Everyone seems to be having their say, so now it's my turn.
Firstly,
please stop panic buying. Really. You don't need that much loo roll, and you're being a selfish twat* because other people can't afford (whether time, money or physical energy) to bulk buy so are being left with nowt.
Same goes for paracetamol. There are people who have various conditions that are manageable with pain relief, yet they are reduced to being in agony, not being able to maintain their living standards because shelves are stripped bare of basic paracetamol; not to mention the fact that there may be other circumstances why these people cannot 'simply' take other pain relief (pregnancy, asthma or other conditions). Fever is a natural response to infection, so unless it is a very high temperature or accompanied by aches and pains, it is often best to allow the fever to run its course.
And the same goes for sanitizer and hand soap. Everyone should wash their hands anyway, after going to the loo, before cooking and eating, after playing with pets or in the garden. Yes, it is recommended that people wash their hands even more often, so the sales of hand-wash might be in slightly higher demand that usual, but currently it is ridiculous.
And the same goes (unsurprisingly) for dried and tinned foods. Yes, some people are having to self isolate, but as it currently stands, the government has not required this on a large scale (see my thoughts on that below). As such there is currently no need to start stocking up, because all you are doing is impacting other people. As I said before, there are people who cannot bulk buy. Whether they go shopping once a week, or only buy a basket-full more often, if there is nothing on the shelves, these people are not going to eat. And by 'these people' I am thinking primarily of the elderly or people on benefits who may have no alternative but to shop in this manner. For most of us, and I assume everyone reading this blog, we do have alternative options. We can buy online and get food delivered to our door. Other people may not be comfortable with this technology, may not afford to have internet in their home or on their phone, or may not even have a card to enable them do online transactions.
A knock-on effect of this, is that food banks are running out of food and various supplies. They are not on the shelves of the shops, so when these items are available, people are keeping them all for themselves, or not buying surplus (in the hope of reducing the affect of the panic buying and leaving enough for the next person). I know I'm guilty of not donating to food banks recently, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
*Apologies to female genitalia - genitalia = good, selfish idiots = bad.
Secondly,
it's not just the flu.
It is true that for most people, it will be an annoying infection from which you'll recover and life will go on. However, for many people with underlying conditions it can be a lot worse. I'm not going to expand and make you think I'm a medical expect - it's just common sense that people who have lowered immune systems or already have respiratory conditions will be affected by such a virus more.
For anyone interested in learning more about Covid19, FutureLearn are offering this free online course:
Click Here
Then there's the
impact it will have on all hospitals and other medical environments. Not only is there the obvious effects (the more people who get the coronavirus, the small percentage of people who need to be hospitalised will increase, so can overwhelm ICUs), but there will be other people, who don't have the virus, who will need to be admitted to ICU, so there won't be enough beds.
There are people with various conditions who need to use hospitals, even if they don't need to be admitted, so lots of 'routine' appointments, testing, monitoring, and surgeries will need to be cancelled. I, for one, have not been called for my annual mammogram and MRI scan that I have to check for breast cancer at this time each year. Then there's the staff themselves, who not only put themselves at risk by being in an environment where there may be multiple people with symptoms, but if they too are self isolating, there will be less staff in our hospitals, so is a vicious cycle.
Once hospitals are overwhelmed, who will be considered eligible for treatment? What if you're over a certain age? What if you are disabled or have other conditions? What if you don't have children? What if you're an alcoholic or drug addict? What if you smoke? What if you're overweight? What if you can't afford to pay privately? Who gets to make these decisions?
So should we all be panicking?
No, but it is likely to have a big impact an some people, and because we should be caring for other people in our society, we should be thinking about the impact our actions will have on others.
The government recently updated their guidance here. I've heard a mixed response to this; some people suggesting it doesn't go far enough, whilst others thinking it's totally fine. (I haven't heard anyone suggesting that it goes too far.) My gut-feel is that it probably doesn't go far enough.
I know some people will be put out if things were shut down, not least self-employed people like myself who won't qualify for any benefits or SSP, but we need to learn from other countries. It's very easy to think "oh, it's the other side of the world" "it's a different culture" etc, then it came to Italy, but "they didn't know what they were doing" and "we're learning from their mistakes". The main thing that has come from the government, to me, is a sense that they don't want to do anything out of fear for their reputation, rather than erring on the side of caution/protecting people's lives, even if it proves to be too cautious.
This article has a sensationalist title, but does seem to be well researched and makes sense to my "Joe Public" understanding of events.
I know in my town in the UK, that we have currently 2 confirmed cases.
Allegedly, there are actually around 50 cases currently in our hospital, but that the hospital has been told from above that they are not allowed to test anyone unless they have travelled to certain locations. Now the government have said that if you think you have symptoms you should self isolate and only call NHS111 if you are particularly worried or your symptoms are severe; as such the real number of people who have the virus will be much larger than current numbers (and therefore predictions based on these numbers) will suggest.
Another concern I have (because like must the population, I'm more selfishly concerned about how my future plans will be impacted because of shut-downs etc, rather than concern about contracting the virus itself) is surrounding insurance. I don't fully understand it (partly because I haven't actually looked into it) but I've heard on the grape-vine, that if people choose to not attend events, then they cannot be reimbursed (which I do understand), if the events/venues get cancelled then people will be reimbursed (fair enough), but if the government implements a national shut-down, and events get cancelled because of that, then insurance is no longer valid so people will not be reimbursed. As I said, I may have got that wrong, or not understood it, but that position seems inherently unfair.
And what about all bills that need to be paid during the shut-down period? Generally I'm someone who if something happens that I have no control over, I will take it as it comes and treat the situation as an adventure, so the idea of being shut at home, doesn't actually bother me that much, assuming I can still get food delivered to me (because I am privileged in that way). If we had to live on SSP for the duration of the shut down, if other bills were put on hold (and preferably without interest accumulating), we'd be ok. If bills were not put on hold, things would be very tight for us. We're lucky, we have a good credit rating and could potentially organise a mortgage-holiday. Other people, however, may be renting, so do not have that option. Or if it's a private landlord, they may be relying on that income in order to pay their own bills. Unfortunately, I do not have confidence in our government (well, the prime minister at least) to have though of all these nuances, implications, and more that hasn't brushed past my mind.
Personally, my girls have dance exams in the next couple of weeks, and I wouldn't want them postponed, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I do feel for students who are doing GCSEs, A-Levels, and University Finals this summer. It's a stressful enough time anyway, without worrying about what-ifs and maybes. We haven't booked a holiday this year yet, so have no concerns about that being cancelled, but we have booked various day trips and overnight stays for various reasons that can all be impacted.
I've run out of steam for this topic right now, and I haven't even had a rant about overt and more subtle racism due to the virus. Last night a friend and I had a delicious meal at a Thai restaurant, and we were the only 2 people there. All night. I asked the lady working there if it was always this quiet on a Thursday evening, wondering if it was just because it's a weekday, but no. They are quieter on a weeknight, but they have been near-dead all week. It's crazy. Anyway, I will stop now (and probably remember the rest of what I wanted to write later when I'm away from my laptop).
Just remember to not panic, be hygienic, and think of others.
These two books go into much more detail about why the series in named as it is - Saints and Sinners is a TV reality show where 'Saints' try to change the behaviour of 'Sinners', and 'Sinners' try and change the behaviour of the 'Saints'. Colby persuades Chloe to audition for a part on the show, and they both get picked, but on competing teams. This book is still a romance, albeit more about unrequited love, so there is sexual tension amongst the TV cameras in the Saints and Sinners house.
