Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
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.)15 -
Just another science article demonstrating how little we actually know about Covid-19 so far.
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/study-respiratory-failure-in-covid-19-patients-usually-not-driven-by-cytokine-storm/3 -
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.)
Meanwhile, there are parts of the US with no mask requirements at all still or they are not enforced nor followed anyway.
One of the manufacturing plants I support (remotely) has about 15% of its employees out right now either because they have tested positive, have symptoms, or have recent exposure (this is a small part of the overall group). The plant is not requiring people with exposure to stay away, just if symptomatic or tested positive. There are some who are working still whose work spaces are near other employees who tested positive and are out, for example. This particular community is a small town, but has a larger "regional" hospital in the community. What I've heard is that the hospital is full, as are all other nearby smaller hospitals in other rural cities that are within about 30 miles. That anyone is taking any risk at all there tells me they assume they will not need a hospital bed or that they will be able to travel to another state (2 hr. drive) where there are some spots left. Hopefully they don't wait until their O2 levels are at a dangerous level before leaving to go that far.2 -
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!4 -
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.)
The thing about stupid absolutes is that lawmakers are driven to them when people abuse more flexible rules. “Okay, fine, I’ll put it on, geez I only got within 4 feet of someone for a second,” ceases to be an excuse if you can’t ever take your mask off. And you and I both know that there are people out there who mysteriously never admit to being unable to maintain social distancing, even when they are packed like sardines. The rule to wear a mask even when alone is stupid and it does have the effect you mentioned, of making those who were willing to comply with the more reasonable rule finally rebel, but it’s predictable.
And by the way, yesterday I went for a run in a completely rural county where my husband and I were the only people for 600 acres - except for a young couple, the only humans we saw for two hours, who insisted on not letting us pass them on the trail. They were walking abreast in the exact center of the maybe 12’ wide gravel drive and would NOT get over, making it impossible to pass without getting within 6 feet. It’s dim bulbs like that who are responsible for dumb laws like the one you mentioned.
I was strongly tempted to get a 6’ stick and whallop anyone I could reach with it, like Cartman.17 -
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.
My thought on this is that obviously if no one is around, or the closest person is quite far, no one is enforcing this. It is like assuming that "wear a mask while outside" means I have to wear it in my backyard (which is small -- here in Chicago a standard lot is 25x125 and mine is just a tiny bit bigger at 30x125 -- but clearly no one would wear a mask in their yard unless with people who don't live with them but who are visiting).
Instead, I'd assume it is more to deal with the fact that in many denser areas people are using the "no mask necessary outside if you can distance 6 ft" to mean "no mask outside" on the theory people could, hypothetically, move so as to distance, but in reality that's hard or many aren't actually bothering.
I live in a neighborhood with sidewalks and a neighborhood shopping area with various parks, a square in which there are benches and people tend to hang out, and am also not far from a riverside path -- If I go out quite early I can easily walk on the sidewalks or the path and stay 6' away from people, although sometimes it takes effort, and I often carry but do not wear my mask then. But much of the time and in many outdoor areas near me it's NOT easy to stay 6' away from people (many of whom are not wearing masks, since outdoors). I tend to think this isn't that dangerous even so (although I do wear my mask and think people who don't, and also make no effort to social distance while walking around or running, are being rude), but if Baker is seeing similar things in MA, I get where he's coming from.6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »AlexandraFindsHerself1971 wrote: »Eldest Son is quarantining in his end of my mom's big house because he goes to welding school with people who don't believe in masks.
Alex, how many times do I have to tell you to pull that mask down?! Do you want to burn your retinas? Or get covid?
Nah, welders don't need masks... That's just big government forcing people to stay alive and not injured! (sarcasm)
ETA: I realize this guy is cutting, not welding... still probably should be wearing some safety goggles and probably doing this in a location slightly further from the propane.
Yup. I was wondering if he lost the key to the padlock and felt this was his only option. I'm risk averse. I'd pony up for a locksmith.
I don't think that is it. It looks like he is cutting this piece of metal and didn't have a bench to set it on while he cut it, so opted to set it down on top of this propane cabinet. I don't think it is attached to anything presently.
Ah. Went back and looked again and finally noticed the end of the piece of metal that shows that it's hollow, and that made the perspective flip on me, like an Escher print. I had been seeing it as parallel to the metal mesh door to the propane cabinet.0 -
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.9 -
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.18 -
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.
My thought on this is that obviously if no one is around, or the closest person is quite far, no one is enforcing this. It is like assuming that "wear a mask while outside" means I have to wear it in my backyard (which is small -- here in Chicago a standard lot is 25x125 and mine is just a tiny bit bigger at 30x125 -- but clearly no one would wear a mask in their yard unless with people who don't live with them but who are visiting).
Instead, I'd assume it is more to deal with the fact that in many denser areas people are using the "no mask necessary outside if you can distance 6 ft" to mean "no mask outside" on the theory people could, hypothetically, move so as to distance, but in reality that's hard or many aren't actually bothering.
I live in a neighborhood with sidewalks and a neighborhood shopping area with various parks, a square in which there are benches and people tend to hang out, and am also not far from a riverside path -- If I go out quite early I can easily walk on the sidewalks or the path and stay 6' away from people, although sometimes it takes effort, and I often carry but do not wear my mask then. But much of the time and in many outdoor areas near me it's NOT easy to stay 6' away from people (many of whom are not wearing masks, since outdoors). I tend to think this isn't that dangerous even so (although I do wear my mask and think people who don't, and also make no effort to social distance while walking around or running, are being rude), but if Baker is seeing similar things in MA, I get where he's coming from.
Yup--I'm in Italy and go running in the park nearby before 7 in the morning, when they open, because there are less people at that time of day. Here, masks are required (fines of $400-$1000) unless jogging in an open space. An open space in Rome is rare. I wear a mask and pull it up when passing someone, pull it down when I'm alone. I stay as far away from people just the same, but when you pull up that mask, even at a distance, it sends a message that you care about other people and it's a reassuring gesture.16 -
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.7 -
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.
Since there is not normally a lottery to attend the inauguration it would seem they are trying to limit the size of the crowd. Probably because, oh, Covid?16 -
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.
Well January is a ways away and they can always decide to cancel or stream as the date approaches. No biggy. There are other things to worry about.10 -
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.
Last I heard, they have not yet finalized plans and logistics for the inauguration (because of covid), so any lottery your congressman is running for tickets in January is speculative at best. Maybe that's how their office has always distributed tickets, and they're just following their past practice and timeline so they'll be ready if tickets are available.
I wouldn't go. Even though you'll be outside, security requirements tend to mean you have to get there early, so it's a lot of time around strangers, even if it is outside, and I wouldn't trust them to allow adequate spacing during the security process itself (yes, it's outside, but there are still security checkpoints). For a previous well-attended inauguration, some folks ended up stuck in a tunnel for hours trying to reach security for the official (seated) inauguration viewing area. I've only ever gone to the unofficial, outside, no-security, watching on a jumbotron from 20+ blocks away. Can't see myself even doing that this year, as there's still the issue of getting on public transportation to reach the general area.
I think they should just make the whole thing virtual, except for obviously the minimal gathering they need for the swearing-in (president-elect, someone to administer the oath, someone to hold the Bible, maybe the majority and minority leaders of each house to act as witnesses, although that isn't an actual requirement). And dispense with the parade. They can say all this stuff is outside, but they close roads down for security, and parking is problematic, so most people will be arriving by public transit, chartered buses, or cabs/Uber/Lyft, and you can't ignore the impact of potential transmissions from all that. Plus it's a long event, so people will be looking for food, water, bathrooms -- and that mostly involves some degreed of shared indoor spaces.10 -
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.12 -
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.
The lottery is for tickets to the enclosed area on the Capitol grounds, where you can actually see the participants with your naked eyes. If you just go, you're farther away and will have to be content to what you can make out possibly with binoculars but more likely on a screen.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).4 -
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).
Considering he never had one super spreader rally (when he came to AZ, he never even announced publicly where he would be, in order to avoid crowds gathering to see him), I would assume that the inauguration will take Covid-19 into account.11 -
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.
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.
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.16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions