6 ms·

Not everyone can afford delivery fees, especially with these layoffs. And those fees are not small at all hey.

by chirau 7y ago

s0rce 7y ago
Then society should supplement their budget through social safety nets. I don't think its acceptable to risk the health of the grocery store employees because some people can't afford delivery (they don't even need delivery, just store pick up)
- notyourday 7y ago
  Not everyone is interested in what a random "shopper" decide that someone is going to get. It was tried in USSR where the shopper was whoever was a manager of a supermarket. Those got solidly trounced when the first "swiss markets" showed up.
xenihn 7y ago
You can afford them if you buy 2+ months of groceries at a time.
- michaelt 7y ago
  True, but so long as people are eating fresh bread, meat, fruit and milk they'll be going to the store for those - and won't they pick up the other things they need at the same time?
  - xenihn 7y ago
    The entire point is that people aren't going out.
hkmurakami 7y ago
I think this could be implemented with a pickup option
wegs 7y ago
Those fees are for everyone's safety. If other people have deliveries, I'm less likely to get sick and die. Delivery fees should be part of the stimulus. If everyone who can afford them paid delivery fees for everyone who can't, we'd all come out way ahead, both health-wise and economically. This is one of the biggest economic no-brainers since some states started making everyone wear a $2 cloth face mask to reduce R0.
- standardUser 7y ago
  "If other people have deliveries, I'm less likely to get sick and die." Outside of the very worst-hit parts of the world, going shopping while taking precautions does not seem to be capable of raising the transmission rate to unacceptable levels. We're not trying to prevent every and all infection, only to keep the rate of new infections at a sustainable level.
  - wegs 7y ago
    Why do you say that? The US seems to have an R0 of right around 1 with lockdowns. Shopping is the major place people continue to intermingle. If we brought R0<<1, the virus would die off. If R0 > 1, we all get sick eventually. And aside from that, school and work closures are much more expensive than food delivery. The ROI of not having everyone congregate in stores seems huge in comparison.
    - standardUser 7y ago
      I say that because I don't think anyone expects the virus to die off, save for a mutation or herd immunity (via vaccine or otherwise). Lockdowns are not and never were intended to kill the virus. Only to control the spread.

Not everyone can afford delivery fees, especially with these layoffs. And those fees are not small at all hey.

by chirau 7y ago

Not everyone can afford delivery fees, especially with these layoffs. And those fees are not small at all hey.

Then society should supplement their budget through social safety nets. I don't think its acceptable to risk the health of the grocery store employees because some people can't afford delivery (they don't even need delivery, just store pick up)

notyourday 7y ago
Not everyone is interested in what a random "shopper" decide that someone is going to get. It was tried in USSR where the shopper was whoever was a manager of a supermarket. Those got solidly trounced when the first "swiss markets" showed up.

xenihn 7y ago

You can afford them if you buy 2+ months of groceries at a time.

michaelt 7y ago
True, but so long as people are eating fresh bread, meat, fruit and milk they'll be going to the store for those - and won't they pick up the other things they need at the same time?
- xenihn 7y ago
  The entire point is that people aren't going out.

hkmurakami 7y ago

I think this could be implemented with a pickup option

wegs 7y ago

Those fees are for everyone's safety. If other people have deliveries, I'm less likely to get sick and die. Delivery fees should be part of the stimulus. If everyone who can afford them paid delivery fees for everyone who can't, we'd all come out way ahead, both health-wise and economically. This is one of the biggest economic no-brainers since some states started making everyone wear a $2 cloth face mask to reduce R0.

standardUser 7y ago
"If other people have deliveries, I'm less likely to get sick and die." Outside of the very worst-hit parts of the world, going shopping while taking precautions does not seem to be capable of raising the transmission rate to unacceptable levels. We're not trying to prevent every and all infection, only to keep the rate of new infections at a sustainable level.
- wegs 7y ago
  Why do you say that? The US seems to have an R0 of right around 1 with lockdowns. Shopping is the major place people continue to intermingle. If we brought R0<<1, the virus would die off. If R0 > 1, we all get sick eventually. And aside from that, school and work closures are much more expensive than food delivery. The ROI of not having everyone congregate in stores seems huge in comparison.
  - standardUser 7y ago
    I say that because I don't think anyone expects the virus to die off, save for a mutation or herd immunity (via vaccine or otherwise). Lockdowns are not and never were intended to kill the virus. Only to control the spread.