Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
:noway:1 -
ha, that smiley has issues...like an ":n" on its face.1
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
Does HIPPA have an pandemic exception clause I don't know about? I can see wanting to do contract tracing but this seems to be very invasive....and illegal.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »ha, that smiley has issues...like an ":n" on its face.
That emoji made me giggle...thanks! Love the eyes lol.
1 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
We seem to have moved the line between health information privacy and information released for public health necessity. Like so many other things about this pandemic, there is not enough known about it and there is no coordinated national response in the US.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
We seem to have moved the line between health information privacy and information released for public health necessity. Like so many other things about this pandemic, there is not enough known about it and there is no coordinated national response in the US.
Yeah, so you better hope you don't need an LEO when you have a positive diagnosis.2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
Does HIPPA have an pandemic exception clause I don't know about? I can see wanting to do contract tracing but this seems to be very invasive....and illegal.
I don't know the details but there are some exceptions when public safety is at risk, for example someone with a known STD knowingly exposing others.
The question right now is how to define if someone is knowingly risking the health of the public and what to do about it.3 -
I wonder if there are older provisions in law that allow for public health officials to impose formal quarantine on a household, that are letting positive test results' names/addresses go to law enforcement in some areas. If so, that could be a legal exception to HIPAA (in the US), similar to court orders being able to get at protected health info in certain scenarios.
I can just barely remember it, but "back in the day" before there were vaccines for common very infectious deadly diseases (measles is one), it was a thing to impose formal quarantine on a household, put up "quarantine" signs around their house, and legally require them to meet certain isolation conditions for a defined period of time.
Most of y'all probably way too young to have encountered that; I'm darned close to too young, and think I just remember people talking about it, not seeing it happen.4 -
I wonder if there are older provisions in law that allow for public health officials to impose formal quarantine on a household, that are letting positive test results' names/addresses go to law enforcement in some areas. If so, that could be a legal exception to HIPAA (in the US), similar to court orders being able to get at protected health info in certain scenarios.
I can just barely remember it, but "back in the day" before there were vaccines for common very infectious deadly diseases (measles is one), it was a thing to impose formal quarantine on a household, put up "quarantine" signs around their house, and legally require them to meet certain isolation conditions for a defined period of time.
Most of y'all probably way too young to have encountered that; I'm darned close to too young, and think I just remember people talking about it, not seeing it happen.
We are close to the same age. I don't remember the quarantines but my Mom told me about them in the early 50's with polio. She was a young mother (first child in '53, second in '54, I was in '56) so she was very aware of the families who were quarantined because of it. The worry didn't last too long for her because of the vaccine that came out when my brothers were still toddlers.3 -
It certainly is sad when you hear about the death of a loved on on TV.18
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
Does HIPPA have an pandemic exception clause I don't know about? I can see wanting to do contract tracing but this seems to be very invasive....and illegal.
I don't know the details but there are some exceptions when public safety is at risk, for example someone with a known STD knowingly exposing others.
The question right now is how to define if someone is knowingly risking the health of the public and what to do about it.
The argument they are making is that it is to protect police just in case they come in contact with an infected person. Since testing is so limited here and since a lot of people are asymptomatic, doesn't it make more sense to operate based on the assumption that everyone has it and protect yourself no matter what?! No need to share personal health information for that.9 -
Yeah, this is problematic, but with people with warrants out for their arrest posting on their doors (falsely) that they have covid in order to avoid being arrested, and others spitting on police and saying they have covid, (both happened locally) it’s not surprising.T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
In any case it’s also problematic that health privacy has been used as an excuse to prevent people from protecting themselves. If my Kroger had three positive cases yesterday I would like to know that so I can go elsewhere. When someone is a public health risk, that’s not really private information.2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
Does HIPPA have an pandemic exception clause I don't know about? I can see wanting to do contract tracing but this seems to be very invasive....and illegal.
I don't know the details but there are some exceptions when public safety is at risk, for example someone with a known STD knowingly exposing others.
The question right now is how to define if someone is knowingly risking the health of the public and what to do about it.
The argument they are making is that it is to protect police just in case they come in contact with an infected person. Since testing is so limited here and since a lot of people are asymptomatic, doesn't it make more sense to operate based on the assumption that everyone has it and protect yourself no matter what?! No need to share personal health information for that.
I agree that they should assume everyone has it.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Yeah, this is problematic, but with people with warrants out for their arrest posting on their doors (falsely) that they have covid in order to avoid being arrested, and others spitting on police and saying they have covid, (both happened locally) it’s not surprising.T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
In any case it’s also problematic that health privacy has been used as an excuse to prevent people from protecting themselves. If my Kroger had three positive cases yesterday I would like to know that so I can go elsewhere. When someone is a public health risk, that’s not really private information.
In situations like you mentioned, information can be released without actually naming names. If an infected person breaks quarantine, their privacy should not trump public safety but if someone tested positive who works somewhere, that info can be released and still maintain the individual's privacy.4 -
I wonder if there are older provisions in law that allow for public health officials to impose formal quarantine on a household, that are letting positive test results' names/addresses go to law enforcement in some areas. If so, that could be a legal exception to HIPAA (in the US), similar to court orders being able to get at protected health info in certain scenarios.
I can just barely remember it, but "back in the day" before there were vaccines for common very infectious deadly diseases (measles is one), it was a thing to impose formal quarantine on a household, put up "quarantine" signs around their house, and legally require them to meet certain isolation conditions for a defined period of time.
Most of y'all probably way too young to have encountered that; I'm darned close to too young, and think I just remember people talking about it, not seeing it happen.
My dad grew up in MI and lettered in football twice, b/c his initial high school (Hartford?) had to close during a polio outbreak while Milford H.S. stayed open. They are not that far apart, so I suspect a quarantine did take place b/c otherwise Milford would have had it, too.
In unrelated-to-Covid family history about MI, my grandma and great-aunts were part of the group of women feeding their spouses through windows in the GM plant sit-down strike of 1936
7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
Does HIPPA have an pandemic exception clause I don't know about? I can see wanting to do contract tracing but this seems to be very invasive....and illegal.
I don't know the details but there are some exceptions when public safety is at risk, for example someone with a known STD knowingly exposing others.
The question right now is how to define if someone is knowingly risking the health of the public and what to do about it.
The argument they are making is that it is to protect police just in case they come in contact with an infected person. Since testing is so limited here and since a lot of people are asymptomatic, doesn't it make more sense to operate based on the assumption that everyone has it and protect yourself no matter what?! No need to share personal health information for that.
Agreed.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Yeah, this is problematic, but with people with warrants out for their arrest posting on their doors (falsely) that they have covid in order to avoid being arrested, and others spitting on police and saying they have covid, (both happened locally) it’s not surprising.T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
In any case it’s also problematic that health privacy has been used as an excuse to prevent people from protecting themselves. If my Kroger had three positive cases yesterday I would like to know that so I can go elsewhere. When someone is a public health risk, that’s not really private information.
In situations like you mentioned, information can be released without actually naming names. If an infected person breaks quarantine, their privacy should not trump public safety but if someone tested positive who works somewhere, that info can be released and still maintain the individual's privacy.
Right -- for example, back in March someone who worked in the building next to mine (they are connected) tested positive, and the spouse of someone who worked in my building did, and they told us that, without revealing names.2 -
I wonder if there are older provisions in law that allow for public health officials to impose formal quarantine on a household, that are letting positive test results' names/addresses go to law enforcement in some areas. If so, that could be a legal exception to HIPAA (in the US), similar to court orders being able to get at protected health info in certain scenarios.
I can just barely remember it, but "back in the day" before there were vaccines for common very infectious deadly diseases (measles is one), it was a thing to impose formal quarantine on a household, put up "quarantine" signs around their house, and legally require them to meet certain isolation conditions for a defined period of time.
Most of y'all probably way too young to have encountered that; I'm darned close to too young, and think I just remember people talking about it, not seeing it happen.
I feel like my point is being missed (my fault, I'm sure).
The point was not nostalgia.
The point was that in some jurisdictions, there may be a valid legal basis for releasing names/addresses to police, of people with positive COVID tests, based on quarantine/public-health regulations that have been in place dating back decades.
I'm not an attorney in any jurisdiction, let alone all of them, so I don't know - speculating, it seems possible. It may also matter, in a legal sense, that some places are under a declared state of emergency, when there are typically different standards - still based in law - for government action.
Whether we subjectively think it's an invasion of privacy to give police that info, or subjectively think it's reasonable for public health reasons to do so, it's signifcant whether it's legal or not, IMO.
If it's legal (or illegal), and we don't like that, the remedial course is legislative/regulatory.
If it isn't legal, and they're doing it anyway, that's a legit target for lawsuits or disciplinary complaints or whatever complaint/remediation mechanism is relevant in the particular context.
Just because there are laws (in the US) like HIPAA, that doesn't make all releases of private health records illegal "because of privacy". (This I do know, having been involved in my employer's HIPAA compliance efforts.) For example, records can be released under court order, under certain provisions. There may be other cases where private health records can legally be released, under the full system of laws: That, I do not know.6 -
I wonder if there are older provisions in law that allow for public health officials to impose formal quarantine on a household, that are letting positive test results' names/addresses go to law enforcement in some areas. If so, that could be a legal exception to HIPAA (in the US), similar to court orders being able to get at protected health info in certain scenarios.
I can just barely remember it, but "back in the day" before there were vaccines for common very infectious deadly diseases (measles is one), it was a thing to impose formal quarantine on a household, put up "quarantine" signs around their house, and legally require them to meet certain isolation conditions for a defined period of time.
Most of y'all probably way too young to have encountered that; I'm darned close to too young, and think I just remember people talking about it, not seeing it happen.
I feel like my point is being missed (my fault, I'm sure).
The point was not nostalgia.
The point was that in some jurisdictions, there may be a valid legal basis for releasing names/addresses to police, of people with positive COVID tests, based on quarantine/public-health regulations that have been in place dating back decades.
I'm not an attorney in any jurisdiction, let alone all of them, so I don't know - speculating, it seems possible. It may also matter, in a legal sense, that some places are under a declared state of emergency, when there are typically different standards - still based in law - for government action.
Whether we subjectively think it's an invasion of privacy to give police that info, or subjectively think it's reasonable for public health reasons to do so, it's signifcant whether it's legal or not, IMO.
If it's legal (or illegal), and we don't like that, the remedial course is legislative/regulatory.
If it isn't legal, and they're doing it anyway, that's a legit target for lawsuits or disciplinary complaints or whatever complaint/remediation mechanism is relevant in the particular context.
Just because there are laws (in the US) like HIPAA, that doesn't make all releases of private health records illegal "because of privacy". (This I do know, having been involved in my employer's HIPAA compliance efforts.) For example, records can be released under court order, under certain provisions. There may be other cases where private health records can legally be released, under the full system of laws: That, I do not know.
In the case of TN, everyone who has tested positive has their name and address released to all the police chiefs and county sheriffs who have signed up for it. I live near the MO border. If I test positive, my name and address are sent to everyone in the entire state that signed up for the information - even those who are nearly 400 miles away in the opposite corner of the state. How those police 400 miles away are supposed to watch my home and force me to quarantine is questionable.2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I wonder if there are older provisions in law that allow for public health officials to impose formal quarantine on a household, that are letting positive test results' names/addresses go to law enforcement in some areas. If so, that could be a legal exception to HIPAA (in the US), similar to court orders being able to get at protected health info in certain scenarios.
I can just barely remember it, but "back in the day" before there were vaccines for common very infectious deadly diseases (measles is one), it was a thing to impose formal quarantine on a household, put up "quarantine" signs around their house, and legally require them to meet certain isolation conditions for a defined period of time.
Most of y'all probably way too young to have encountered that; I'm darned close to too young, and think I just remember people talking about it, not seeing it happen.
I feel like my point is being missed (my fault, I'm sure).
The point was not nostalgia.
The point was that in some jurisdictions, there may be a valid legal basis for releasing names/addresses to police, of people with positive COVID tests, based on quarantine/public-health regulations that have been in place dating back decades.
I'm not an attorney in any jurisdiction, let alone all of them, so I don't know - speculating, it seems possible. It may also matter, in a legal sense, that some places are under a declared state of emergency, when there are typically different standards - still based in law - for government action.
Whether we subjectively think it's an invasion of privacy to give police that info, or subjectively think it's reasonable for public health reasons to do so, it's signifcant whether it's legal or not, IMO.
If it's legal (or illegal), and we don't like that, the remedial course is legislative/regulatory.
If it isn't legal, and they're doing it anyway, that's a legit target for lawsuits or disciplinary complaints or whatever complaint/remediation mechanism is relevant in the particular context.
Just because there are laws (in the US) like HIPAA, that doesn't make all releases of private health records illegal "because of privacy". (This I do know, having been involved in my employer's HIPAA compliance efforts.) For example, records can be released under court order, under certain provisions. There may be other cases where private health records can legally be released, under the full system of laws: That, I do not know.
In the case of TN, everyone who has tested positive has their name and address released to all the police chiefs and county sheriffs who have signed up for it. I live near the MO border. If I test positive, my name and address are sent to everyone in the entire state that signed up for the information - even those who are nearly 400 miles away in the opposite corner of the state. How those police 400 miles away are supposed to watch my home and force me to quarantine is questionable.
Didn't say I thought it necessarily made sense, either
, just that it may be legal.
Seriously - hereafter I'm just giving an opinon - it seems dubiously useful as a sort of broadcast to all police.
OTOH, I can think about some of what's going on in my state (Michigan): Here da Covid rebels were tracked (by cell tower pings, anonymously, by a non-governmental entity) leaving their mostly mask-less mingle-y protests at the capitol, then motoring back to whereever they came from, which turned out to be all over the freakin' state, including places many hours distant (presumably stopping for gas and snacks en route, which was mostly along all the major highways).
With that sort of thing going on, and assuming it's legal, I can understand why some police entities might put positive-test data into their computer systems, run the data for traffic stops, and tell positive-tested people to go the (bleep) home, perhaps especially if they'd come from a distant part of the state.
5 -
Here's a piece on the TN policy: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/16/tennessee-gov-bill-lee-takes-heleft-and-right/523162/
Apparently there's bipartisan opposition. I agree with the guy in the article who is concerned it would be a disincentive to test.5 -
You would think, right? But in practice Tennessee is not at all forthcoming with that information, and blames it on HIPAA. They even refused to identify which ZIP CODES had the most cases because “of the risk of identification.”rheddmobile wrote: »
Yeah, this is problematic, but with people with warrants out for their arrest posting on their doors (falsely) that they have covid in order to avoid being arrested, and others spitting on police and saying they have covid, (both happened locally) it’s not surprising.T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
In any case it’s also problematic that health privacy has been used as an excuse to prevent people from protecting themselves. If my Kroger had three positive cases yesterday I would like to know that so I can go elsewhere. When someone is a public health risk, that’s not really private information.
In situations like you mentioned, information can be released without actually naming names. If an infected person breaks quarantine, their privacy should not trump public safety but if someone tested positive who works somewhere, that info can be released and still maintain the individual's privacy.
There was an article yesterday about floating pharmacists at Walgreens and Walgreens is refusing to tell the floaters whether the store they are going to had positive cases, when in fact the floater is being called in to replace someone positive, and working with coworkers who haven’t tested positive yet but are being asked to self-isolate because they were exposed to the people who are out. Then after working with those people, the same floater gets sent to a different pharmacy, so the virus gets shipped all around to all the pharmacies, with no one revealing which stores have cases. Because HIPAA. But really, let’s be honest here, because people would avoid them and it would be bad for business if customers and staff knew they were walking into a hot zone.
5 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I just found out that some police and sheriffs here in TN are being given names and addresses of everyone who has tested positive. Health privacy apparently doesn't matter here: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/may/08/state-health-department-gives-names-addresses/522572/
Does HIPPA have an pandemic exception clause I don't know about? I can see wanting to do contract tracing but this seems to be very invasive....and illegal.
HIPAA applies to "covered" health care providers. In most cases, I doubt the state Health Department is a covered health care provider but instead has obtained the private health information from a covered health care provider under a provision of HIPAA that requires private health information to be given to government agencies as required by law (no doubt the Tennessee Health Department has statutory authority to require reporting of cases of a pandemic disease). Then it is sharing the private health information under an MOU for which the inadequate article shared above totally fails to provide the obligations or commitments of law enforcement.* It's highly unusual for an MOU not to have obligations or commitments for both sides. Who enters into a contract where they get nothing in return for whatever they're giving up? That's not even a valid contract.
But this Tennessee policy is counterproductive for two reasons:
1) it will discourage some people who value their privacy from getting tested or seeking treatment when it is otherwise advisable to do so and
2) it will lull law enforcement into forgoing sensible distancing and sanitary precautions when they enter homes where they haven't received a warning that their is a COVID case, as though the absence of a known case means there isn't a case.
It's like somebody was sitting around brainstorming policies that could increase the chances of exposure among law enforcement.
* ETA: typically an MOU between government agencies on sharing individual's private information would include obligations on the part of the receiving agency not to further share the information and to adopt reasonable cybersecurity protections for the information.5 -
I need to vent here because if I vent on my other favorite forum, I could get kicked off.
The owner of the forum is a millionaire, drives a Lamborgini, lives in CA. He posted that he's "over this virus and is no longer wearing a mask unless required".
Why? Why? Why???? Something so simple, takes little to zero effort really, could theoretically protect himself, his family, and every single person he comes into contact with.
SMH, please help me understand???
I'm sure we're ALL over this virus, ALL over hearing/living/breathing it day in and day out. But dang it, I just cannot understand someone's mindset like this.
Be nice to him and ask him pretty please? It wouldn't work. People are going to do what they're going to do, because that's how they feel.
My niece and her dh reopened their medical office recently. She said most of the people are really good and understanding about safety rules but she's had a couple in that refused to wear a mask(even though it's required in medical offices). They accused her of taking away their rights so when she questioned them about what rights exactly, they couldn't answer her. So she asked them if they wanted her to tear up their paperwork and they could find someplace else to go. Not sure of the outcome but come on people. GROW UP!!! Yes, you still have a voice, take it or leave it. And pray you don't make someone else sick in the process.
Of course, I'm OVER the virus. But what I'm really OVER is the thick-headed mindset that completely disregards the safety of everyone else they come in contact with. It's terribly selfish. And YES, stupid.22 -
I need to vent here because if I vent on my other favorite forum, I could get kicked off. The owner of the forum is a millionaire, drives a Lamborgini, lives in CA. He posted that he's "over this virus and is no longer wearing a mask unless required".
Why? Why? Why???? Something so simple, takes little to zero effort really, could theoretically protect himself, his family, and every single person he comes into contact with.
SMH, please help me understand???
I'm sure we're ALL over this virus, ALL over hearing/living/breathing it day in and day out. But dang it, I just cannot understand someone's mindset like this.
Be nice to him and ask him pretty please? It wouldn't work. People are going to do what they're going to do, because that's how they feel.
My niece and her dh reopened their medical office recently. She said most of the people are really good and understanding about safety rules but she's had a couple in that refused to wear a mask(even though it's required in medical offices). They accused her of taking away their rights so when she questioned them about what rights exactly, they couldn't answer her. So she asked them if they wanted her to tear up their paperwork and they could find someplace else to go. Not sure of the outcome but come on people. GROW UP!!! Yes, you still have a voice, take it or leave it. And pray you don't make someone else sick in the process.
Of course, I'm OVER the virus. But what I'm really OVER is the thick-headed mindset that completely disregards the safety of everyone else they come in contact with. It's terribly selfish. And YES, stupid.
And this is exactly the type of behavior that promotes spreading of the virus. This is why we can't have nice things. 😢 And it is also why the thing some of these people say they want - to fully reopen the economy - isn't going to happen anytime soon.8 -
I need to vent here because if I vent on my other favorite forum, I could get kicked off. The owner of the forum is a millionaire, drives a Lamborgini, lives in CA. He posted that he's "over this virus and is no longer wearing a mask unless required".
Why? Why? Why???? Something so simple, takes little to zero effort really, could theoretically protect himself, his family, and every single person he comes into contact with.
SMH, please help me understand???
I'm sure we're ALL over this virus, ALL over hearing/living/breathing it day in and day out. But dang it, I just cannot understand someone's mindset like this.
Be nice to him and ask him pretty please? It wouldn't work. People are going to do what they're going to do, because that's how they feel.
My niece and her dh reopened their medical office recently. She said most of the people are really good and understanding about safety rules but she's had a couple in that refused to wear a mask(even though it's required in medical offices). They accused her of taking away their rights so when she questioned them about what rights exactly, they couldn't answer her. So she asked them if they wanted her to tear up their paperwork and they could find someplace else to go. Not sure of the outcome but come on people. GROW UP!!! Yes, you still have a voice, take it or leave it. And pray you don't make someone else sick in the process.
Of course, I'm OVER the virus. But what I'm really OVER is the thick-headed mindset that completely disregards the safety of everyone else they come in contact with. It's terribly selfish. And YES, stupid.
I had to do some grocery shopping yesterday. While I was shopping, three guys who looked to be very early 20s were walking around the store with no masks and giving thumbs up to everyone they saw wearing a mask and laughing...they were the only 3 in the store without a mask. They were only there to buy beer and were in front of me at checkout, and the cashier wouldn't make the sale. The manager ultimately ended up escorting them out of the store after he said he would call the police. They of course went on and on about their rights to which the manage explained that they have every right not to wear a mask in their private residence or at their house party they were going to, etc...but they had to wear them in the store just like they have to wear shoes and shirts, etc.
IMO, these are the people that are actually scared...not scared of the virus per sei, but scared that in fact there may not be any "going back to normal" or at least not anytime soon. These are the people that glob onto conspiracy theories about the virus because that is somehow easier to process than the prospect of a new normal for the foreseeable future. In a way, I feel bad for them...we had a saying in the Marines, "Adapt and Overcome"...if you can't do that, you're going to have problems.30 -
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/contact-tracing.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/php/principles-contact-tracing-booklet.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/newsletter-specific-archive-issue.cfm?archtype=specific&newsletter_service_id=327&newsletter_issue_id=22243&page=1&fullDate=Wed 13 May 2020&lang=default
The guidelines will be complemented by interoperability specifications for cross-border transmission chains between approved apps. This will be supported by structured discussions between Member States through the eHealth Network. The work of Member States to develop and validate the apps will be supported by the New Generation Internet and m-health communities.
2 -
Great post @cwolfman13! I get too emotional to post much any more. I agree 100%.
I guess it's good that I picked 2020 to try to be kinder online as a New Year's resolution. Because there's a whole lot of silliness online these days. God is testing me, for sure.15 -
I just had a conversation at the grocery store an hour ago. A gentleman mentioned as we walked in (me with my mask and him without) that masks aren't needed any more (Wisconsin). I told him they are needed more than ever because of the idiots who seem to think the state Supreme Court outlawed Covid instead of saying that the Governor exceeded his authority by locking down the state.24
-
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/contacttracing_mobileapps_guidelines_en.pdf
We have a local yocal call-in radio program so we can mill around and shoot the breeze. Chamber of Commerce is all jacked UP for the pesky tourist season, faunching at the bit for sales tax revenue and lodging taxes. Where it goes only the Shadow knows.
A well known attorney and public figure that shall remain nameless says that national parks were not meant to be the pig trough that everyone eats from and for gateway communities using them for their living but they do. I don't see that changing for the foreseeable future. They all scream and holler so they can amass monies for their coffers.
Yuck, I need a bucket.
The half has not been told. There's some more things I would like to say but simply haven't got the time and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. As we all know by now, we think and feel differently about almost everything.
Someone is always giving someone else a great big pinch. That's just the way we roll.
When the gates opened yesterday, it was a free-for-all. No social distancing whatsoever and carloads of people from all over the world. Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do for the first day. The pig trough of sales tax revenue lights everyone's eyes UP like a pinball machine. Around here, we endure 9 months of winter so we can enjoy 3 months of summer. There's already been 3 grizzly attacks in two weeks time. They're fed up with everything, too.
This is their home and I won't ever forget that.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions