[Doro22]

Originally Posted by ChicagoNative

One way aisles are a great idea, and I’d like to see it stay in place after we all go back to “normal” life. Much better flow and efficiency, imo.

I don’t understand why the stores don’t broadcast this over their loudspeakers every few minutes as a reminder, because the floor markings are very easy to miss.

Thank you... I goofed also, & didn’t realize it at first. Then someone reminded me very nicely & I apologized & thereafter did the right thing.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Grocery stores would not be able to meet the demand using curbside or home delivery.

Sure they could. If shoppers demand more curbside pickup, Walmart can just scale up that department. Instacart can hire more drivers. I haven't had any problems so far.

Hired an Uber driver to bring me some adult beverages from the liquor store last week.

I avoid indoor spaces like the plague.

[ithos]

Originally Posted by DON10E

The pages of this thread I read did not seem to give a scientific reason that one way aisles in the supermarket are safer. It’s the same number of people, isn’t it? When I’ve gone shopping I felt like I was on a game show. The item I want is six feet away, but I have to go all the way around to get it. I’m good with that if there’s a good reason why. It seems like it takes me a lot longer to complete my shopping and doesn’t that mean we are all spending more time in an enclosed area? So how is that safer?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. Anyone?

I have asked for a rational explanation but have not read any responses that have any basis in logic . Just some inane comments like the one that compared it to parking lot lanes. You are correct. The average time a shopper spends in the store go up. It also forces more people to the front of the store where it is already congested due to the social distancing in the check out lines.

But it does give some people a sense of smug self righteousness that they are doing what they are told. I guess that is worth something.

[VILLAGERBB]

Happinow - you are so right! When did shoppers become the shopping police?
I now order online from Walmart and it comes to my door. I am sick of the nonsense that goes on in the stores.

Originally Posted by Happinow

My husband went shopping yesterday at Publix and In an effort to get in and out as quickly as possible, he accidentally went the wrong direction down an isle. He said he was concentrating on finding the items I had on our shopping list and was looking at the signs above for which isle to find the items. He got some pretty rude comments. I think people need to understand that Grocery shopping is way different than it used to be. This is so out of the ordinary for all of us. It takes some getting used to. Maybe a little grace would be nice in these stressful times. Thank you.....

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Grumpyoldvillager

If shopping is so dangerous why aren’t we hearing of abnormally high incidence of covid among shop employees?

Because shop employees are being required to take very aggressive measures to ensure they are healthy. In addition, anyone who has ANY symptoms of illness - coughing, sneezing, general malaise - are instructed to go home and stay there for 14 days. Our risk of illness is thereby reduced. We wear gloves, masks, WE have access to hand sanitizer which we make generous use of throughout our shifts, we take short breaks where we can go to a sink and wash our hands, and drink water before returning to our tasks. In other words - we are taken care of a little better than most people take care of themselves.

[photo1902]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Because shop employees are being required to take very aggressive measures to ensure they are healthy. In addition, anyone who has ANY symptoms of illness - coughing, sneezing, general malaise - are instructed to go home and stay there for 14 days. Our risk of illness is thereby reduced. We wear gloves, masks, WE have access to hand sanitizer which we make generous use of throughout our shifts, we take short breaks where we can go to a sink and wash our hands, and drink water before returning to our tasks. In other words - we are taken care of a little better than most people take care of themselves.

So drinking water is the key?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by DON10E

The pages of this thread I read did not seem to give a scientific reason that one way aisles in the supermarket are safer. It’s the same number of people, isn’t it? When I’ve gone shopping I felt like I was on a game show. The item I want is six feet away, but I have to go all the way around to get it. I’m good with that if there’s a good reason why. It seems like it takes me a lot longer to complete my shopping and doesn’t that mean we are all spending more time in an enclosed area? So how is that safer?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. Anyone?

It's math and geometry.

Let's use an aisle. A nice big aisle. We have a shopper with a shopping cart in front of her, because she's pushing it. She stops to check out something on the shelf to her right.

Now we have someone coming down from the opposite end, and he stops adjacent to the woman, with his cart in front of him, while he looks on a shelf to HIS right.

Now, we have a guy without a shopping cart coming up behind the woman, and he wants to pass by. But we also have a woman and her two kids beside her, with a shopping cart, coming from the other direction, trying to pass the guy.

In order for the guy without the cart to pass the woman at the same time the lady with the two kids is trying to pass the guy with the cart, they all have to go down the middle of the aisle, facing each other and passing each other in VERY close proximity. As in - bumping shoulders.

The one-way scenario REDUCES this. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.

You won't have people coming within inches of each other, while facing each other, in order to pass the people in front of them.

You'll still have people trying to pass, but it'll be a single lane of "people trying to pass" right down the middle, instead of people coming from both directions trying to create two "passing" lanes in the middle.

One passing lane vs. two passing lanes, all taking up the same amount of real estate.

Reduced risk. That's what it's about.

[photo1902]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's math and geometry.

Let's use an aisle. A nice big aisle. We have a shopper with a shopping cart in front of her, because she's pushing it. She stops to check out something on the shelf to her right.

Now we have someone coming down from the opposite end, and he stops adjacent to the woman, with his cart in front of him, while he looks on a shelf to HIS right.

Now, we have a guy without a shopping cart coming up behind the woman, and he wants to pass by. But we also have a woman and her two kids beside her, with a shopping cart, coming from the other direction, trying to pass the guy.

In order for the guy without the cart to pass the woman at the same time the lady with the two kids is trying to pass the guy with the cart, they all have to go down the middle of the aisle, facing each other and passing each other in VERY close proximity. As in - bumping shoulders.

The one-way scenario REDUCES this. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.

You won't have people coming within inches of each other, while facing each other, in order to pass the people in front of them.

You'll still have people trying to pass, but it'll be a single lane of "people trying to pass" right down the middle, instead of people coming from both directions trying to create two "passing" lanes in the middle.

One passing lane vs. two passing lanes, all taking up the same amount of real estate.

Reduced risk. That's what it's about.

Good grief. Nonsense. This is lunacy.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's math and geometry.

Let's use an aisle. A nice big aisle. We have a shopper with a shopping cart in front of her, because she's pushing it. She stops to check out something on the shelf to her right.

Now we have someone coming down from the opposite end, and he stops adjacent to the woman, with his cart in front of him, while he looks on a shelf to HIS right.

Now, we have a guy without a shopping cart coming up behind the woman, and he wants to pass by. But we also have a woman and her two kids beside her, with a shopping cart, coming from the other direction, trying to pass the guy.

In order for the guy without the cart to pass the woman at the same time the lady with the two kids is trying to pass the guy with the cart, they all have to go down the middle of the aisle, facing each other and passing each other in VERY close proximity. As in - bumping shoulders.

The one-way scenario REDUCES this. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.

You won't have people coming within inches of each other, while facing each other, in order to pass the people in front of them.

You'll still have people trying to pass, but it'll be a single lane of "people trying to pass" right down the middle, instead of people coming from both directions trying to create two "passing" lanes in the middle.

One passing lane vs. two passing lanes, all taking up the same amount of real estate.

Reduced risk. That's what it's about.

Makes sense to me. I hope you continue to stay safe and I appreciate what you are doing.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by photo1902

Good grief. Nonsense. This is lunacy.

I'm sensing that you might be a little dehydrated. Maybe have a glass of water.

[ithos]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's math and geometry.

Let's use an aisle. A nice big aisle. We have a shopper with a shopping cart in front of her, because she's pushing it. She stops to check out something on the shelf to her right.

Now we have someone coming down from the opposite end, and he stops adjacent to the woman, with his cart in front of him, while he looks on a shelf to HIS right.

Now, we have a guy without a shopping cart coming up behind the woman, and he wants to pass by. But we also have a woman and her two kids beside her, with a shopping cart, coming from the other direction, trying to pass the guy.

In order for the guy without the cart to pass the woman at the same time the lady with the two kids is trying to pass the guy with the cart, they all have to go down the middle of the aisle, facing each other and passing each other in VERY close proximity. As in - bumping shoulders.

The one-way scenario REDUCES this. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.

You won't have people coming within inches of each other, while facing each other, in order to pass the people in front of them.

You'll still have people trying to pass, but it'll be a single lane of "people trying to pass" right down the middle, instead of people coming from both directions trying to create two "passing" lanes in the middle.

One passing lane vs. two passing lanes, all taking up the same amount of real estate.

Reduced risk. That's what it's about.

How about this scenario. Without the new rule, the only people in that aisle will be people shopping for items located in it. With the new rule, you have more traffic because people are forced into the aisle where they will do no shopping due to one way lanes.

We could play this scenario game all day long. Not sure where the math and geometry come into play. Was hoping to see some Pythagorean or algebra calculations.

[NavyVet]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes they are not allowed to buy the other package. It's taken away from them with an apology. But it does hold up the line when you have people doing this with multiple items. It also means the person who came to that aisle a minute later, who saw nothing on the shelf, will miss out on getting that pack of TP

Imagine being that customer. You get there early because you know this is the new reality and you accept it. You get to the paper aisle and there's no TP on the shelves. "Le sigh" you think, and move along to the next thing.

Around 20 minutes later you get in line to check out. You see the person in line behind you with toilet paper. You ask "wow where'd you find that?" And they say "it was on the shelf, I just got it a minute ago, it was the only pack left!"

How did it appear 2 minutes ago when it wasn't there 20 minutes ago? Easy: 25 minutes ago, a customer ignored the signs and took two packs. One was refused at the register and the grocery clerk put it back on the shelf...just 15 minutes after you were there looking for one.

Rejecting the guidelines, rejecting signs, rejecting the fact that everyone ELSE is trying to do the right thing and to hell with them because you are a special snowflake..

that is WHY our toys get taken away from us. Because a few spoil it for everyone else.

So true. *Le sigh* I love that! LOL

[DON10E]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's math and geometry.

Let's use an aisle. A nice big aisle. We have a shopper with a shopping cart in front of her, because she's pushing it. She stops to check out something on the shelf to her right.

Now we have someone coming down from the opposite end, and he stops adjacent to the woman, with his cart in front of him, while he looks on a shelf to HIS right.

Now, we have a guy without a shopping cart coming up behind the woman, and he wants to pass by. But we also have a woman and her two kids beside her, with a shopping cart, coming from the other direction, trying to pass the guy.

In order for the guy without the cart to pass the woman at the same time the lady with the two kids is trying to pass the guy with the cart, they all have to go down the middle of the aisle, facing each other and passing each other in VERY close proximity. As in - bumping shoulders.

The one-way scenario REDUCES this. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.

You won't have people coming within inches of each other, while facing each other, in order to pass the people in front of them.

You'll still have people trying to pass, but it'll be a single lane of "people trying to pass" right down the middle, instead of people coming from both directions trying to create two "passing" lanes in the middle.

One passing lane vs. two passing lanes, all taking up the same amount of real estate.

Reduced risk. That's what it's about.

Thank you, OBB for a reasonable explanation. I can see how this could potentially reduce risk. However, I see some flaws in the one-way traffic policy.

First, the scenario you laid out seems to be rather specific and therefore relatively rare. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and it might reduce the risk compared to having two way traffic. A little.

However, and this always seems to be the bigger issue, the risk is not all or nothing. We have to consider the cost of the action. What's the cost of one way traffic? I think unquestionably it increases the time required to shop...get in and get out. The longer we are trapped indoors with many people (some of whom are not wearing masks which are designed to protect the population, not the wearer) the higher the risk of infection.

In the overall scheme of things, I would think reducing time exposed would be towards the top of the list of risk mitigation techniques available. I think I would want to accept the two-way traffic risk (especially since I can mitigate that by waiting longer for the person to pass and not bumping shoulders) in exchange for significantly reducing the exposure time risk.

Your explanation of the benefit of the policy is good. I am not convinced that the policy is wise overall. Especially since, in the real world, people are confused and violate the policy frequently. So we could end up with the aisle risk (bumping shoulders) AND the longer exposure risk.

There's always a battle between theoretical and actual when it comes to predicting human behavior.

Thoughts?

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Its amazing how a small requested change can set some people off, like requesting behavioral changes from chaotic/randomness to a directional pattern is equivalent to a personal sacrifice of having your driver's license taken away! Bunch of old dogs with keyboards. I suppose the same group all complained loudly when roads went from dirt to pavement with a line down the middle.

Up north in MA, there are walmarts and supermarkets shut down for employees testing positive. One Walmart had 81 positives on the staff of 414. That Walmart has been shut down for several days, and no public plans for reopening as of Sunday. So now the regular shoppers don't even have a choice to shop there.

If you read reports around the country of unusual groups getting the virus, the one common trait is close association indoors. Bridge Was Their Passion. Then People Started to Die. - The New York Times is an interesting article. Meat plants being shut down for the same reason, close association indoors. . .

Really people, you are so fragile that you can't adapt for a short period of time?

sportsguy

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes they are not allowed to buy the other package. It's taken away from them with an apology. But it does hold up the line when you have people doing this with multiple items. It also means the person who came to that aisle a minute later, who saw nothing on the shelf, will miss out on getting that pack of TP

Imagine being that customer. You get there early because you know this is the new reality and you accept it. You get to the paper aisle and there's no TP on the shelves. "Le sigh" you think, and move along to the next thing.

Around 20 minutes later you get in line to check out. You see the person in line behind you with toilet paper. You ask "wow where'd you find that?" And they say "it was on the shelf, I just got it a minute ago, it was the only pack left!"

How did it appear 2 minutes ago when it wasn't there 20 minutes ago? Easy: 25 minutes ago, a customer ignored the signs and took two packs. One was refused at the register and the grocery clerk put it back on the shelf...just 15 minutes after you were there looking for one.

Rejecting the guidelines, rejecting signs, rejecting the fact that everyone ELSE is trying to do the right thing and to hell with them because you are a special snowflake..

that is WHY our toys get taken away from us. Because a few spoil it for everyone else.

You make a lot of dubious conclusions. “Doing the right thing” is not equivalent to following bogus rules which gave zero impact on actual infection rates. There is nothing right about tyranny.
Why are so many rules being universally enacted by entire sectors of our economy without ANY proof of their efficacy? How do one-way lanes in grocery stores actually decrease disease transmissions? We all may wish these rules would “keep us safe” but they are simply propaganda designed to:

1)make you FEEL as if you are doing something good
And
2)limit liability exposure for the stores because they can say they took all the same safety precautions as was the industry standard.

Neither improves your SAFETY.

The WHO and the CDC said non-N95 masks are not effective. What changed?

Since no one has previous immunity and there is no vaccine, thinking you won’t get infected is not realistic.

Keeping everyone under lockdown to “flatten the curve“ also SLOWED herd immunity. We went under house arrest so floods of sick folks wouldn’t overwhelm our healthcare system but that didn’t change the fact that everyone will still be exposed & probably will get infected. We now know that most will not get very sick but some will get very ill and a few will die. It’s dicey to assume which group you or I will be in but staying “safe” by hiding from this virus for a year or two in hopes there will be a vaccine isn’t realistic.

Most of these rules are busy-work, feel-good measures and liability limitations—nothing more.