For now and a while I have what I need, and if indeed I happened to eventually need something that has ran out, well anything related to food does not worry me, if it's health related, well there might be in a bit of a jam, or not. While I try to cover most basis as possible, there's always a unknown factor that can butt in, but this I'll classify as a bridge.

Well on that one, wouldn't necessarily bank on it, but that's me.

Very kind and greatly appreciated, thank you. Right back at you so you have my best wishes.

Sorry for this...site ate my reply and had to do it this way....numbered bits of your post correspond to my reply bits:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

1. Do you mean a few people who take a ton of each item or just a few people taking smaller amounts?

If the former, I agree they aren't helping anyone(and i'd also give them a nasty look or talking to for doing so, or tell the store if there is a policy against such in place, etc).

If it's the latter I don't see the harm in that level of stockpiling.

Also if i'm right and you meant the former, then(again) I am not excusing such(if you thought I was).

2. Profiting? I was talking about those buying for themselves.

I said awhile back that I also loathe such profiteering types same as you & everyone else.

As for spreading panic: Even without hoarders , some of the MSM and govt notices spread panic as is, sadly.

(This isn't me excusing/trying to excuse others who do so, however)

3. It's called sympathy and compassion for your fellow man....lose it and we are no better than animals.
--------------------------------------------------------------

As for that final line of yours: *backs away slowly*

==============================================

Food doesn't worry you? I knew it.....robots ARE taking over the world! ;O

(Seriously though, I still wish you the best of luck/that you stay safe & well through all this)

Eh, some of us have that ONE neighbor that's like family(or close enough)...and for others I like to think/hope a good number will do the right thing(or at least be willing to trade for other things).

No problem.

LOL! Robot or Borg, who knows except from me? Not worried in the sense that it's not like I have luxurious tastes and requirements diet wise, I can live off bare necessity if need be for a while. And thanks again.

The close category goes without saying and did not enter the equation, was more referring to the 'at large' here.

Well, Denmark has officially shut down its borders for all non-essential travelers except Danish citizens. Still plenty of food and video games here so I can sit this one out hopefully. But it might take years to repair the financial damage that this will cost and that might be the worst part. So many people will lose their jobs and that's just sad.

EDIT a word.

Meanwhile in UK, Prime Minister said that nothing can be done to stop the virus spreading, and citizens have to catch it in order to build up "herd immunity", hence preventing the disease to come back in the future. Some measures will be taken to delay the spread and thereby minimise the suffering, but, according to him, «many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time».

It's a different kind of strategy, maybe wrong or maybe not: I think it's not possible to foresee what is going to happen, not even in the immediate future.
Anyway his words will surely be remembered in the future.

NEWS:
US President Trump declares a "national emergency" due to the coronavirus pandemic. He said the action would "open up access to up to $50 billion," which he described as "a large amount of money for states and territories and localities in our shared fight against this disease."

He apparently changed his mind on the subject, as this is what he wrote on Twitter just a couple of days ago: "So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!".

It's sick and cynical imo, and I don't think it will work, the epidemic will spiral out of all control and overstrain the NHS (which isn't all that great anyway, iirc its number of intensive care beds is quite a bit lower than in Italy), leading to terrible scenes. Johnson may think he's really clever, but imo it's likely this will be the defining moment of his political career and tarnish it forever.
Germany is de facto doing the same, though with a bit more restrictions like school closures. Still not nearly enough though to prevent disaster.

That scientist advisor of his is assuming a lot with that one, including that it'll behave and not mutate again and again and all the rest that goes with it. Does he reckon that herd immunity also can be/has been built against, for example, the flu and all its variants, hence preventing it from coming back year after year?

In any case with that one, I'd like to see them all to lead by example and therefore go get exposed and catch it. Surely that is not asking too much now, or is it?

Sounds like me.....I can live happily on a ton of basic/cheap foods. :)

Well let's hope for the best, then. :)
=======================================

Is he insane?!?

He is essentially saying "Who cares if people die?" :\

I bet...and not for good reasons, most likely.

Considering Woody Guthrie despised the attitudes that underlie GOG's community policies, you might want to ask yourself if you're coming, or going. o.O

I don't think that's known for sure, it's unclear if and to what extent those who have recovered from Covid-19 have immunity. There are some reports about people who have caught it again, but could also be cases of people who hadn't fully recovered and just relapsed. But I agree with you, this "just let it run wild, nothing to be done about" approach is as retarded as it gets. Hard not to get the impression that some might indeed see it as a chance to get rid of expensive pensioners.

That may well be true, but like you say: we don't know for sure. And since we've done a pretty good job at underestimating this virus so far, it may be time to start to err on the side of caution.

Throwing your arms up in the air and proclaiming "Let's all get infected for teh greater good!" sounds absolutely mind-bogglingly Jonestown-tier suicidally idiotic and in more civilised days, any politician making such a moronic statement would be swiftly guillotined by an angry mob or put into a barrel and sunk at the bottom of the sea. Alas...

This virus, like the others of the Coronaviridae family, seems to be able to mutate very quickly. A study tracked back the origin of the infection present in Italy thanks to genome analyses and it proved that the virus probably came from southern Germany because the italian and german viruses genomes share some mutations not present in the chinese strain.
However, after the first infection, the immunity system should be able to identify the virus, at least to certain extent, even in case of mutation: that's what happens with the seasonal flu. In other words supposition of Johnson's scientific advisor is probably that, after a cycle of contagion, SARS-CoV-2 could become similar to the seasonal influenza or wishfully vanish as previously happened to the first SARS-CoV.
I agree that there seems to be a lot of assumptions and speculations in this strategy and I think it's very hard to tell what's going to happen.

The Conversation has a pretty good discussion of "herd immunity" and the UK's strategy for dealing with COVID-19.

http://theconversation.com/coronavirus-can-herd-immunity-really-protect-us-133583

The UK strategy is no simply allowing people to die.

The UK strategy is:

+ coming to the realization that containment has not worked elsewhere and is probably not possible

+ instead of containment, moving to a strategey of slowing the virus spread through the population

+ slowing the spread will hopefully keep the emergency and medical systems from being overwhelmed with huge numbers of infections all-at-once, while also...

+ allowing the emergency system to focus first on treatment of the most vulnerable populations

+ it is hoped that after 70% of the population has recovered from the virus that the antibodies in that 70% will "innoculate" the society in the future, but currently this is theory

So, that's the plan. It might no sound perfect -- and I am not advocating for or against this strategy -- but it's not as bad as some feel at first glance.

(edit: the biggest problem with the "herd immunity" question regarding COVID-19 is that SARS studies 10 years ago showed that immunity did develop after recovery, but... it wasn't long-term. With COVID-19's relationship to SARS, any immunity might be too short-term for "herd immunity" to be a thing)