This 'vulnerable' label ----

What moral high ground?
Im saying that if you "need" it enough that you would put your loved ones at risk for it, then you need it enough to order it.
If you wouldnt, then its a want not a need.

Its a sound rule of thumb that adapts to totally differing needs.

notanan Don't be ridiculous.

Monica I dont understand what is rediculous about it.

If you need it enough that you would justify sending your own loved one into a hectic warehouse for it, then fair enough you probably do need it, and keyworkers are there to meet needs at the moment.

Whats rediculous about that?

Its a decent way to determine whether you are comissioning an "essential" journey or not

I am assured that the goods I ordered were from firms which are adhering to very strict new guidelines.
One firm wrote to say that those who had children, vulnerable relatives were not working and that a new warehouse had been fitted out to ensure safe working conditions for those volunteering to come in to help keep the country going.

Some of my family are still working
Some are on the front line, but not all.

They are, however, carrying out jobs to benefit those who are in self-isolation.

Ordering craft goods etc is not essential??
Trying telling a 6'3" very strong 19 year old autistic man he cant have what he needs for his project!!
My grandson is struggling with all the lockdown entails as it is. My daughter (his Mum) is 5' and has a hard enough time with him especially as his temper flare ups can be spectacular!She is in the shielding group due to health problems and they live 300 mile from me. If I couldnt send them things by courier or she couldnt order on line I fear for his mental health.
My friend has just attempted to take her own life due to the mental stress of lockdown, she was obeying all the rules and then some, so dont worry about peoples mental health will you notanan.

Hasn't the government been sending out letters to everyone via Royal Mail? Are these considered essential?

I never said people shouldnt get what they need HAZBEEN
I said you should ensure it is a need worth the risk. Because you are risking someone for it even if you dont go get it yourself.

notanan you do not seem very concerend about all the other people working: medicalstaff, food retail staff, those moving food from farms to shops, farmworkers. All those other people working to keep us safe.

Perhaps everyone should give up work and socially isolate. What then for the sick, the hungry, those in need etc etc?

You are just not being logical.

The people going to work to provide essentials find the risk more palatable.

I never said nobody should work. I said that people shouldnt have others running around after them for items they wouldnt risk themselves or their loved ones for right now.

Keyworkers want to be doing essential work. Its when they are leaving and risking their families for non essentials that it becomes harder for them to bear

No balancing act will be needed if the people are dead .

If everyone self isolated, how would people get shopping?

It is no good saying they can get things delivered because it is very hard to get a slot for either click & collect or online delivery where I live.

I shop for others, as well as myself. I understood that, if someone was well, without Covid-19 symptoms and young enough to do this, we were supposed to physically go to supermarkets so online slots could be released to those not so fortunate.

I don't think notanan is being ridiculous at all. I do, however, think some people are selfish and thoughtless and have lost sight of what is actually essential.

You understand correctly Tangerine. The whole point is that those who are most able should do essential tasks.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a good place to start.

Daughter and I had a conversation about not shopping (for non essentials) online during the virus. I've added some non-essential bits to our grocery order because GS has his birthday next week and even though we're not making a big deal, we wanted to celebrate in a small way. But we're NOT ordering the usual gifts etc.

I can't bear the thought of those poor Amazon workers, who work in appalling conditions at the best of times, running around, risking contact with others, getting frivolous stuff ready for those that are safe at home on their sofas. Supermarket staff, healthcare workers, transport workers. They are essential.

growstuff, I LOVE Maslow. I know I'm a teacher, therefore familiar with him, but still.

I don't think notanan is being ridiculous at all. I do, however, think some people are selfish and thoughtless and have lost sight of what is actually essential.

I think its more that people think they onlu have to avoid non essential journeys that they take themselves
And dont think journeys they order/commission come into it at all. So long as they are not personally taking the journey.

Out of sight out of mind I guess.

Others think they have no liability for the decision and say "well if I wasnt supposed to order X it wouldnt still be available"

But as I said up thread, the onus has to be on the orderer. The company cant say "sinks are/arent essential" because customer A might have broken their only sink and customer B might just fancy refurbing the spare en suit.

People have to be accountable for what they order and remember that youre still creating journeys and contact for others even if you yourself are home/safe etc

I think my seeds are essential. British firm, work force consists of those who volunteered to be there and safe working conditions.
I hope my medication will be delivered but I have a feeling I may not be lucky.

Our friend who is a lorry driver is very upset at being laid off because the places he delivers to have closed due to Government restrictions. He wants to be at work

The only things I have ordered from Amazon in many a long time are books for my Kindle.

Do you have experience of working in a warehouse, then notanan? I am sorry if you are being forced to work when you would rather not, but most firms are being much more accommodating of their staff than forcing someone to work at the present time.

I honestly don't see why, if someone is having a grocery delivery, that it matters if the order contains chocolate and gin amongst the lentils and turnips. It really makes no difference, and self-denial is entirely pointless in that circumstance. Leaving the house specifically to get chocolate or gin is a different matter entirely, though, as that could, potentially, put others at risk.

The government has taken the decision to have millions of letters delivered across the country. Is this in contravention of its own policies of 'flattening the curve' and reducing risk to the population, or are they taking the view that there is minimal risk in having them delivered?

The question of Amazon's ethics is in many ways separate from this discussion, IMO. We would need numerous threads to cover tax evasion, the exploitation of workers, the whole concept of zero hours contracts, the effectiveness of customer boycotts, and much more besides. There are those who already boycott Amazon, and they, I assume, will continue to do so during the crisis. Others don't, and won't be now.

I still feel that we should all concentrate on doing what we can to minimise the risks to ourselves and others, and let everyone else do the same. High blood pressure is a risk factor in this crisis, so it could be argued that getting one's knickers in a knot about what others are doing is putting strain on an already stretched NHS

I honestly don't see why, if someone is having a grocery delivery, that it matters if the order contains chocolate and gin amongst the lentils and turnips. It really makes no difference

It doesnt just appear. The more you order the more pressure on packers who have to go out into the isles to get it for you.

but most firms are being much more accommodating of their staff than forcing someone to work at the present time.
This is not the story coming out of that sector at all. Look on whatever news source you prefer there are multiple accounts from warehouse workers on all of them saying that they feel that their lives are being risked unecessarily. And social distancing is impossible due to all of the extra orders

The government has taken the decision to have millions of letters delivered across the country

Whataboutery

Doodledog good post

Of course some will and their unions, if they are in one, must insist on safe working practices.

However, even if a firm introduces the most stringent of practices, there are always some workers who would prefer to be furloughed and stay at home.
There are many others, though, who would prefer to be at work and keeping their firms going because they will still want jobs when this is all over.

As I said, I am sorry if you or a member of your family are being forced to work against your will notanan and the conditions are not safe.
That is wrong.

Thanks, Callistemon.

Notanan, it's not whataboutery. I am asking why, if the people who are making the rules for the rest of us to follow are using the PO, the rest of us should not. Either the rules are not worth following, or they are, and using the PO is ok.

There is, of course, a third possibility, which is that you know better, and should be formulating the rules for the rest of us. Good luck with that.

There are many others, though, who would prefer to be at work and keeping their firms going because they will still want jobs when this is all over.

As I said, people want to work. They want to help keep essentials running.
They object however to having to work at increased pressure, which makes social distancing impossible^ to cover the huge surge in non essentials orders