I'm in danger of losing a very old friend due to her assuming she's classed as vulnerable. She is over 70 but is healthy & quite wealthy, lives in a house of three adults with three cars, with a superstore less than a mile away. Why the hell should she think she's entitled to online deliveries when people in genuine need are unable to access essential foods due to the greed of others like her.
Online shopping is not greedy! It is the way I have shopped for about 20 years, and I see no reason to stop doing so now.
I have no problem with genuinely vulnerable people being given priority slots, even if they haven't shopped online in the past, but I really object to the assumption that after the vulnerable have been looked after it is somehow wrong of supermarkets to continue to deliver to its regular shoppers, who will, after all, continue to shop there when this is all over.
I think that a lot of elderly people don't want to order online. People posting on here are clearly IT literate and used to the Internet, but that is not the case across the 'older' population, so maybe there are now more online slots for the vulnerable than there are people who want them.
As a separate issue - I was sent an email saying that I could have a regular slot, and I'm not sure why.
Apart from at the beginning of the lockdown I have always had a delivery as a regular customer (I got an email saying that this is how Sainsbury's is operating - vulnerable first, then regulars, then everyone else, and I have had one every week).
I am not on the shielded list (or at least I have not had a text or a letter), but I do have asthma and a regular flu jab, so I wondered if the supermarket had access to a list of some sort.
I would not be happy if this is the case - not because of shopping issues, but because I firmly believe that health records should be strictly confidential unless people have given consent for them to be shared.