Morality? What morality? (Page 2): You are absolutely right in all that you say. But we have to do with what we got, which is the current methodology. And if everyone that goes to work...

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Voice of Reason wrote:

Instead of simply parroting whatever some leftwing... (show quote)

You are absolutely right in all that you say. But we have to do with what we got, which is the current methodology. And if everyone that goes to work tests negative, there is a good probability that the workplace will not generate any new cases. The current test shows positive even though there are no current symptoms. This is much better than having no test at all.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

whitnebrat wrote:

Scenario:
Office - 100 people. Employer mandates in-house work. One employee comes to work with Coronavirus. Infects 10 others. Those 10 infect ten others each within a week. Entire office is now sick and unable to work. Does this make sense?

I just found out my aunt and uncle BOTH tested positive for the antibody 2 weeks ago.

Three weeks ago they were briefly sick. Temp of 100 for a few hours.

Your worst case scenario is ridiculous, fear-mongering numb-scullery.

Shut the whole frickin' economy down and drive everyone out of work, their businesses and taking away everyone's economic security for a virus that came here weeks before anyone did anything and has run its course in a bunch of people who didn't know they had it???

How dumb.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

whitnebrat wrote:

You are absolutely right in all that you say. But we have to do with what we got, which is the current methodology. And if everyone that goes to work tests negative, there is a good probability that the workplace will not generate any new cases. The current test shows positive even though there are no current symptoms. This is much better than having no test at all.

Wrong, as I explained, especially as the virus spreads, testing negative becomes more and more meaningless.

But let's take your proposal a couple of steps further. I've heard reports, possibly anecdotal, possibly not, of people catching the virus from their dogs. So according to your logic all dogs should be put down, just in case.

How about a family of 4 following the social distancing guidelines and staying at home? At some point at least one of them must go to the store to get food. What if they catch the virus on that grocery run, then come back home and spread it to the rest of the family? Or they get groceries delivered and they're contaminated. Obviously we must make grocery runs and deliveries illegal. Of course that will mean millions of people starve to death, but hey, at least the virus won't get 'em. As an added benefit, starvation is the favored method of leftists for eliminating the peasants. Hence the calls to ban pesticides, herbicides, GMO's and to convert food to fuel.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

BigMike wrote:

I just found out my aunt and uncle BOTH tested pos... (show quote)

The Dem's have been searching for a way to crater Trump's economy ever since he got it going. They're not about to let this golden opportunity pass. Remember their motto, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

BigMike wrote:

I just found out my aunt and uncle BOTH tested pos... (show quote)

Here's an interesting statistic, since the beginning of this 'crisis' around the end of January there have been about 500 people who've died from other causes for every person who died from this virus.

jwrevagent

Voice of Reason wrote:

Instead of simply parroting whatever some leftwing... (show quote)

Well stated! I agree. I am told that I should test for my blood sugar level each day at different times of the day. I do not do that, reason being, that only tells me what my blood sugar is now, not 5 minutes ago, or even last night. I know how I feel when my sugar is low, and when it is high. When it is low, I eat something. When it is high, I take a walk. The A1C every three months is mandated by my insurance co and my doctor-I find it perhaps statistically ok, but as a practical matter, silly. I know that losing weight, watching diet all contribute to lowering of that number, so why would I not do that anyway for the health benefits and feeling better? I remember when TB testing was part of a regular exam as well. Not so much anymore.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

whitnebrat wrote:

Ummm ... one of the criteria I posed was that the employer mandated your coming to work. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear ... you are infectious with this virus for three days before you get physically sick. This leads to mass infection in the workplace. Mass testing is the only effective remedy for this particular disease's elimination.

Crap. Mass testing indeed.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Voice of Reason wrote:

The Dem's have been searching for a way to crater Trump's economy ever since he got it going. They're not about to let this golden opportunity pass. Remember their motto, never let a good crisis go to waste.

And we see through it...

...and we're going to stop it one way or the other. Period.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Voice of Reason wrote:

Here's an interesting statistic, since the beginning of this 'crisis' around the end of January there have been about 500 people who've died from other causes for every person who died from this virus.

To be clear, that's a 500 to 1 ratio, in the USA.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

BigMike wrote:

And we see through it...

...and we're going to stop it one way or the other. Period.

Let's hope the voters do the right thing in September.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

jwrevagent wrote:

Well stated! I agree. I am told that I should test... (show quote)

Thanks. Sorry to hear about your condition, hopefully you're controlling it well enough. A few years back I was told I'm pre-diabetic. Scared the crap outta me because I don't have the personality to deal with all that monitoring and worrying. Fortunately it turns out I'm not, the CDC changed the definition to make it look like there's a bigger 'diabetes crisis' than there is.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Kevyn wrote:

Businesses do not want to help their employees, the only reason they have employees is to make them money. If they could do so with no employees you can bet they would.

It depends on the business. My aunt wanted me to stay in, but I just meowed and said no.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

BigMike wrote:

Anyone who wanted to make money and not be DEPENDENT would do the same.

You're saying there's something wrong with expecting an EMPLOYEE to make money for his EMPLOYER?

Either way he should the pipe down for awhile.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

whitnebrat wrote:

Scenario:
Office - 100 people. Employer mandates in-house work. One employee comes to work with Coronavirus. Infects 10 others. Those 10 infect ten others each within a week. Entire office is now sick and unable to work. Does this make sense?

Only to one who wants to make people sick.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Rose42 wrote:

No but there are questions that need to be addressed. This can’t go on indefinitely. At what point
do we pass the point where food shortages and utility disruptions become the norm? Where we have a harder time with the basics - such as sanitation - that we take for granted? Eventually people will start to rebel. Crime has already gone up.

No easy answers but I hope there is someone thinking further down the road.

I just know what I do for me. Wear a mask outside (that's where work is) inside it isn't necessary. Use a hand sanitizer when I come in, I don't see the necessity to change shoes and socks. Take my temperature? Can't you tell when you have a fever? I have mostly short days outside. More on the computer seeing in the neighborhood needs anything. So far no problem with sanitation, food, water for me. Somebody said she needed Puffs, another has a source to get them. That's what I mean about the neighborhood pulling together.