<Bangs head on desk, repeatedly>
I can see the situation now...
Customer: "Hi, I'm interested in buying an padded jacket for some walks I've got planned."
Store: "Sure, the jackets are just next to you."
Customer: "OK, well these look OK, can I try one on to make sure it fits?"
Store: "No"
Customer: "Erm, OK do you have some in large?"
Store "I don't know"
Customer: "Can I browse through them to see?"
Store: "No"
Customer: "Bye....."
Seriously, is this it? Is this what shopping is going to be like in the future? "Don't touch! Don't go near! And if you do go near or touch you buy it, or we seal it in a metal casket in a concrete bunker for 72 hours because human is infected, maybe..."
I am really starting to think that if this is our reaction to the virus, the virus has won in ways it could never have imagined in its strings ofribonucleic acid....
The phone shops' stock will have been recalled for online orders, and can fit in a small van anyway. The others are a bit less certain though.
I think there's more of an undercurrent aimed at suggesting we curb irrational paranoia and aim criticism at the philosophy that seems to suggest that the spread of Covid must be prevented at the expense of just about anything else including common sense. As far as the particular issue of bookshops goes, it is completely irrational to quarantine a book just because somebody has handled it. People need to take responsibility for their own safety. Robust hygiene can all but eliminate the risk of virus transmission from pre-handled goods or touching things such as door handles and handrails and the country needs (in fact must) return to some semblance of normality. Having somebody running round after customers in a bookshop scooping up the books they have handled for a three day quarantine is not normal. Of course it's Waterstone's gaff, so it's their rules. However, I would suggest that although they are far more essential than bookshops, food shops have seen no need to advise or instruct their customers against handling goods they do not intend to buy when the number of customers doing so must be far greater than in a bookshop. I have to wonder why that is.
I predict this unworkable policy will either not be implemented or will be scrapped within a week. I'm not sure how big the storage area of a typical Waterstones is, but I'd wager not that big as there's no point having books on shelves that aren't accessible to customers. So if footfall is anything like normal they are going to very rapidly run out of space, aside from not having any books left to sell.
Nope, no way. I'll go to an independent. I find flying though a book is an essential part of the buying process.
Yes, I must say I flick through about thirty books at Waterstones before I decide which one to buy. This is a symptom of a general paranoia that needs to cease.
I think it will be a bloodbath, but there may be a silver lining. If a lot of chains contract or go bust that will moderate rent demands, and may prompt a long overdue business rates system change. Empty units may in those circumstances encourage a renaissance of independent shops and cafes. That would be nice.
I just thank God I've retired from the book trade now. The idea of providing the space at my expense to display a load of books which, once fingered, have to go into quarantine, knowing that the looker, if interested in buying it, will try and save themselves a quid by ordering from Amazon (i.e. the recent norm) is as appealing as , well, to be given a clean bill of health by Mike Hancock. I always thought bookshops that put up notices saying 'browsers welcome' were being disingenuous at best and idiots at worst.
