As infections rise anew, supermarket shelves are quickly emptying of toilet paper and other items. Panic-buying, it seems, is in again. And no lecturing by political elites will change this, DW's Fabian Schmidt writes.
Advertisement
During the first wave of coronavirus infections back in March, Chancellor Angela Merkel implored the population to act responsibly and refrain from stockpiling food and other items. She said hoarding supplies — the German word is Hamsterkauf, or shopping like a hamster — was both unnecessary and selfish.
Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner recently told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there is no need for Germans to indulge in a new round of panic-buying. She also said stockpiling was illogical and selfish. Klöckner added that "much of what we buy ends up in the trash."
Klöckner's reasoning is just as illogical. If panic-buying is unnecessary, it cannot simultaneously be selfish. If, as we are told, there is enough food for everyone, then it should not make a difference if someone decides to irrationally stockpile large quantities of it.
By urging us to act sensibly and limit ourselves to buying only what we need, the minister is effectively saying we do face a potential, if temporary, food shortage. To show solidarity with others is certainly helpful. But that does not imply we should not stockpile food and other necessities.
Complaints about food waste irk me. According to a WWF study, each year 18 million tons of food are thrown away in Germany. This translates to 225 kilograms (495 pounds) per person. The University of Stuttgart found that 60% of this food waste is produced by private households. If we factor this into the equation, each German wastes 370 grams (13 ounces) of food per day on average.
Can this be true? Are most people not rational enough to avoid discarding the food that they have bought with their hard-earned cash? In my home, there is no food waste at all aside from the occasional bit of stale bread.
Maybe we should follow the example of supermarkets, especially the low-cost ones. Despite the vast quantities of food that they handle each day, they have managed to drastically cut down on waste. The University of Stuttgart researchers found that supermarkets account for just 5% of food waste — which works out to about 30 grams per person per day.
Production chains and delivery and sales infrastructures have been so well optimized that unnecessary waste has been reduced to an absolute minimum. Most major supermarket chains have begun taking effective steps to reduce their environmental footprint and act more sustainably to improve their image.
The amount of unnecessary food waste produced by the agricultural and industrial sectors — 17% of Germany's total — is somewhat higher than in the commercial sector. But this translates to about 100 grams per person, on average, which is a negligible amount. Moreover, a certain level of food waste is inevitable in market economies.
The hospitality industry and similar businesses generate a fair bit of unnecessary food waste — about 17% of Germany's total, according to researchers. But does anyone seriously want to check into a hotel that serves individually rationed portions of marmalade and bread for breakfast, as was common in the 1960s?
The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 40% of crops rot or are eaten by mice in the world's most impoverished countries. A substantial portion of food stuff never even makes it to consumers.
The reason for this is that many impoverished countries lack the storage facilities and methods of preserving food that Germany has. Silos, in short, are a godsend for humanity.
The new wave of stockpiling that we are witnessing should makes us realize one thing: Scarcity does not result from a shortage of products on the market — but from the prospect of such a shortage. Anyone buying a few months' worth of pasta, canned food, juice boxes, ultrapasteurized milk, rice, toilet paper and the like is merely hedging against potential market fluctuations.
Stockpiling food items and such is, therefore, is anything but selfish. In fact, it is a very sensible thing to do — provided that none of the food goes to waste. Stockpiling is a good thing, if done correctly. Anyone struggling to buy an extra supply of toilet paper right now, with shortages looming, should have heeded this logic.
Coronavirus rules: How much physical distancing is enough?
Physical distancing is important. But a set distance rule does not do justice to the way viruses actually spread, British researchers say. And the CDC warns: Infections can occur after only a few minutes of exposure.
Image: Reuters/M. Darlington
Keep your distance, please!
These are the coronavirus rules as we know them: Keep a distance of 1.5 to 2 meters (5 to 6 feet) from others, observe good hygiene and wear a mask. But this does not do justice to the complex reality of how aerosols spread, researchers from Oxford and London (UK) and Cambridge MA (US) have written in an analysis published in the British Medical Journal in late August.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/J. Büttner
This much? Or more?
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has tried to show schoolchildren how it should be done. But what does his gesture mean exactly? Do his fingertips have to be 1.5 meters away from the fingertips of another person? That would be a reasonable interpretation of the regulations. But two arm lengths alone measure 1.5 meters, so distances of 4.5 meters or more could easily result.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/Evening Standard/L. Young
Are sheep lengths better?
The Icelandic Association of Sheep Breeders has established its own rules: Two sheep lengths are appropriate to avoid infection. One may wonder if face masks are also supposed to be knitted from real sheep's wool. This young shepherd in Senegal may be trying to find out how long a sheep is by pulling its hind leg. The Icelanders already know — exactly 1 meter.
Image: AFP/J. Wessels
Natural spacers
Of course, this could also work. The standard length of a dog leash corresponds pretty exactly to the current coronavirus rules. Could it be a coincidence that a six-foot leash is usually prescribed for places where leashes are compulsory?
Image: picture-alliance/chromorange
Where does the 2-meter rule come from?
The authors led by Lydia Bourouiba, an expert in fluid dynamics and disease transmission at MIT, writes that the rule is outdated. Two meters was the distance recommended by the German physician C. Flügge in 1897. Visible droplets that he had caught within this distance were still contagious. A 1948 study showed that 90% of streptococci coughed out in droplets flew no further than 1.7 meters.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/PA/Jordan
Two meters are not enough
The 1948 study was published in the American Medical Journal. It also showed that 10% of streptococci flew much further: up to 2.9 meters. If that were the case, perhaps the people on this lawn on the banks of the Rhine in Dusseldorf would be safe — if every other circle remained free. But wait a minute — we are not dealing with streptococci (bacteria) here, but with viruses.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/M. Becker
Viruses spread via aerosols
Viruses are much smaller than bacteria, so they can float around for hours and spread better in the air. This is why the researchers recommend that the distance between people should not be the only safety criterion but that other factors should be considered, too: How well a room is ventilated, whether people are wearing masks, and whether they are silent, speaking softly or singing and shouting.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/Bayerischer Rundfunk
Do not sing or cough
Numerous studies have also shown that coughing can propel veritable parcels of viruses up to 8 meters through the air. Speaking or singing loudly also spread a lot of aerosols and droplets about the room. If, however, people only speak quietly, as in a library, and sit in the fresh air, safe distances can be smaller again.
Image: Getty Images/AFP/A. McBride
How long should I stay in the room?
The duration of a stay in a contaminated room and how many people are in that room are also decisive factors when assessing the risk of infection. The researchers have used those factors to develop a traffic light model. The clear result: In rooms with a high occupancy, you should generally stay only for a short time, make sure they are well aired, wear a mask and speak quietly.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/S. Hoppe
One minute is enough to get infected
Even very brief contact can be enough to transmit SARS-CoV-2. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) had to tighten its rules on October 21, after a prison guard caught SARS-CoV-2 from prisoners with whom he had only had contact with for a few minutes at a time. Now, "close contact" is defined as being within 2 metres of an infected person for at least 15 minutes cumulatively within 24 hours.
Image: picture-alliance/empics
No mask needed here
Here, however, the traffic light of the UK-US research team would show green. Outside, people can be safe for long periods of time even without a mask, provided there are few people around, everything is well ventilated and no one talks much. But even so, will the distance between deck chairs being measured here be enough?
Image: M. Melzer
11 images1 | 11
This article was translated from German by Benjamin Restle.