Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
1) Isn't the Inauguration typically outdoors? That is, in a category of event that is currently thought to be lower risk than different households gathering indoors, especially when masks are worn?
2) Is the Congressman who made the posting on Facebook also advocating that you not gather for the holidays?
The reason this is "so political and polarizing" is that you're making it that way. If you think the Inauguration is high risk, don't go (I wouldn't go myself). But the fact that the Inauguration is happening doesn't make it magically safe to gather different households together indoors for Thanksgiving.
Yes it is outdoors but that doesn't miraculously make it "safe" to get in a large crowd. This same Congressman has said that we should avoid gathering for the holidays, that pro-Trump rallies, protests, or gatherings are bad (but unsurprisingly given his political party did not say the same for the Biden winning gatherings the prior weekend) and has said that we should be listening to the "experts" - and aren't they all saying that even outside we should be social distancing? I'd think that they would not be advocating for a large scale gathering in that case.
Hypocrisy they name is politics.
Plus with how much this board seems to be in favor of abiding by any and all guidelines and restrictions I'd have thought there would be more support against the idea of this gathering.
I am not arguing that it is safe - if you read my post, you will note that I stated I would not attend myself. But you seem to be taking it for granted that there will not be social distancing in place at the Inauguration. Has that been confirmed?
I don't think anyone is arguing that a large crowd is miraculously safe. The argument -- which is currently supported by evidence -- is that gathering outdoors is safer than gathering indoors and that gathering outdoors is even safer when supplemented by mask wearing and social distancing. If your Congressperson is arguing that an outdoor gathering is safer when attended by people with a certain political outlook and risker when attended by people of a different political outlook, that would be hypocritical. Most of the criticism I've seen of rallies and gatherings is of those held indoors and without consistent mask usage.
Again, I think you're bringing a very political lens to this.
Agreed, and not only that, but every single model I see right now is showing that the highest death rate will peak around January 20th. So when that inauguration happens, unfortunately, we are going to be in the thick of the worst period of death we have seen up to that point. Indiana, for instance, since it's been discussed, is predicted to be having 100 dead a day by then.5 -
I did a little research and found this from a Representative's page (my emphasis):
"Each member of Congress is given a limited number of tickets to distribute to constituents. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ticket distribution process is still being assessed. If you are interested in requesting your ticket(s), please complete the form below. You must be a resident of California's 7th Congressional District to apply and receive tickets through Congressman Ami Bera's office.
PLEASE NOTE: Completing this interest form does not guarantee you will receive inauguration tickets. Once more guidance on the 2021 inauguration is provided to Congressional offices, we will send additional details on how to apply for tickets to those who completed the below interest form."
So, in effect, nothing is set in stone at all. I would imagine having no guests in close quarters if the virus isn't rather significantly contained before Jan. 20.
As far as I know, this is the only way for the average person to get tickets, so if a member of Congress decided to opt out and not offer any opportunity to tickets to their constituents, that could be perceived as unfair too. It's an unusual situation and it's not like there is a template for how to handle stuff like this.2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
1) Isn't the Inauguration typically outdoors? That is, in a category of event that is currently thought to be lower risk than different households gathering indoors, especially when masks are worn?
2) Is the Congressman who made the posting on Facebook also advocating that you not gather for the holidays?
The reason this is "so political and polarizing" is that you're making it that way. If you think the Inauguration is high risk, don't go (I wouldn't go myself). But the fact that the Inauguration is happening doesn't make it magically safe to gather different households together indoors for Thanksgiving.
Yes it is outdoors but that doesn't miraculously make it "safe" to get in a large crowd. This same Congressman has said that we should avoid gathering for the holidays, that pro-Trump rallies, protests, or gatherings are bad (but unsurprisingly given his political party did not say the same for the Biden winning gatherings the prior weekend) and has said that we should be listening to the "experts" - and aren't they all saying that even outside we should be social distancing? I'd think that they would not be advocating for a large scale gathering in that case.
Hypocrisy they name is politics.
Plus with how much this board seems to be in favor of abiding by any and all guidelines and restrictions I'd have thought there would be more support against the idea of this gathering.
I am not arguing that it is safe - if you read my post, you will note that I stated I would not attend myself. But you seem to be taking it for granted that there will not be social distancing in place at the Inauguration. Has that been confirmed?
I don't think anyone is arguing that a large crowd is miraculously safe. The argument -- which is currently supported by evidence -- is that gathering outdoors is safer than gathering indoors and that gathering outdoors is even safer when supplemented by mask wearing and social distancing. If your Congressperson is arguing that an outdoor gathering is safer when attended by people with a certain political outlook and risker when attended by people of a different political outlook, that would be hypocritical. Most of the criticism I've seen of rallies and gatherings is of those held indoors and without consistent mask usage.
Again, I think you're bringing a very political lens to this.
Agreed, and not only that, but every single model I see right now is showing that the highest death rate will peak around January 20th. So when that inauguration happens, unfortunately, we are going to be in the thick of the worst period of death we have seen up to that point. Indiana, for instance, since it's been discussed, is predicted to be having 100 dead a day by then.
I would not be surprised if it doesn't happen at all in the traditional way given the way that things are going and that the incoming administration seems to clearly recognize the gravity of the threat. That said, I'm not surprised that the traditional route of ticket distribution is beginning to get underway. Every single part of our society is figuring out how to do things safely and I know my particular industry has had some false starts before we realized "Hey, let's figure out a better way." The point is that there is plenty of time for plans to be adjusted for safety.
9 -
I guess my opinion is that there should be no discussion on how to host this in a way that's similar to the past and instead they should only be looking at options that don't allow/expect any type of gathering. It would be a great way for the new administration to say hey look we think this is serious, so serious that we won't want to even possibly contribute to a rise in cases and think it should be streamed/televised for all (other than the people being sworn in and those doing the swearing). I've heard the argument being made that the current US administration hasn't done enough/taken this seriously enough and it would really set the tone for the new admin if they were willing to "give up" (though obviously still be sworn in) the bells and whistles.6
-
I guess my opinion is that there should be no discussion on how to host this in a way that's similar to the past and instead they should only be looking at options that don't allow/expect any type of gathering. It would be a great way for the new administration to say hey look we think this is serious, so serious that we won't want to even possibly contribute to a rise in cases and think it should be streamed/televised for all (other than the people being sworn in and those doing the swearing). I've heard the argument being made that the current US administration hasn't done enough/taken this seriously enough and it would really set the tone for the new admin if they were willing to "give up" (though obviously still be sworn in) the bells and whistles.
I don't think we can take the fact that some Congressional offices are beginning the mechanics of ticket distribution to assume that other options aren't being looked at.
We're going from an administration that doesn't recognize the threat to one that does, so it wouldn't surprise me if there are some minor messaging hiccups along the way, like beginning the process of a lottery for tickets to an event that may not even take place in the standard sense. The point that is being made is that there is still plenty of time to clarify what is actually taking place and I don't know if it makes sense to get angry about people being hypocrites before we even know what is being proposed.9 -
I guess my opinion is that there should be no discussion on how to host this in a way that's similar to the past and instead they should only be looking at options that don't allow/expect any type of gathering. It would be a great way for the new administration to say hey look we think this is serious, so serious that we won't want to even possibly contribute to a rise in cases and think it should be streamed/televised for all (other than the people being sworn in and those doing the swearing). I've heard the argument being made that the current US administration hasn't done enough/taken this seriously enough and it would really set the tone for the new admin if they were willing to "give up" (though obviously still be sworn in) the bells and whistles.
Individual Congressional offices are just starting with the mechanics of what would be usual as it isn't something that can be done last minute. My guess is that, in fact, there won't be the normal inauguration with a large gathering on the capitol grounds. At this point, Biden isn't even getting what would be normal transition briefings on national security, etc and is busy putting his cabinet together...judging from the campaign over the last few months, I think the inauguration ceremony is the last thing on his mind right now. There have been none of the traditional concessions for transition and they're having to work the back door just to try to get what you would normally get in a transition...I don't think he's concerning himself much with the actual ceremony. I would actually be surprised if he had a traditional ceremony with the masses. He didn't hold large rallies while campaigning and he came through NM and we barely knew it...all he did was meet with some reporters...there was no rally. I don't really think anything would change on that front. I think all of this bluster of hypocrisy is a couple months pre-mature.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
1) Isn't the Inauguration typically outdoors? That is, in a category of event that is currently thought to be lower risk than different households gathering indoors, especially when masks are worn?
2) Is the Congressman who made the posting on Facebook also advocating that you not gather for the holidays?
The reason this is "so political and polarizing" is that you're making it that way. If you think the Inauguration is high risk, don't go (I wouldn't go myself). But the fact that the Inauguration is happening doesn't make it magically safe to gather different households together indoors for Thanksgiving.
Yes it is outdoors but that doesn't miraculously make it "safe" to get in a large crowd. This same Congressman has said that we should avoid gathering for the holidays, that pro-Trump rallies, protests, or gatherings are bad (but unsurprisingly given his political party did not say the same for the Biden winning gatherings the prior weekend) and has said that we should be listening to the "experts" - and aren't they all saying that even outside we should be social distancing? I'd think that they would not be advocating for a large scale gathering in that case.
Hypocrisy they name is politics.
Plus with how much this board seems to be in favor of abiding by any and all guidelines and restrictions I'd have thought there would be more support against the idea of this gathering.
@kushiel1 I totally agree with you that rules and standards this year are not consistent across the board, and in the process that makes me very distrustful of those making the decisions.3 -
Hey guys - quick note regarding MyFitnessPal's position on divisive topics (which includes politics): Please do not discuss divisive topics in the main forums. If you'd like to discuss political issues at MFP (including the size of inauguration crowds), please create a group (or find an existing one) and invite fellow members to join you there to discuss.
Stay safe, y'all,
Em17 -
Please be careful about letting politics creep into this discussion. I would hate to lose this thread.
I watch different news programs on youtube. It felt very strange to hear my state mentioned on a German news channel because of our rising cases. One of our doctors pointed out that there is no curve to flatten; the infections are a straight line going up steeply.14 -
kshama2001 wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »The last three times i tried to donate blood I was rejected because I was slightly anemic. I gave up. Since then the anemia has gotten worse so I am not even going to try.
Attempting to donate blood is how I learned I was anemic. Over the decades, it has gotten much much worse for me. Here's a thread with some of my and others' tips on getting more iron via diet:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10802837/good-sources-of-iron
I'm being followed for low iron for the past couple years. Hoping numbers are better in December, finally. Going to check out your link @kshama2001. One of the things I am trying in my diary is daily iron. Hoping to improve through my diet.
I began donating blood regularly at the beginning of the pandemic, and there were a couple of times I was turned away for an inadequate iron count. I chose to start taking extended release iron tablets, and my "power" food is hemp protein: it's delicious sand, but it has 44% of RDA of iron for a 3T serving. I put it in pancakes and protein shakes. And, I take all iron with a 1,000 mg Vitamin C chaser, which supposedly helps with absorbtion. Since then, I haven't had a problem donating blood every two months.
Bonus: free COVID-19 blood test with every donation!
Please make sure your doctor agrees with iron supplements. There are some pretty nasty reasons for low iron, don't want to mask the issue.6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I think my work just made a mistake. In order to strongly discourage employees from either traveling out of state or having visitors from out of state for Thanksgiving or Christmas, they are requiring 14 days of quarantine if you travel or have out of state visitors...that's actually nothing new...the new wrinkle is that instead of teleworking for those 2 weeks as has been done previously, you are now required to use your annual leave and get written permission from on high to either travel or have someone out of state travel to you.
For the most part, from what I've heard around the water cooler and break room is that most people aren't planning on anything big...but so and so's kid will be visiting from Texas or so and so's husband's mom will be visiting from Arizona, etc...but by and large people don't seem to be planning large get togethers.
The punitive nature of this new mandate is already causing problems, and it's only Monday afternoon. I'm in management and I'm already getting things like, "my husband doesn't care if I have permission or not, he told me that he's not your employee and his mom will be visiting from Texas for Christmas." We also have a lot of employees with grown children who live out of state and while not planning a big tadoo for the holidays, they will be visiting back home. One of those people is our primary IT guy and he's basically said, "fine...I'll use my annual leave, but don't bother calling, because my phone and email will be off if I'm on a forced vacation." Another employee is upset because his sister lives in state, but works in southern Colorado so she commutes out of state daily and as such is considered to be an "out of state" visitor.
The bigger issue I think is that you're going to basically have a lot of people just lying about it and saying they aren't traveling or hosting out of state visitors when they really are and thus avoiding any quarantine period whatsoever, when in the past they would have complied with the quarantine period and just teleworked. On the other side, you're going to have people comply...and fully comply in that since they are on annual leave, they will not be available and responding to emails or phone calls.
We also have some new questions on our form that we fill out daily whether we are teleworking or coming to the office. Any yes answer on the form requires the employee to get a covid test and self quarantine for 14 days (can telework if their work can be done by that means)...the two added questions are do you have a runny nose or diarrhea? Fall allergies here are pretty common and just about everyone has a runny nose in the fall...that question alone just put about 70% of our workforce into quarantine starting today. I'm also hearing some chatter of people possibly using this as a work around for having to quarantine for 14 days using vacation time for having out of state visitors in that they see it as a responsible thing to quarantine...but instead of saying it's for visitors, they'll just say they have a runny nose so they can still work at home while responsibly quarantining.
I think the higher ups made a bigger mess of all of this than it already was...I'm hoping they might walk back some of it.
I am constantly shocked about how people/companies/government don't always foresee the potential unintended responses they trigger with their edicts.
Yeah...I talked with my boss yesterday about this as I have more interaction with the rank and file and told him that we went from having a pretty compliant workforce with overall positive morale to a defiant workforce with about zero morale overnight. We already had pretty strict requirements in place...but making people who can otherwise work at home in quarantine use their leave pissed everyone off.
All around, just such a bad idea.
In Massachusetts, our Governor instituted a new stricter policy that causes one to question their judgement. He went from masks outside if cannot maintain 6 ft, to masks outside no matter what even if no one is in sight. So, where I live, land lots are 1 acre minimum with tracts of woods interspersed. When I go out walking, even if I see someone, it is very easy to remain a distance of 20 feet away. In that setting it makes no sense, and there are towns even more rural than mine. When one rule is not logically defined and makes no sense, it brings one to also question the well defined rules. Do note that I am not critiquing mask use, I am critiquing requiring them illogically and thus potentially decreasing compliance in all the important scenarios.
One person critiquing Governor Bakers new mask edict compared it to instructing people to wear a condom when alone so that they will remember to wear one when having sex. (I actually toned down the comparison slightly.)
I've long been hearing from people who frequent touristy areas like the Plymouth waterfront that people have not been wearing masks outdoors when within 6', and police had not been enforcing it. While this new rule does make enforcement much easier, I agree with you that this new strict policy seems ill advised for the reasons you mentioned.
(Nice metaphor
) 1 -
My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
I don't know how inaugurations normally work, but watching on TV it's always looked like: if you want to be there, you just go. Full stop.
Having a lottery sort of implies there will be a limit to the number of in-person attendees. Much like how the state of Minnesota was willing to host the president's rallies, but only if there were no more 250 present.
I guess I don't see the issue.
His post says historically that each Congressional office gets a limited number of tickets which he will be offering in a lottery...so at least as of now that appear to be how it's been done in the past and no Covid related changes have been implemented so far at least. My point is though that if Covid is so bad and we all need to stay away from each other as much as possible (to the degree that you shouldn't even walk within 6ft of someone outside without a mask) then hosting a large scale event even if it's outside is problematic at best. There is no way that a vaccine will be ready and widely given by then so the responsible thing to do is to not host the event other than streaming/tv other than those who have to be present to do the swearing in. Either gatherings are acceptable or they are not regardless of the reasoning (even outside large scale gatherings are prohibited in my area).
Another issue is that currently, for almost every single state because surges are occurring nationwide, you are required to quarantine for 14 days if you come to D.C., albeit enforcement is probably mostly on the honor system. Members of Congress are exempt, but there's no exemption at this point for people wanting to travel to D.C. for an event like inauguration. So if they hold it, most people in the ticketed audience would legally be required to come on Jan. 6 and quarantine until the inauguration (but stay away from the ones from neighboring Virginia and Maryland, because they're exempt from the quarantine requirement).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
1) Isn't the Inauguration typically outdoors? That is, in a category of event that is currently thought to be lower risk than different households gathering indoors, especially when masks are worn?
2) Is the Congressman who made the posting on Facebook also advocating that you not gather for the holidays?
The reason this is "so political and polarizing" is that you're making it that way. If you think the Inauguration is high risk, don't go (I wouldn't go myself). But the fact that the Inauguration is happening doesn't make it magically safe to gather different households together indoors for Thanksgiving.
Yes it is outdoors but that doesn't miraculously make it "safe" to get in a large crowd. This same Congressman has said that we should avoid gathering for the holidays, that pro-Trump rallies, protests, or gatherings are bad (but unsurprisingly given his political party did not say the same for the Biden winning gatherings the prior weekend) and has said that we should be listening to the "experts" - and aren't they all saying that even outside we should be social distancing? I'd think that they would not be advocating for a large scale gathering in that case.
Hypocrisy they name is politics.
Plus with how much this board seems to be in favor of abiding by any and all guidelines and restrictions I'd have thought there would be more support against the idea of this gathering.
@kushiel1 I totally agree with you that rules and standards this year are not consistent across the board, and in the process that makes me very distrustful of those making the decisions.
"This year"? What rules and standards in the U.S. are ever "consistent across the board"? Welcome to a federal system of government and the 50 state laboratories of democracy.10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I think my work just made a mistake. In order to strongly discourage employees from either traveling out of state or having visitors from out of state for Thanksgiving or Christmas, they are requiring 14 days of quarantine if you travel or have out of state visitors...that's actually nothing new...the new wrinkle is that instead of teleworking for those 2 weeks as has been done previously, you are now required to use your annual leave and get written permission from on high to either travel or have someone out of state travel to you.
For the most part, from what I've heard around the water cooler and break room is that most people aren't planning on anything big...but so and so's kid will be visiting from Texas or so and so's husband's mom will be visiting from Arizona, etc...but by and large people don't seem to be planning large get togethers.
The punitive nature of this new mandate is already causing problems, and it's only Monday afternoon. I'm in management and I'm already getting things like, "my husband doesn't care if I have permission or not, he told me that he's not your employee and his mom will be visiting from Texas for Christmas." We also have a lot of employees with grown children who live out of state and while not planning a big tadoo for the holidays, they will be visiting back home. One of those people is our primary IT guy and he's basically said, "fine...I'll use my annual leave, but don't bother calling, because my phone and email will be off if I'm on a forced vacation." Another employee is upset because his sister lives in state, but works in southern Colorado so she commutes out of state daily and as such is considered to be an "out of state" visitor.
The bigger issue I think is that you're going to basically have a lot of people just lying about it and saying they aren't traveling or hosting out of state visitors when they really are and thus avoiding any quarantine period whatsoever, when in the past they would have complied with the quarantine period and just teleworked. On the other side, you're going to have people comply...and fully comply in that since they are on annual leave, they will not be available and responding to emails or phone calls.
We also have some new questions on our form that we fill out daily whether we are teleworking or coming to the office. Any yes answer on the form requires the employee to get a covid test and self quarantine for 14 days (can telework if their work can be done by that means)...the two added questions are do you have a runny nose or diarrhea? Fall allergies here are pretty common and just about everyone has a runny nose in the fall...that question alone just put about 70% of our workforce into quarantine starting today. I'm also hearing some chatter of people possibly using this as a work around for having to quarantine for 14 days using vacation time for having out of state visitors in that they see it as a responsible thing to quarantine...but instead of saying it's for visitors, they'll just say they have a runny nose so they can still work at home while responsibly quarantining.
I think the higher ups made a bigger mess of all of this than it already was...I'm hoping they might walk back some of it.
I am constantly shocked about how people/companies/government don't always foresee the potential unintended responses they trigger with their edicts.
Yeah...I talked with my boss yesterday about this as I have more interaction with the rank and file and told him that we went from having a pretty compliant workforce with overall positive morale to a defiant workforce with about zero morale overnight. We already had pretty strict requirements in place...but making people who can otherwise work at home in quarantine use their leave pissed everyone off.
All around, just such a bad idea.
In Massachusetts, our Governor instituted a new stricter policy that causes one to question their judgement. He went from masks outside if cannot maintain 6 ft, to masks outside no matter what even if no one is in sight. So, where I live, land lots are 1 acre minimum with tracts of woods interspersed. When I go out walking, even if I see someone, it is very easy to remain a distance of 20 feet away. In that setting it makes no sense, and there are towns even more rural than mine. When one rule is not logically defined and makes no sense, it brings one to also question the well defined rules. Do note that I am not critiquing mask use, I am critiquing requiring them illogically and thus potentially decreasing compliance in all the important scenarios.
One person critiquing Governor Bakers new mask edict compared it to instructing people to wear a condom when alone so that they will remember to wear one when having sex. (I actually toned down the comparison slightly.)
I've long been hearing from people who frequent touristy areas like the Plymouth waterfront that people have not been wearing masks outdoors when within 6', and police had not been enforcing it. While this new rule does make enforcement much easier, I agree with you that this new strict policy seems ill advised for the reasons you mentioned.
(Nice metaphor )
IMO The logical approach is to actually just enforce the laws they have. ie masks if cannot maintain 6' distance. I repeatedly compare laws and such to raising kids. If you tell your kid not to do something "or else" and you don't follow through, then they are going to do what they want. If Plymouth police started randomly handing out nice big fines, I bet compliance would improve. Much more logical solution.
Glad you approved of the metaphor. I cannot claim ownership. The original was a bit less PG.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
1) Isn't the Inauguration typically outdoors? That is, in a category of event that is currently thought to be lower risk than different households gathering indoors, especially when masks are worn?
2) Is the Congressman who made the posting on Facebook also advocating that you not gather for the holidays?
The reason this is "so political and polarizing" is that you're making it that way. If you think the Inauguration is high risk, don't go (I wouldn't go myself). But the fact that the Inauguration is happening doesn't make it magically safe to gather different households together indoors for Thanksgiving.
Yes it is outdoors but that doesn't miraculously make it "safe" to get in a large crowd. This same Congressman has said that we should avoid gathering for the holidays, that pro-Trump rallies, protests, or gatherings are bad (but unsurprisingly given his political party did not say the same for the Biden winning gatherings the prior weekend) and has said that we should be listening to the "experts" - and aren't they all saying that even outside we should be social distancing? I'd think that they would not be advocating for a large scale gathering in that case.
Hypocrisy they name is politics.
Plus with how much this board seems to be in favor of abiding by any and all guidelines and restrictions I'd have thought there would be more support against the idea of this gathering.
@kushiel1 I totally agree with you that rules and standards this year are not consistent across the board, and in the process that makes me very distrustful of those making the decisions.
"This year"? What rules and standards in the U.S. are ever "consistent across the board"? Welcome to a federal system of government and the 50 state laboratories of democracy.
Completely a tangent to this thread (and less true in the thread's context, because of urgency) but . . .
I think that this is a huge strength of the US system, when it's actually working. We try out things in the states, learn stuff, eventually federalize the better models.9 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »My congressman just posted on Facebook that there's a lottery opening soon for tickets to the Inauguration in January...so I'm supposed to give up the holidays with family (who very well might not be here next year) and "stay home" but miraculously by Jan 21st all will be well to have a large scale gathering? And we wonder why people find Covid so political and polarizing right now - because apparently if you are on the correct end of the spectrum Covid will miraculously not infect you. If it's as bad as "they" are making it out to be currently the Inauguration should be televised/streamed only. Then I'll be more likely to believe that this the correct course of action - but if we can get tons of people together (even if it's outside and masked) for this then other activities with social distancing should be allowed (such as more than 50 people at a football game).
Give me a break.
1) Isn't the Inauguration typically outdoors? That is, in a category of event that is currently thought to be lower risk than different households gathering indoors, especially when masks are worn?
2) Is the Congressman who made the posting on Facebook also advocating that you not gather for the holidays?
The reason this is "so political and polarizing" is that you're making it that way. If you think the Inauguration is high risk, don't go (I wouldn't go myself). But the fact that the Inauguration is happening doesn't make it magically safe to gather different households together indoors for Thanksgiving.
Yes it is outdoors but that doesn't miraculously make it "safe" to get in a large crowd. This same Congressman has said that we should avoid gathering for the holidays, that pro-Trump rallies, protests, or gatherings are bad (but unsurprisingly given his political party did not say the same for the Biden winning gatherings the prior weekend) and has said that we should be listening to the "experts" - and aren't they all saying that even outside we should be social distancing? I'd think that they would not be advocating for a large scale gathering in that case.
Hypocrisy they name is politics.
Plus with how much this board seems to be in favor of abiding by any and all guidelines and restrictions I'd have thought there would be more support against the idea of this gathering.
@kushiel1 I totally agree with you that rules and standards this year are not consistent across the board, and in the process that makes me very distrustful of those making the decisions.
"This year"? What rules and standards in the U.S. are ever "consistent across the board"? Welcome to a federal system of government and the 50 state laboratories of democracy.
Lynn, you got me. Yes, it has been more than this year. I think though that this year it has been highly observable.1 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Non-sequiter incoming, but:
About the purchase of alcohol, I think every state needs to incorporate some kind of technology into their IDs if they haven't already that can then be read/scanned at a point-of-sale system before alcohol can be purchased. This takes the issue entirely out of the hands of cashiers. I say this as a former manager of a liquor store. Some customers can give you a really hard time about this. Also, the state liquor board loves to run "sting" operations wherein if a cashier neglects to check ID, they can be held personally liable over and above the store's liability. I think it's just a revenue stream for them, but it's stupid. Automate that nonsense.
For many years, I have seen stores scanning state-issued ID's. My understanding is that the barcode contains the information and a computer can quickly collect and analyze that information. But it can also store that information, meaning my junk mail increases. I'm willing to sign up for store accounts that track my purchases and send me deals when there is a benefit to me to do that. But not as a condition of making a particular purchase. In response, I've been using a passport card for years to do this.
Sometimes they try to scan it and then get frustrated when the computer can't understand it. My response is to explain how the passport card barcode works (it is just a number to identify your records in the State Dept. database... without access to that database, the number is worthless). And then go on to remind them that it is a government issued ID and still meets their requirement. I rarely get denied a purchase for that.
The exception is if I am buying something where the seller is required by law to collect my name, address, and date of birth... specifically if I am buying a gun, I use my state-issued ID.
Wow!! You make buying a gun sound like such an ordinary everyday transaction.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I think my work just made a mistake. In order to strongly discourage employees from either traveling out of state or having visitors from out of state for Thanksgiving or Christmas, they are requiring 14 days of quarantine if you travel or have out of state visitors...that's actually nothing new...the new wrinkle is that instead of teleworking for those 2 weeks as has been done previously, you are now required to use your annual leave and get written permission from on high to either travel or have someone out of state travel to you.
For the most part, from what I've heard around the water cooler and break room is that most people aren't planning on anything big...but so and so's kid will be visiting from Texas or so and so's husband's mom will be visiting from Arizona, etc...but by and large people don't seem to be planning large get togethers.
The punitive nature of this new mandate is already causing problems, and it's only Monday afternoon. I'm in management and I'm already getting things like, "my husband doesn't care if I have permission or not, he told me that he's not your employee and his mom will be visiting from Texas for Christmas." We also have a lot of employees with grown children who live out of state and while not planning a big tadoo for the holidays, they will be visiting back home. One of those people is our primary IT guy and he's basically said, "fine...I'll use my annual leave, but don't bother calling, because my phone and email will be off if I'm on a forced vacation." Another employee is upset because his sister lives in state, but works in southern Colorado so she commutes out of state daily and as such is considered to be an "out of state" visitor.
The bigger issue I think is that you're going to basically have a lot of people just lying about it and saying they aren't traveling or hosting out of state visitors when they really are and thus avoiding any quarantine period whatsoever, when in the past they would have complied with the quarantine period and just teleworked. On the other side, you're going to have people comply...and fully comply in that since they are on annual leave, they will not be available and responding to emails or phone calls.
We also have some new questions on our form that we fill out daily whether we are teleworking or coming to the office. Any yes answer on the form requires the employee to get a covid test and self quarantine for 14 days (can telework if their work can be done by that means)...the two added questions are do you have a runny nose or diarrhea? Fall allergies here are pretty common and just about everyone has a runny nose in the fall...that question alone just put about 70% of our workforce into quarantine starting today. I'm also hearing some chatter of people possibly using this as a work around for having to quarantine for 14 days using vacation time for having out of state visitors in that they see it as a responsible thing to quarantine...but instead of saying it's for visitors, they'll just say they have a runny nose so they can still work at home while responsibly quarantining.
I think the higher ups made a bigger mess of all of this than it already was...I'm hoping they might walk back some of it.
I am constantly shocked about how people/companies/government don't always foresee the potential unintended responses they trigger with their edicts.
Yeah...I talked with my boss yesterday about this as I have more interaction with the rank and file and told him that we went from having a pretty compliant workforce with overall positive morale to a defiant workforce with about zero morale overnight. We already had pretty strict requirements in place...but making people who can otherwise work at home in quarantine use their leave pissed everyone off.
All around, just such a bad idea.
In Massachusetts, our Governor instituted a new stricter policy that causes one to question their judgement. He went from masks outside if cannot maintain 6 ft, to masks outside no matter what even if no one is in sight. So, where I live, land lots are 1 acre minimum with tracts of woods interspersed. When I go out walking, even if I see someone, it is very easy to remain a distance of 20 feet away. In that setting it makes no sense, and there are towns even more rural than mine. When one rule is not logically defined and makes no sense, it brings one to also question the well defined rules. Do note that I am not critiquing mask use, I am critiquing requiring them illogically and thus potentially decreasing compliance in all the important scenarios.
One person critiquing Governor Bakers new mask edict compared it to instructing people to wear a condom when alone so that they will remember to wear one when having sex. (I actually toned down the comparison slightly.)
I've long been hearing from people who frequent touristy areas like the Plymouth waterfront that people have not been wearing masks outdoors when within 6', and police had not been enforcing it. While this new rule does make enforcement much easier, I agree with you that this new strict policy seems ill advised for the reasons you mentioned.
(Nice metaphor )
IMO The logical approach is to actually just enforce the laws they have. ie masks if cannot maintain 6' distance. I repeatedly compare laws and such to raising kids. If you tell your kid not to do something "or else" and you don't follow through, then they are going to do what they want. If Plymouth police started randomly handing out nice big fines, I bet compliance would improve. Much more logical solution.
Glad you approved of the metaphor. I cannot claim ownership. The original was a bit less PG.
It sounds like part of it is just simply a lack of enforcement, but I also am guessing part of it is a lack of ability to enforce. Everyone would just show up to court and say, "How did you measure that distance between me and the other person?" And they would win because how can the police defend that? By eliminating the 6 ft. exemption, you also make it possible to enforce.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Non-sequiter incoming, but:
About the purchase of alcohol, I think every state needs to incorporate some kind of technology into their IDs if they haven't already that can then be read/scanned at a point-of-sale system before alcohol can be purchased. This takes the issue entirely out of the hands of cashiers. I say this as a former manager of a liquor store. Some customers can give you a really hard time about this. Also, the state liquor board loves to run "sting" operations wherein if a cashier neglects to check ID, they can be held personally liable over and above the store's liability. I think it's just a revenue stream for them, but it's stupid. Automate that nonsense.
For many years, I have seen stores scanning state-issued ID's. My understanding is that the barcode contains the information and a computer can quickly collect and analyze that information. But it can also store that information, meaning my junk mail increases. I'm willing to sign up for store accounts that track my purchases and send me deals when there is a benefit to me to do that. But not as a condition of making a particular purchase. In response, I've been using a passport card for years to do this.
Sometimes they try to scan it and then get frustrated when the computer can't understand it. My response is to explain how the passport card barcode works (it is just a number to identify your records in the State Dept. database... without access to that database, the number is worthless). And then go on to remind them that it is a government issued ID and still meets their requirement. I rarely get denied a purchase for that.
The exception is if I am buying something where the seller is required by law to collect my name, address, and date of birth... specifically if I am buying a gun, I use my state-issued ID.
Wow!! You make buying a gun sound like such an ordinary everyday transaction.
It is. And a complicated one. But that's controversial, so we shouldn't talk about it.6 -
Well, son of a biscuit, dh just got a call back from his dr. and he tested positive.
I think he was as surprised as I was. I'm hoping and praying the viral load he received during exposure was very little. So far, he's had a low grade fever 2 days, and a cough that hasn't been too bad. He started with symptoms last Tuesday night so keeping my fingers crossed it doesn't progress into anything worse.
So now I'm waiting for a call from my dr. so I can schedule a test.
I think the worse news that dh got was he cannot return to work until after the 25th and he has to have 3 days of being symptom free. He's going completely nutso being home and being with me.
Yes. That's apparently one downside of the virus for some people. Having to spend too much time together. Can't say I really understand it myself, but everyone's different I suppose.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions