Second pass at: Hoarding and why it makes a shortage worse posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Where I part company with post #88, and it is a narrow parting.
Both are useful and different. The notice tells you the national position; the account tells you what is happening on the ground.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Switching presentation or strength during a shortage is a prescribing decision rather than a substitution anybody should improvise.
Stockpiling in response to a shortage worsens it, which is true and is a poor argument to make to somebody who has run out.
Shortage-driven price movement is real and is a separate question from availability.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
The published shortage register maintained by the national regulator is the authoritative source here, and it is updated far more often than any thread.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Shortage status determines what compounding is permitted in some jurisdictions, which links two questions that otherwise seem unrelated.
Managing an unplanned gap: if a shortage causes a gap in treatment, the questions are how long the gap will be and how that affects your condition. Discussing with your clinician is prudent if the gap is weeks or longer.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
Where a shortage forces a gap, the pharmacokinetics mean a missed week is a perturbation rather than a reset, which is worth knowing.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
I had written a reply contradicting post #103 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Compounding during shortages: some jurisdictions allow pharmacy compounding when a marketed product is in shortage. That permission is jurisdiction-specific and time-limited (usually for the duration of the shortage).
Manufacturer allocation decisions during a shortage are commercial and are rarely explained, which is frustrating and is not evidence of anything.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Reports that a pharmacy has stock are the least durable information on the site and are still worth posting with a date.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
The arithmetic in post #108 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Shortage predictions: regulators and suppliers issue shortage alerts before they become acute. Checking the regulatory website for shortages gives you advance notice.
Answering the question post #106 raises rather than the one it answers.
International supply chains: a shortage in one country does not mean shortage in another. That is why ordering from multiple suppliers before a shortage gets bad is prudent if you can.
Shortage-driven price movement is real and is a separate question from availability.
It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.
Everything in post #109 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Anyone reporting availability should say the region and the date, because both determine whether the report is usable.
Reports that a pharmacy has stock are the least durable information on the site and are still worth posting with a date.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Stockpiling in response to a shortage worsens it, which is true and is a poor argument to make to somebody who has run out.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
On post #118 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Dose hold versus tapering: if a temporary shortage forces a gap, holding your dose and resuming when supply returns is different from gradually tapering. The two are different decisions.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Picking up post #118: that is the part I would want checked first.
Both are useful and different. The notice tells you the national position; the account tells you what is happening on the ground.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.