This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Reports that a pharmacy has stock are the least durable information on the site and are still worth posting with a date.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Building on post #92 rather than restating it.
Where a shortage forces a gap, the pharmacokinetics mean a missed week is a perturbation rather than a reset, which is worth knowing.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
Anyone reporting availability should say the region and the date, because both determine whether the report is usable.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Post #94 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Stockpiling in response to a shortage worsens it, which is true and is a poor argument to make to somebody who has run out.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
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.
Everything in post #100 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The most useful contribution is a link to the current official notice rather than an account of one pharmacy.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
I read post #104 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
A note on scope: what I am saying about tracking a shortage applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
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.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
Regional differences during a shortage are large, and a supply position in one country says nothing about another.
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.
Post #107 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Switching presentation or strength during a shortage is a prescribing decision rather than a substitution anybody should improvise.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
Adding the measurement that post #111 says would settle it.
The honest answer on tracking a shortage is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
The arithmetic in post #115 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
A note on how tracking a shortage gets discussed rather than on tracking a shortage itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
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.
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.
Where a shortage forces a gap, the pharmacokinetics mean a missed week is a perturbation rather than a reset, which is worth knowing.
Supply interruptions: official shortage notices are published by regulatory agencies. That is the correct primary source rather than pharmacy rumors or forum discussion.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.