Coronavirus prep

Options
1…219220222224225…484

Replies

  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    mockchoc wrote: »
    TonyB0588 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. :( And why bother posting a sign at all??
    My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
    What a difference in how store policies are being handled.

    Others have mentioned the shooting/stabbing (which happened around here).

    I suspect that in addition to differences in store policy or employee assertiveness, there may be differences in the nature of the average shopper in particular kinds of stores, that comes into play. Obviously, any kind of person may go anywhere, but there's a reason bars frequently have bouncers, and bookstores rarely do. ;)

    Grocery stores get everyone in them, though different chains may appeal to different sub-markets. Bookstores, though there's variation of course, may on average have a narrower range of probable habitues.

    What differences?? If it's the policy, just enforce it. I know I CANNOT go inside anywhere without one, so I keep one in my pocket. On approaching the door, out comes my mask, and then i can enter. No fuss, no argument.

    Not everyone is Ok to do what they are asked as you are and I am the same. I'd do it no problem. How can every place there enforce this? I'm not from USA and don't have what is happening there Covid wise as much but is there even enough guards they can hire to do this? How do you think this can be done?

    I'm not from the USA either, but here they already hire guards at every supermarket, bank, post office, government agency, shopping mall, etc. It just needs one of those guards at or near the door to be on policy enforcement rather than crime watch. It has simply become part of their job. But I don't see anyone aggressively approaching the door with any intention of defying the guard. Its usually a polite conversation, gentle reminder if necessary, then please proceed.

    Some locations are doing temperature checks as well, and a family of four were recently asked to remain on the outside pending a recheck because the mother and youngest son had temperatures above the allowed limit. I don't know what happened 10 minutes later when it was taken again. But it wasn't a fight, just a pleasant conversation.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    TonyB0588 wrote: »
    mockchoc wrote: »
    TonyB0588 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. :( And why bother posting a sign at all??
    My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
    What a difference in how store policies are being handled.

    Others have mentioned the shooting/stabbing (which happened around here).

    I suspect that in addition to differences in store policy or employee assertiveness, there may be differences in the nature of the average shopper in particular kinds of stores, that comes into play. Obviously, any kind of person may go anywhere, but there's a reason bars frequently have bouncers, and bookstores rarely do. ;)

    Grocery stores get everyone in them, though different chains may appeal to different sub-markets. Bookstores, though there's variation of course, may on average have a narrower range of probable habitues.

    What differences?? If it's the policy, just enforce it. I know I CANNOT go inside anywhere without one, so I keep one in my pocket. On approaching the door, out comes my mask, and then i can enter. No fuss, no argument.

    Not everyone is Ok to do what they are asked as you are and I am the same. I'd do it no problem. How can every place there enforce this? I'm not from USA and don't have what is happening there Covid wise as much but is there even enough guards they can hire to do this? How do you think this can be done?

    I'm not from the USA either, but here they already hire guards at every supermarket, bank, post office, government agency, shopping mall, etc. It just needs one of those guards at or near the door to be on policy enforcement rather than crime watch. It has simply become part of their job. But I don't see anyone aggressively approaching the door with any intention of defying the guard. Its usually a polite conversation, gentle reminder if necessary, then please proceed.

    Some locations are doing temperature checks as well, and a family of four were recently asked to remain on the outside pending a recheck because the mother and youngest son had temperatures above the allowed limit. I don't know what happened 10 minutes later when it was taken again. But it wasn't a fight, just a pleasant conversation.

    But lots of smaller retailers don't have guards and even with larger stores the on-site security is more focused on loss prevention than enforcing regulations.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    edited July 2020
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. :( And why bother posting a sign at all??
    My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
    What a difference in how store policies are being handled.

    I don't know where you are located, but given that in the U.S. retail employees that have tried to enforce masking policies have been screamed at by in-your-face spittle-spewing maskless individuals, physically assaulted, and even shot and killed, I don't think it's fair to ask people who are already at greater-than-average exposure from their jobs -- probably for lower-than-average wages -- to take on the added risk of masking enforcement.

    I don't know what the right answer is to enforcing masking requirements, but it doesn't seem fair to ask the retail workers to take on that burden.

    While I agree with you, simply putting up a sign isn't going to change a thing. :( You either enforce it or take it down because otherwise, more and more people are not going to listen to anyone's rules. :( Well, except the ones who care anyways. There has got to be a way to stand behind a store's policies.

    I'm in Vermont and I know people can take a very defensive stance to being told what to do if they don't want to do it(much like a toddler). It's happening most everywhere. I don't blame retailers who are in a very vulnerable position to not engage in a possible volatile situation. But any time you make a rule and not enforce it, you lose all credibility. :(
    Places like McDonalds, etc., who are claiming you have to wear a mask....how do they deal with an irate customer?

    Mask signage is more legally driven than it is health related. The last I knew in the USA McDonald's was Drive Thur only but that may vary from region to region. Only staff who are willing to be harmed or killed demand mask usage by customers in the USA. Weddings, reunions, social events like clubs and churches seem to be real COVID-19 spread factors locally. Well per the news protesters that are for and against many issues tend to be spreaders as well.
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Unfortunately will happen:

    pbc959mued51.png

    Interesting scenario!!
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).

    *Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.

    More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).

    I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.

    Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?

    Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.

    The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
  • mockchoc
    mockchoc Posts: 6,573 Member
    edited August 2020
    Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.
  • mockchoc
    mockchoc Posts: 6,573 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    mockchoc wrote: »
    Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.

    Generalizations/stereotypes are almost always incorrect/inaccurate for a group (ballplayers in the case mentioned).

    Ok you might be right old fella. Still I tend to think many of them think they are better than everyone and do what they like. Not all but that is what I've seen before here.
  • hipari
    hipari Posts: 1,365 Member
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).

    *Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.

    More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).

    I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.

    Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?

    Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.

    The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.

    Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.

    And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.

    My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.

    When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??

    Yes. Pro athletes making millions get every possible safeguard, down to living in a Disney bubble, but school children, teachers, school staff, bus drivers, and all their families are just supposed to participate in a massive experiment while new cases and death rates are on the rise.

    I saw a story today that in Arizona, foster children will have to attend school in person, even while their foster parents are allowed a choice of in-person, virtual, or hybrid for other children in the household (bio/adopted/legal guardianship). There currently are no exceptions, although they are apparently going to consider the possibility of allowing foster children with underlying conditions that put them at added risk of not attending in person. Excuse my language, but what the *baby sloth*?

    The only possible benevolent spin I can put on this is that they're worried that foster children who are being abused won't have a way to alert any adults or possibly get help if they're not physically going to school. I HOPE at least there were good intentions behind this plan - trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

    Yes, that's exactly the reason they give, and I have great sympathy for the intent (although I also have a cynical take that if the system was so good at having schools act as reporters and child welfare follow through, why do we have so many horrific cases of neglected and abused children?). But to institute a policy like this with no consideration of even the direct health risk to a child with an underlying condition, much less the emotional damage of being treated as "expendable" while other children are "protected" at home, or the health implications to other folks in the household with underlying conditions ... That seems more a product of a bureaucratic mind-set that can only deal with a single hard-and-fast rule than a system that's willing to consider the best interests of individual children.

    I generally try to give people credit for any possible benign explanation for what appear to be bad actions, but I'm finding that increasingly hard to do in many cases these days. These are children who have already been dealt a bad hand in life, and the JOB of the people making these policies is to take care of each and everyone one of them, yet they decide that having a single rule that on average may benefit more kids than it hurts -- although that's really a shot-in-the-dark judgment under current circumstances -- justifies not taking into consideration the individual medical circumstances of individual children?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 Member
    MikePfirrman wrote: »
    I live in AZ now, but I'm a huge (and hopeless) Bengals fan. NFL fans are hoping the season gets played and if you pay any attention to the draft, Joe Burrow is now a Bengal, so fans are even more excited about Cincinnati.

    I personally don't see an NFL season happening, as much as I'd like it to. They, like MLB and the NBA, are allowing players to "opt out" of the season. Here's the thing with football players. Be definition, O-linemen are obese. They have to be to be 300 plus pounds. It's part of the job.

    I'd be curious how other football fans feel. Though I'd love to see my team play this year, I have no desire for anyone to die for my entertainment.

    If MLB is already down about a fifth of its teams from covid outbreaks or exposure, and even NBA-in-a-bubble can't keep players from sneaking off to nightclubs, when both have teams rosters under 20, I don't see the NFL keeping it in control with rosters in excess of 50 (not a huge sports follower in recent years, but I think those numbers are least in the ballpark -- please correct me if I've got it wrong).
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    MikePfirrman wrote: »
    I live in AZ now, but I'm a huge (and hopeless) Bengals fan. NFL fans are hoping the season gets played and if you pay any attention to the draft, Joe Burrow is now a Bengal, so fans are even more excited about Cincinnati.

    I personally don't see an NFL season happening, as much as I'd like it to. They, like MLB and the NBA, are allowing players to "opt out" of the season. Here's the thing with football players. Be definition, O-linemen are obese. They have to be to be 300 plus pounds. It's part of the job.

    I'd be curious how other football fans feel. Though I'd love to see my team play this year, I have no desire for anyone to die for my entertainment.

    Every professional league and university athletic program is desperate for their seasons to start. Even if they can't host fans, they need the TV revenue. They are trying to preserve their profitability and their jobs, regardless of the risk to players and staff.

    So, far, the NBA and NHL have been successful in restarting their seasons ONLY because they are keeping players and staff in a quarantined "bubble" in host/hub cities. No travel, no going home, no outside food, no families, no women.

    MLB opted for allowing teams to play in their home ballparks, travel to other team's ballparks, stay at their own homes in their home cities. And now you see the Miami Marlins have a huge outbreak with at least 17 players testing positive. That was in the first week of play. This will happen to other baseball teams, and I will be very surprised if the MLB season plays through to its conclusion.

    The NFL will be in the same boat, since they are also allowing teams to play in their home facilities. They may have a slight advantage over MLB, with travel only once a week and far fewer games.

    I'm a sports fan, but I just don't see how any of this is going to work right now. As with many industries, shutting down is going to cost people their jobs, but at least they'll have their lives.

    As an NHL fan, I give them a slight edge in making it work as not only are they in a bubble but the two bubbles are in Canada.

    But as much as I will enjoy watching as many of any of these games as they can put out, I'm concerned by the sheer volume of testing supplies they are using for something that is just entertainment. Here in the US where there are still people waiting 7+ days for test results, it just doesn't seem responsible.

    The Cardinals just announced two players have tested positive, so here we go again. The worst case scenario for MLB is they don't even manage to play the season and several players or staff members see their careers ruined or even lose their lives. Not that completing the season would be worth it either, but you know what I mean.

    I keep waiting to hear the NFL cancel the season. Between the example baseball is setting, the fact you mentioned that there are obese football players, and the NFLs crappy history of taking care of their players long term, it just seems like a tragedy waiting to happen.

    I also think that being covered pretty much from head to toe and not, at least by the rules of the game, being able to touch the same surfaces, and, other than the occasional body slam or brawl, not being in physical contact or generally even in really close physical vicinity, playing under conditions that exhalations should rise from the players toward the ceiling (exhalations being warmer than the air being cooled by the ice) are all factors that should give hockey an advantage over other sports.

    Baseball players all handle the same ball with bare hands, and players from opposing teams may meet up repeatedly less than six feet apart for a half minute or so at the bases.

    Football players often wear gloves that expose some of their skin, and the defensive and offensive lines are inches apart breathing each other's exhalations dozens of times each game -- or maybe they will be playing with plexiglass face guards on their helmets?

    Basketball, at least in the NBA, is in reality a contact sport, no matter what rules say, and there is going to be a lot of sweat and spittle exchanged in the heat of a game (whether or not Miami is involved :smile: ).
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 Member
    mockchoc wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    mockchoc wrote: »
    Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.

    Generalizations/stereotypes are almost always incorrect/inaccurate for a group (ballplayers in the case mentioned).

    Ok you might be right old fella. Still I tend to think many of them think they are better than everyone and do what they like. Not all but that is what I've seen before here.

    I have to think that some of them -- the ones that have chosen to sit out the season -- know that you are right about some of their teammates. The ones sitting it out know that they can't trust all of their teammates to follow sensible social distancing practices -- well, they probably have a pretty good idea of exactly which of their teammates they can't trust, and they've also been around enough pro ballplayers to be able to assess the odds of every other team having at least one guy who can't be trusted to follow sensible social distances practices.
  • mockchoc
    mockchoc Posts: 6,573 Member
    edited August 2020
    paperpudding wrote: »
    mockchoc wrote: »
    Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.


    I disagreed because I think making sweeping blanket statements about people because they are professional sports men (or any occupation) is not something I agree with.

    Many AFL footballers (and other codes I'm sure but I follow AFL) spend quite a bit of their time on things like charities, community promotions etc and because they are in the public limelight they are held to a higher standard than general public.

    Like general public though, they are a mix of people - some more concientious than others and some silly rule breakers.

    Yes you are right I'm sure but I still don't want teams moving up here for games right now thank you very much. Do it some where else. Invite them to your town maybe? Sorry but I should add our mayor or whatever she is is trying to do this and I don't agree at all.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,514 Member
    mockchoc wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    mockchoc wrote: »
    Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.


    I disagreed because I think making sweeping blanket statements about people because they are professional sports men (or any occupation) is not something I agree with.

    Many AFL footballers (and other codes I'm sure but I follow AFL) spend quite a bit of their time on things like charities, community promotions etc and because they are in the public limelight they are held to a higher standard than general public.

    Like general public though, they are a mix of people - some more concientious than others and some silly rule breakers.

    Yes you are right I'm sure but I still don't want teams moving up here for games right now thank you very much. Do it some where else. Invite them to your town maybe? Sorry but I should add our mayor or whatever she is is trying to do this and I don't agree at all.


    Well I imagine my regional town would jump at the chance of an AFL match, although highly unlikely we would get one other than in pre season community games - and certainly many people have pushed for a bubble in Adelaide and some games are being played there already.

    I dont have any issue with you thinking sports games are too much of a risk though or of not wanting them where you live.

    I don't disagree with that

    I disagreed with the sweeping blanket statement about all proffesional footballers.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    I see masses of Germans are leading by the USA and other examples. I am taken back by leaders without an understanding of human behavior that drove this reaction and now are surprised by human nature.

    https://apnews.com/ef70c1af702b89c23e71fcd843e63293
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    hipari wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).

    *Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.

    More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).

    I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.

    Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?

    Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.

    The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.

    Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.

    And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.

    Just a good reason to keep some aspects of one's personal life out of the workplace IMO. Anything you say can and will be used against you lol.

    Yep, agreed. I pro-actively blocked everyone I work with on Facebook. But I do talk about races at work, but not all the weekend trips I do when not racing.

Categories