|
Some self isolating people probably get through a lot of toilet paper / tissues.
|
|
|
|
|
Sahir Shah wrote: If you are starving to death; the last thing you need is toilet paper. Or am I missing something here.
If things get that bad, then toiletpaper becomes currency.
The amount of toiletpaper people buy amazes me; some buy enough to last half a year. I think many people have no idea how much they actually use in a month.
I do stockpile, mostly during sales.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree the situation is ridiculous (I'm no hoarder myself and haven't bought any more than I normally would in any other random period of time), this sounds like a comment coming from someone who's never run out of TP when you needed it the most...
It's a bit like oxygen... 
|
|
|
|
|
But how does that happen? How long must a crisis be for you to run out of toilet paper? That can't possibly be something you buy every day, to cover the needs of the evening and the next morning, and that is it! Buying toilet paper for the next few days (and no more) is like buying salt and pepper for the next few days (and no more).
Well, of course that is possible, but who would choose to run a hand-to-mouth household to that degree ... with toilet paper?
|
|
|
|
|
I know, I know...but like I said: I'm not buying any more right now than I normally would in any other random period of time, and I'm not about to change that.
I was just making the joke that you won't know how much you'll miss TP until you actually need it and you're out. Not condoning people's current behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not shaking your hand because of coronavirus. I'm not shaking it because there's no toilet paper.
|
|
|
|
|
You should know to use your left hand, keeping your right hand clean for shaking hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All those poor, poor drug dealers 
We have to help them!
And the airlines!
And the banks and insurance companies!
And rich people who do nothing but pay people to play the stock market for them!
What, people are getting sick?
Screw them! Criminals and corprations are losing money!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: And rich people who do nothing but pay people to play the stock market for them!
How considerate. You must be happy to now be able to save 12 cents at the pump...?
While I have a varied investment portfolio, the stock market is a part of it. I don't "do nothing", and I'm not exactly "rich". Even less so after the latest report. So thank you for your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to ask the investors, corporations, drug dealers, etc. that I mentioned:Do do you think that tax money should be expended on replacing your losses, or on taking steps to prevent and cure a disease that is killing people's husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, etc? A simple question, that will tell a lot about the person who answers it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you're saying...but it's not like the money that got wiped off the market would ever have been reallocated to fight against the disease in the first place.
So now we'll end up in this situation:
- A huge amount of money got wiped off the market
- More (tax) money is going to be used to replace losses (but certainly not mine)
- A comparatively tiny amount might be used to fight the disease
Lose/lose/tiny win
|
|
|
|
|
 Good answer.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a natural at pessimism.
|
|
|
|
|
And that proves that you can not build real value on such airy things...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I invested all my BitCoin into Sh--Paper
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't even know you were Australian[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So is this latest pandemic Mother natures way of reducing the population, decimating the elderly who are biologically less valuable that the young. Her way of implementing the 3 score and ten (I know that comes from the sky pixie but lets go with that).
I am not trolling the forum much
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
decimating?
I don't know how it will end... but right now is not even thousandmating the population.
And yes... I am taking the old definition of 10% to make the "joke", not the one of drastically reducing that is more extended today
But answering your question in a bit more serious tone... I am not sure if mother nature really is after this virus or we could have something to do with it as a new conspiracy theory is saying (I don't really care) but I think it will still be less hard as we actually deserve.
If I were the Mother Nature, I would be inmensely pissed off about humanity.
Heck... being human myself, I am sometimes pissed off about humanity.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 12-Mar-20 19:24pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mortality among the vulnerable is about 8% I believe (compared to about 0.1% for the flu), so decimating is a fairly accurate use of the historical definition. When you factor in deaths by all ages that number comes down, obviously, but anyone who denies covid-19 is no more dangerous than the flu is being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: decimating is a fairly accurate use of the historical definition
I had heard that the original historical definition was to reduce to 10% (i.e. kill 90%), not reduce by 10% (i.e. leave 90%) which is the commonly understood meaning (and the one that I grew up understanding it to mean).
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, we're being realists. The flue kills tens of thousands, and even into the hundreds of thousands each year. COVID-19 has so far killed less than 5,000 people. The real panic is because it's new.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: The real panic is because it's new.
And because of the relativity of the numbers...
obermd wrote: The flue kills tens of thousands
From hundreds of millions infected
obermd wrote: COVID-19 has so far killed less than 5,000 people.
from around 110k people infected. And yes, I know.. most of them were old and not that healthy, but still the % numbers are higher than the flu.
I hope you are right and it in the end is "less than the flu", I really hope it.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The flu kills that many because it is endemic, however covid 19 has just got started. Saying covid is no worse than the flu because that kills more is like jumping off a tall building and on the way down saying "so far so good".
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
