6 ms·

Will someone please explain why stocking up on water is consistently being advised? Do these people think coronavirus is going to cause enough unrest to destab

Will someone please explain why stocking up on water is consistently being advised? Do these people think coronavirus is going to cause enough unrest to destabilize civic services and affect our municipal water supplies? Or do these people just parrot this stuff without critical review?

zamalek 7y ago
It's less to do with crazy unlikely scenarios, and more to do with the fact that you die without water in days.
neilv 7y ago
That article is relatively sensible, and it also mentions why the writer advocates storing some water, or at least getting a filter, even though they suspect water service will continue to operate. Here's one hypothetical scenario that might be intuitive, not from the article... Say, you live in a dense part of the city, and there's suddenly a lot of confirmed cases around you, so your family decides to stay home for a week, to wait&see how this plays out and what government help arrives. All your city utilities work, but much of the city water utility workers can't afford to live in the city, or otherwise have to stay home, and the remaining workers can't keep up with the ordinary day-to-day level of repairs and maintenance. A pipe fractures, brown water comes out your faucet, and now you have to decide whether to venture out to try to find a store open that has bottled water, and possibly bring the virus back to your family, or stay in and hope water will be fixed and known-safe within 3 days. Ordinary bottle water is $1-$2 a gallon, off-the-shelf from the local store, and some insurance and peace of mind against a very bad and not-too-unlikely situation.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  Or just boil it at home.
  - neilv 7y ago
    If your water is coming out brown, like in the example, boiling is likely insufficient. (You really don't want to gamble with needing a doctor/ER at that time.) It also assumes you have a means to boil water. A filter might help in addition to boiling and/or drops, and a filter is one option the article suggests as options for water. I think we'd do a disservice to people by discouraging them from having a modest backup plan for water during a possible pandemic quarantine. Remember the rough "3" rule: 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food.
    - double0jimb0 7y ago
      Copied from above: If you can share one cited example of a water boil alert being issued solely because of persons not showing up to work, I’ll believe your hypothetical. A natural disaster or pipe break that forces a water boil alert could happen any time. Again, I am trying to understand if there is any elevated need to have bottled water at home during pandemic fear vs any other time when run-of-the-mill water boil alerts are issued.
      - natalyarostova 7y ago
        The short answer is giving you a causal, narrative like reason why you would want bottled water at home during a pandemic doesn't exist. The best argument is that a pandemic is an unknown shock to a system. We don't have any clear reason to put forward a causal hypothesis as to why this shock would damage the water part of our system. But we also know reasoning about complex systems is super fucking hard, and our puny human brains often fail at it (we can barely get right why slightly changing an API can cause entire systems to break). We also know humans die without water, very quickly. Ultimately, it's your call to make.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    If the infrastructure decays so much that there's no drinkable running water, chances are you power and gas are also out.
- IggleSniggle 7y ago
  Or, you know, just fill a jug at the tap today while the water is good.
  - neilv 7y ago
    If you have sufficient clean, water-safe containers, and know how to treat the water, and have the time to do it, sure.
acid__ 7y ago
Agreed. It makes sense in preparation for some scenarios that could actually cause major infrastructure damage (e.g. an earthquake). But in the case of mass quarantines, turning on the faucets should continue to work (as it still does throughout China). If you’re worried, fill up some large containers with water once the quarantines are announced, but there’s really no need to stock up on bottled water now (unless you’d like to prepare for other kinds of emergencies too, which is not a bad idea!)
sb057 7y ago
A few key technicians catching it (or refusing to show up to work) could easily disrupt a city's (or at least part of a city's) water system. Of course, that's the case with seasonal flu as well, which is why it's a good idea to keep water on-hand to start with.
- double0jimb0 7y ago
  If you can share one cited example of a water boil alert being issued solely because of persons not showing up to work, I’ll believe your hypothetical. A natural disaster or pipe break that forces a water boil alert could happen any time. Again, I am trying to understand if there is any elevated need to have bottled water at home during pandemic fear vs any other time when run-of-the-mill water boil alerts are issued.
GuiA 7y ago
I thought electricity was something I could rely on having in my house unless a major catastrophic event happened, in which case I'd have more to worry about than just electricity. For the past year or so, my electricity goes out at least half a day every 2-3 weeks. Once, it was out from the moment I woke on a Saturday at 7am until 3-4pm or so. I live in the Mission, San Francisco. Sometimes I get a heads up by text from PG&E a few hours before, sometimes not. My gut wants to agree with what you wrote, but I feel like re-evaluating my priors is appropriate here.
- double0jimb0 7y ago
  I'm trying to understand what is a rational level of preparedness, so also re-evaluating my priors. My sense is a pandemic is not equivalent to a natural disaster. But a lot of the “be prepared” content seems to conflate the two, which I’d argue is not helping matters.
natalyarostova 7y ago
Water is interesting, because humans are so utterly dependent on it to survive the coming 2-3 days, that even if the probability of it going away is remote, the consequence is the maximum. As a result it's hard to not suggest it. Having said that, yeah, we almost surely won't lose water due to this virus.
cryptoz 7y ago
Having bottled water on hand seems like a super useful thing right now, to me anyway. It makes it easier for families to not share water sources, reduce the spread of disease at offices if you bring a bottle vs using a communal tap, and a thousand other things in that vein. It is recommended everywhere because it is useful, not because people are 'parroting this stuff'. I think any real critical review of the data would conclude with a suggestion that bulk bottled water is a good idea for people to stock up on. > Do these people think coronavirus is going to cause enough unrest to destabilize civic services and affect our municipal water supplies? No, I don't think anyone is worried about that. This is the first suggestion of that nature I've seen, I think you are arguing a straw man here. The primary reason for bottled water is to help prevent the spread of germs by reducing shared water sources. A secondary reason would be general risk-reduction: having your own clean safe water is a calming factor and reduces/eliminates at least a few possible contamination sources. It is a logical move, not some hare-brained silly idea that people are 'parroting'.
- sgt101 7y ago
  I see and hear of no cases of Corvid spread via water supply. On the other hand if you spend money and time gathering in a resource that is easily and continually available then you are not taking the action that really will help you. Gathering supplies of water is sensible in case of natural disaster and war - for this one, not so much. Spend the money on food and entertainment instead.
- michaelt 7y ago
  If there's no threat to the municipal water supply, why would one choose a stockpile of bottled water in preference to a couple of refillable milk jugs and the cleaning spray almost every kitchen already contains?
- dukha 7y ago
  I don't agree it's a logical move. a) tap water is going through decontamination procedures b) there is no evidence that tap water can transmit virus c) if you don't trust tap water you can boil it easily d) even in single household people are not really drinking from shared pool of water It can be argued that it's better to have water and not need it rather not having it in the need, but on the other hand if you're at the point where basic needs like water and electricity are not provided anymore lack of stockpiled water is unlikely your biggest problem.
sgt101 7y ago
It's lunatic. You can tell because no where in the article does the author advocate the single most powerful thing that you can do to improve you and your families chances of survival in any disaster situation. Make friends with your neighbors, invite them for a meal, know their first name and get them to know yours. Especially they should know things like "oh, yeah, miss williams is a diabetic"
koonsolo 7y ago
It's true that the coronavirus itself will not cause disruption in the water supplies. But on the other hand, while you're stocking up on other stuff, why not include water at the same time? It's always handy to have it for other emergency situations.

zamalek 7y ago

It's less to do with crazy unlikely scenarios, and more to do with the fact that you die without water in days.

neilv 7y ago

That article is relatively sensible, and it also mentions why the writer advocates storing some water, or at least getting a filter, even though they suspect water service will continue to operate. Here's one hypothetical scenario that might be intuitive, not from the article... Say, you live in a dense part of the city, and there's suddenly a lot of confirmed cases around you, so your family decides to stay home for a week, to wait&see how this plays out and what government help arrives. All your city utilities work, but much of the city water utility workers can't afford to live in the city, or otherwise have to stay home, and the remaining workers can't keep up with the ordinary day-to-day level of repairs and maintenance. A pipe fractures, brown water comes out your faucet, and now you have to decide whether to venture out to try to find a store open that has bottled water, and possibly bring the virus back to your family, or stay in and hope water will be fixed and known-safe within 3 days. Ordinary bottle water is $1-$2 a gallon, off-the-shelf from the local store, and some insurance and peace of mind against a very bad and not-too-unlikely situation.

aaomidi 7y ago
Or just boil it at home.
- neilv 7y ago
  If your water is coming out brown, like in the example, boiling is likely insufficient. (You really don't want to gamble with needing a doctor/ER at that time.) It also assumes you have a means to boil water. A filter might help in addition to boiling and/or drops, and a filter is one option the article suggests as options for water. I think we'd do a disservice to people by discouraging them from having a modest backup plan for water during a possible pandemic quarantine. Remember the rough "3" rule: 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food.
  - double0jimb0 7y ago
    Copied from above: If you can share one cited example of a water boil alert being issued solely because of persons not showing up to work, I’ll believe your hypothetical. A natural disaster or pipe break that forces a water boil alert could happen any time. Again, I am trying to understand if there is any elevated need to have bottled water at home during pandemic fear vs any other time when run-of-the-mill water boil alerts are issued.
    - natalyarostova 7y ago
      The short answer is giving you a causal, narrative like reason why you would want bottled water at home during a pandemic doesn't exist. The best argument is that a pandemic is an unknown shock to a system. We don't have any clear reason to put forward a causal hypothesis as to why this shock would damage the water part of our system. But we also know reasoning about complex systems is super fucking hard, and our puny human brains often fail at it (we can barely get right why slightly changing an API can cause entire systems to break). We also know humans die without water, very quickly. Ultimately, it's your call to make.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  If the infrastructure decays so much that there's no drinkable running water, chances are you power and gas are also out.
IggleSniggle 7y ago
Or, you know, just fill a jug at the tap today while the water is good.
- neilv 7y ago
  If you have sufficient clean, water-safe containers, and know how to treat the water, and have the time to do it, sure.

acid__ 7y ago

Agreed. It makes sense in preparation for some scenarios that could actually cause major infrastructure damage (e.g. an earthquake). But in the case of mass quarantines, turning on the faucets should continue to work (as it still does throughout China). If you’re worried, fill up some large containers with water once the quarantines are announced, but there’s really no need to stock up on bottled water now (unless you’d like to prepare for other kinds of emergencies too, which is not a bad idea!)

sb057 7y ago

A few key technicians catching it (or refusing to show up to work) could easily disrupt a city's (or at least part of a city's) water system. Of course, that's the case with seasonal flu as well, which is why it's a good idea to keep water on-hand to start with.

double0jimb0 7y ago
If you can share one cited example of a water boil alert being issued solely because of persons not showing up to work, I’ll believe your hypothetical. A natural disaster or pipe break that forces a water boil alert could happen any time. Again, I am trying to understand if there is any elevated need to have bottled water at home during pandemic fear vs any other time when run-of-the-mill water boil alerts are issued.

GuiA 7y ago

I thought electricity was something I could rely on having in my house unless a major catastrophic event happened, in which case I'd have more to worry about than just electricity. For the past year or so, my electricity goes out at least half a day every 2-3 weeks. Once, it was out from the moment I woke on a Saturday at 7am until 3-4pm or so. I live in the Mission, San Francisco. Sometimes I get a heads up by text from PG&E a few hours before, sometimes not. My gut wants to agree with what you wrote, but I feel like re-evaluating my priors is appropriate here.

double0jimb0 7y ago
I'm trying to understand what is a rational level of preparedness, so also re-evaluating my priors. My sense is a pandemic is not equivalent to a natural disaster. But a lot of the “be prepared” content seems to conflate the two, which I’d argue is not helping matters.

natalyarostova 7y ago

Water is interesting, because humans are so utterly dependent on it to survive the coming 2-3 days, that even if the probability of it going away is remote, the consequence is the maximum. As a result it's hard to not suggest it. Having said that, yeah, we almost surely won't lose water due to this virus.

cryptoz 7y ago

Having bottled water on hand seems like a super useful thing right now, to me anyway. It makes it easier for families to not share water sources, reduce the spread of disease at offices if you bring a bottle vs using a communal tap, and a thousand other things in that vein. It is recommended everywhere because it is useful, not because people are 'parroting this stuff'. I think any real critical review of the data would conclude with a suggestion that bulk bottled water is a good idea for people to stock up on. > Do these people think coronavirus is going to cause enough unrest to destabilize civic services and affect our municipal water supplies? No, I don't think anyone is worried about that. This is the first suggestion of that nature I've seen, I think you are arguing a straw man here. The primary reason for bottled water is to help prevent the spread of germs by reducing shared water sources. A secondary reason would be general risk-reduction: having your own clean safe water is a calming factor and reduces/eliminates at least a few possible contamination sources. It is a logical move, not some hare-brained silly idea that people are 'parroting'.

sgt101 7y ago
I see and hear of no cases of Corvid spread via water supply. On the other hand if you spend money and time gathering in a resource that is easily and continually available then you are not taking the action that really will help you. Gathering supplies of water is sensible in case of natural disaster and war - for this one, not so much. Spend the money on food and entertainment instead.
michaelt 7y ago
If there's no threat to the municipal water supply, why would one choose a stockpile of bottled water in preference to a couple of refillable milk jugs and the cleaning spray almost every kitchen already contains?
dukha 7y ago
I don't agree it's a logical move. a) tap water is going through decontamination procedures b) there is no evidence that tap water can transmit virus c) if you don't trust tap water you can boil it easily d) even in single household people are not really drinking from shared pool of water It can be argued that it's better to have water and not need it rather not having it in the need, but on the other hand if you're at the point where basic needs like water and electricity are not provided anymore lack of stockpiled water is unlikely your biggest problem.

sgt101 7y ago

It's lunatic. You can tell because no where in the article does the author advocate the single most powerful thing that you can do to improve you and your families chances of survival in any disaster situation. Make friends with your neighbors, invite them for a meal, know their first name and get them to know yours. Especially they should know things like "oh, yeah, miss williams is a diabetic"

koonsolo 7y ago

It's true that the coronavirus itself will not cause disruption in the water supplies. But on the other hand, while you're stocking up on other stuff, why not include water at the same time? It's always handy to have it for other emergency situations.