Calorie Counter

Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Coronavirus prep

1335336338340341458

Replies

  • TonyB0588TonyB0588 Member Posts: 9,445 Member Member Posts: 9,445 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Unfortunately will happen:

    pbc959mued51.png

    Interesting scenario!!
  • missysippy930missysippy930 Member Posts: 2,281 Member Member Posts: 2,281 Member
    There’s a lot of things that don’t make sense right now. Professional sports and resuming school are going to be interesting. Early days for both. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the next few weeks. Like my father used to say, “can’t never tried”. Who will pay the price? A news blurb just came across saying 99% of US deaths could have been prevented if it would have been handled correctly from the beginning.
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,406 Member Member Posts: 1,406 Member
    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?
  • T1DCarnivoreRunnerT1DCarnivoreRunner Member Posts: 11,062 Member Member Posts: 11,062 Member
    Theoldguy1 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.
  • mockchocmockchoc Member Posts: 6,470 Member Member Posts: 6,470 Member
    Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.
    edited August 1
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,406 Member Member Posts: 1,406 Member
    Theoldguy1 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.

    My multinational company wants those travelling internationally for business or pleasure to quarantine for 14 days (currently not saying anything about travel to US hotspots) and specifies if you can WFH that is what one should do (otherwise vacation time or no pay).
  • mockchocmockchoc Member Posts: 6,470 Member Member Posts: 6,470 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.
  • hiparihipari Member, Premium Posts: 949 Member Member, Premium Posts: 949 Member
    Theoldguy1 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_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,525 Member Member Posts: 8,525 Member
    ReenieHJ 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_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,525 Member Member Posts: 8,525 Member
    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_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,525 Member Member Posts: 8,525 Member
    kimny72 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: ).
Sign In or Register to comment.