Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

teachercd said:
I just drove by a group of about 15 people playing kickball (adults) in the park...they had to hold a beer in one hand while playing...no masks at all...also no athletes on the field at all.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with that at all. They're all consenting adults, let them do as they wish. But, when they go out in public amongst others who aren't consenting to receive their  germs, viruses etc., then I think they should have the common decency to use a mask and some manners. Their Monday morning I stayed in a Holiday Inn expertise is worthless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude said:
Every single one who turned a blind eye to the mass demonstrations.   Which is the exact opposite of social distancing. 
Click to expand...




Do you have an example of a health expert who abandoned their stance? Because I haven't seen any. All I've seen are health experts saying anyone who protests should wear a mask and immediately get tested for Covid-19. I haven't seen any whose stance changed. It's always been the government/private businesses who decide what the actual laws/rules are as far as social distancing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Do you have an example of a health expert who abandoned their stance? Because I haven't seen any. All I've seen are health experts saying anyone who protests should wear a mask and immediately get tested for Covid-19. I haven't seen any whose stance changed. It's always been the government who decides what the actual laws are as far as social distancing.
Click to expand...


Here's over a thousand examples.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

 
The Dude said:
Here's over a thousand examples.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html
Click to expand...






I don't see any abandoned stances in this letter. It is essentially saying the exact same things they have always been saying, but adding that there are certain things that are important enough for some added risk, and this is one of them. Voting in the election will be another.

Therefore, we propose the following guidance to support public health:
● Support local and state governments in upholding the right to protest and allow protesters to gather.
● Do not disband protests under the guise of maintaining public health for COVID-19 restrictions.
● Advocate that protesters not be arrested or held in confined spaces, including jails or police vans, which are some of the highest-risk areas for COVID-19 transmission.
● Oppose any use of tear gas, smoke, or other respiratory irritants, which could increase risk for COVID- 19 by making the respiratory tract more susceptible to infection, exacerbating existing inflammation, and inducing coughing.
● Demand that law enforcement officials also respect infection prevention recommendations by maintaining distance from protesters and wearing masks.
● Reject messaging that face coverings are motivated by concealment and instead celebrate face coverings as protective of the public's health in the context of COVID-19.
● Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest. Provide increased access to testing and care for people in the affected communities, especially when they or their family members put themselves at risk by attending protests.
● Support the health of protesters by encouraging the following:
○ Use of face coverings.
○ Distance of at least 6 feet between protesters, where possible.
○ Demonstrating consistently alongside close contacts and moving together as a group, rather than extensively intermingling with multiple groups.
○ Staying at home when sick, and using other platforms to oppose racism for high-risk individuals, and those unable or uncomfortable to attend in person.
● Encourage allies who may wish to facilitate safe demonstrations through the following:
○ Providing masks, hand-washing stations, or hand sanitizer to demonstrators.
○ Providing eye protection, such as face shields or goggles, for protection against COVID-19 and chemical irritants used to disperse crowds.
○ Bringing wrapped, single-serving food or beverages to sustain people protesting.
○ Providing chalk markings or other designations to encourage appropriate distancing between protesters.
○ Supplying ropes, which can be knotted at 6-foot intervals, to allow people to march together while maintaining spacing.
○ Donating to bail funds for protesters
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I don't see any abandoned stances in this letter. It is essentially saying the exact same things they have always been saying, but adding that there are certain things that are important enough for some added risk, and this is one of them. Voting in the election will be another.
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah.  And I think it's a lot of the people who had their entire livelihoods upended because it wasn't "important enough" who have the general attitude that the health officials can kick rocks.

 
The Dude said:
Yeah, yeah.  And I think it's a lot of the people who had their entire livelihoods upended because it wasn't "important enough" who have the general attitude that the health officials can kick rocks.
Click to expand...




They’re saying the same things for this they’ve always said. And outdoor s#!t has for many weeks been considered less risky than a bunch of people together inside spreading germs in an enclosed space like a restaurant. For the government’s part, most states didn’t shut down parks (IIRC) or arrest anyone for breaking any of the quarantine by being outside in groups. 

It’s unsurprising that people who have lost their livelihoods are being less logical about this. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People disregarding the health experts who told them not to gather in mass demonstrations isn't health experts rescinding on their stance.

If we're just casting about for people to blame, be honest.

 
Doctors on TV about sports:  "There is a great chance there will be no sports this year, and if there is, there can't be fans in the seats"

Doctors on TV  about peaceful assembly:  There is a great chance there will be no sports this year, and if there is, there can't be fans in the seats"

It is okay to admit that it is treated/covered differently, that is normal and expected.  If I ran a news network there is no way my coverage of the peaceful protesting would be about Covid and the spread.  Why would it be?  That is not what is going to keep eyes on the screen and get clicks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lawsuits get filed for virtually any reason or no apparent merit at all.  I am unaware of any notable suits filed vs schools or employers or other orgs based on any infectious disease (flu, etc) for improper exposure or something akin to today’s circumstances.   

Finding a cause of action vs school for holding school when a widely known virus (all over society and not peculiar to a vary narrow situation) would be very unlikely.  Essentially it would be a whole new cause of action fashioned de novo by a given court (judge).  

These types of cases would be a near death blow to most public activities / orgs / etc.  

Historically such claims would be disallowed summarily under a basic assumption of inherent risk.  That is, being a human being alive in the world comes with certain risks that everybody faces and nobody is properly liable for in a legal sense.  

Disease is something natural and not the fault of anyone, normally. 

 
Fatalities are going down worldwide. That's a big plus. Infection rates are spiking in states that reopened wider and earlier. That's a big minus....unless the fatalities don't come along with it. We have a couple months to track that trend, and it could be good news.

On the other hand, surviving COVID may not be enough. Apparently it can cause lung scarring and heart damage that will continue to affect patients for months, years, or the rest of their lives. Like everything, young people are less vulnerable, but they're still affected. It's definitely not the flu. So we will have to decide an acceptable level of risk for ourselves and for the people we expect to entertain us. And frankly we still don't s#!t about what the virus can do.  

Which brings us back to the Skittles question: if someone puts 100 Skittle in a bowl and tells you three of the Skittles will kill or permanently harm you, how many Skittles are you comfortable eating? 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Which brings us back to the Skittles question: if someone puts 100 Skittle in a bowl and tells you three of the Skittles will kill or permanently harm you, how many Skittles are you comfortable eating? 
Click to expand...
Except it's only one toxic skittle.. And I am comfortable eating one if the reward on the flip side is worth it. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top