, what I would say is that the Sainsbury's on wyvern where I go - I saw a wheelchair user and young children with their parents - of course, common sense takes over and they are allowed in. I think I also saw some couple's queueing together but at the point of entry to the shop, one of them went back to the car - again, zero issue with that.

 

 

[Ewe Ram]

23 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Must admit, I went to Morrisons yesterday... first time out in 15 days, I hasten to add... and immediately behind me in the queue (well, 2m markings on the floor!) for the checkouts were a couple.  Now I know all is not always as it seems, but they did "appear to be normal"!  Middle aged.  Firm on their feet.  Normal "married couple" conversation.  I did wonder to myself why they were there together, but obviously it's not my place to question it out loud!

My husband drives me to do my shopping because I am unable to lift heavy weights. He stood in the queue with me once as I was recovering from (what I think) was Covid and I was a bit tired still. I go for the NHS shopping access. He sits in the car and listens to podcasts. 

[1967RAMS]

16 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I'm not denying the number of people has in impact. I just think more than halving the period of exposure is better than halving the number of people.

No.... I'm fairly certain if you're wrong. Let's imagine a scenario where you're exposed to 1 person for 1 hour, and that person has the virus. It's therefore stands to reason that if you're exposed to 59 people with the virus for 1 minute (either consecutively or concurrently) you'll have a reduced chance of catching the virus.
Going back to my example of a couple vs just 1 person... if one has the virus then odds are the other does. So more than halving the period of exposure will likely reduce the chance of someone else catching it. Bringing probability in to it makes things a bit more difficult to judge. Let's say there's a 33% chance of each person having it (likely over-egging it a bit). That means there's a 55% chance one or both have it (11% both, 22% just person 1, 22% just person 2, and 45% neither). If my maths is correct then that means the couple need to 30% of the time in the shop than the 1 person ordinarily would. In this case 18 mins for the couple vs 1 hours for just one of them. [100% chance = 50% of the time (30 mins), 10% chance = 26% of the time (16 mins)]. 
Knowing how long a couple spends shopping vs just one of them is almost impossible to prove, so kind of makes this conversation pointless.

"Fanciful" in your opinion, but fact from my personal experience. 

This is wrong, dangerous and even potentially fatal. It should be removed by moderators. Catching the virus can be  instant and mostly by indirect contact. Contacts in supermarkets are generally fleeting with other shoppers and not for long periods . The spread will mostly be from touching objects others have touched then facial contact. The fewer people who enter a supermarket, the lesser the virus will spread. That is a simple fact, which is why the Government have taken the advice of their scientific advisors and said where possible one person should shop for one household( even more than 1 household if possible, IE for vulnerable relatives or neighbours) It may not suit you or a few others on this thread but that’s just unlucky. Don’t try to make up your own science to suit yourself, take the Government advice, do as your told and help keep yourself and others safer.

[GboroRam]

23 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

This is wrong, dangerous and even potentially fatal. It should be removed by moderators. Catching the virus can be  instant and mostly by indirect contact. Contacts in supermarkets are generally fleeting with other shoppers and not for long periods . The spread will mostly be from touching objects others have touched then facial contact. The fewer people who enter a supermarket, the lesser the virus will spread. That is a simple fact, which is why the Government have taken the advice of their scientific advisors and said where possible one person should shop for one household( even more than 1 household if possible, IE for vulnerable relatives or neighbours) It may not suit you or a few others on this thread but that’s just unlucky. Don’t try to make up your own science to suit yourself, take the Government advice, do as your told and help keep yourself and others safer.

I don't think we'll remove it. It's not a call to disobey guidance, just a question. I think ultimately both the OP and yourself would agree, the safest way of all is to reduce the amount of time and the number of people - and that's exactly what I think we should all be doing.