All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (3 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[JimEverett]

He's (Angry). I apologize, there is a swear word in the tweet, and I believe he lets a curse word or two slip, but mostly tried not to, despite being very angry.



I would be upset too. You don't hide something like that.

What sort of protocol do you propose? I am sure you don't want to brand a big "C" on people's foreheads. If the public health guidance was followed, what is the problem?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

What sort of protocol do you propose? I am sure you don't want to brand a big "C" on people's foreheads. If the public health guidance was followed, what is the problem?

You can make a notice without identifying anyone. That has been happening nationwide. We had to shut down one of our clinics early in the crisis due to an employee testing positive. We contacted everyone on that schedule during the time of potential exposure to give them notice, not just those who were in near or direct contact with the employee. For a virus we are still trying to learn about, you shouldn't take chances like that.

 

[wardorican]

What sort of protocol do you propose? I am sure you don't want to brand a big "C" on people's foreheads. If the public health guidance was followed, what is the problem?

The same thing my workplace does, since this is their work place. If someone comes down with Covid-19, or was in direct contact with someone with covid-19, we are all notified, and anyone with direct contact is definitely notified and put in quarantine, to not let is spread more in the office.

They should have been told , so they could save guard themselves, their families, consider getting tested, etc.

I may be missing something, what was the public health guidance?

 

[JimEverett]

The same thing my workplace does, since this is their work place. If someone comes down with Covid-19, or was in direct contact with someone with covid-19, we are all notified, and anyone with direct contact is definitely notified and put in quarantine, to not let is spread more in the office.

They should have been told , so they could save guard themselves, their families, consider getting tested, etc.

I may be missing something, what was the public health guidance?

The guidance is or was to inform anyone with contact within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms.

Pa. Democrats Accuse Pa. GOP Leadership of Covering Up Lawmaker's COVID-19 Diagnosis

Some Pennsylvania Democrats are accusing House Republican leadership of covering up a fellow GOP lawmaker’s COVID-19 diagnosis.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

 

[wardorican]

The guidance is or was to inform anyone with contact within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms.

Pa. Democrats Accuse Pa. GOP Leadership of Covering Up Lawmaker's COVID-19 Diagnosis

Some Pennsylvania Democrats are accusing House Republican leadership of covering up a fellow GOP lawmaker’s COVID-19 diagnosis.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

Notify anyone within 6 feet of him 48 hours before the onset of symptoms. He was tested on the 18th of May, declared positive on the 20th.

Straub cited the following CDC and Department of Health guideline:

Identify employees that were in close contact (within about 6 feet) with a person with a probable or confirmed case of COVID-19 from the period 48 hours before symptom onset. Any such close contacts will be notified and instructed to monitor themselves for symptoms (fever, persistent dry cough, and shortness of breath). If an employee develops symptoms, that employee should notify Human Resources and will be instructed not to come to work for 14 days from the onset of symptoms.

And the speaker is wrong about HIPAA... it doesn't apply to employers. it applies to doctors, hospitals, etc. He had not obligation to protect his medical privacy. You can't claim to follow CDC guidelines on reporting, then also say you didn't report to protect privacy.

Now, it may or may not have been an actual risk to anyone, but I think the democrats calling for an investigation to make sure proper policy/protocols were followed is perfectly reasonable.

 

[JRad]

That is the only way to be in this. I don't see how a place of business that shows no respect to employees or customers deserves my hard earned money.

Have not been to a Lowe's here but all home depot employees wearing masks and handing them out to shoppers that don't have them in Orleans parish. Costco for the last few visits has been limited numbers in store and all masked.

People that respect me will only get my money.

I think I was told Trader Joe’s is requiring masks and queuing as well.

 

[Heathen]

That is shocking...And quite obviously criminal.

I guess the Republican legislator will have plenty of time to learn about how basic biology works in prison.

Putting others and their families at risk, and knowing about it. "Special place in hell".... if I believed there was such an exquisite place.

 

[JimEverett]

Notify anyone within 6 feet of him 48 hours before the onset of symptoms. He was tested on the 18th of May, declared positive on the 20th.

And said his last day at the Capitol was May 14.

And the speaker is wrong about HIPAA... it doesn't apply to employers. it applies to doctors, hospitals, etc. He had not obligation to protect his medical privacy. You can't claim to follow CDC guidelines on reporting, then also say you didn't report to protect privacy.

It can apply to employers and often does - if the information comes to them from the health plan the employer sponsors, or from the medical provider itself. I would find it hard to believe a medical provider would give this information to the employer directly - but there are reports of providers doing so (perhaps compelled to do so) with respect to government organizations (like the police) so who knows.

 

[SystemShock]

Honestly, most in the healthcare industry would say the current way gloves are being used is not appropriate.

Same with masks, which some think as unbreakable shields against viruses.

 

[SystemShock]

He's (Angry). I apologize, there is a swear word in the tweet, and I believe he lets a curse word or two slip, but mostly tried not to, despite being very angry.



I would be upset too. You don't hide something like that.

So, I went to Johns Hopkins and Mayo clinic websites to look up information about kidney donation and its short term side effects, because the compromised immune system comment didn't ring true. I didn't see anything about immunodeficiency; there seems to be more concern with the long term effects that short term effects. And I don't know how long "months ago" is... so we have a political commentator talking about medicine, who's not a doctor and probably thought what he said sounded right... but hey, it's on Twitter and he's outraged and typing in caps, so...

Now, the guy donated a kidney. I would think his doctor went over what he needed to do before and after donation. Let's say for the sake of argument, his immune system is compromised, even months after the donation. If I know my immune system is compromised, why would I trust everyone around me to be mindful of me? Even if no pandemic?

Stuff like this reminds me of the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic.

 

[Dragon]

So, I went to Johns Hopkins and Mayo clinic websites to look up information about kidney donation and its short term side effects, because the compromised immune system comment didn't ring true. I didn't see anything about immunodeficiency; there seems to be more concern with the long term effects that short term effects. And I don't know how long "months ago" is... so we have a political commentator talking about medicine, who's not a doctor and probably thought what he said sounded right... but hey, it's on Twitter and he's outraged and typing in caps, so...

Now, the guy donated a kidney. I would think his doctor went over what he needed to do before and after donation. Let's say for the sake of argument, his immune system is compromised, even months after the donation. If I know my immune system is compromised, why would I trust everyone around me to be mindful of me? Even if no pandemic?

Stuff like this reminds me of the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic.

TBH - I don't think that is a valid argument. This is not about "personal contact" - it is an airborne virus which has been present in the workplace. They have been sitting in the same room and yet only one side has been notified? Immuno compromised or not - that is still nok ok even if he were totally healthy. To say Sims should "not trust everyone around him" is like blaming the potential victims for the actions of someone who endanger their lives either due to recklessness or deliberate calculations.

 

[SystemShock]

it is an airborne virus

Is it? Has it been proven to be airborne? Close contact is not the same as airborne. That may be too pedantic a point, but I think it should be clarified, given not even the experts agree on what constitutes "airborne" and what doesn't.

And it very well may be.

To say Sims should "not trust everyone around him" is like blaming the potential victims for the actions of someone who endanger their lives either due to recklessness or deliberate calculations.

No, it is not. I think if you are at risk of something, it is first your responsibility to at the very least mitigate that risk. Maybe it is me and the way I see things, but, if I had a doctor tell me my immune system is compromised, I'd probably not be out there in the middle of a pandemic.

In the current environment, sure, all things considered, it may be irresponsible for someone to be out there if they have been diagnosed, but at the same time, I don't think it is responsible for someone who knows to be compromised to knowingly put himself at risk.

But that was a tangent to what was meant to be my main thought, which I may have not expressed properly, of criticizing the type of message quoted: a political commentator (like we don't have enough of those) who posts a scandalous message on Twitter as if he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Heathen]

In the current environment, sure, all things considered, it may be irresponsible for someone to be out there if they have been diagnosed, but at the same time, I don't think it is responsible for someone who knows to be compromised to knowingly put himself at risk.

It 'may' be? I think it may be.

If you're comparing someone who new they had a contagious, deadly disease and still came to work and someone who came to work knowing they weren't fully healthy because of a prior surgery -- It's not even in the same ballpark.

I think we all know that.

 

[wardorican]

And said his last day at the Capitol was May 14.





It can apply to employers and often does - if the information comes to them from the health plan the employer sponsors, or from the medical provider itself. I would find it hard to believe a medical provider would give this information to the employer directly - but there are reports of providers doing so (perhaps compelled to do so) with respect to government organizations (like the police) so who knows.

What is missing is what day he had symptoms. Either way, seems like people should have been alerted and maybe even reassured the risk was 0 or minimal. Maybe the rage is that they didn't know any details at the time.

So, I went to Johns Hopkins and Mayo clinic websites to look up information about kidney donation and its short term side effects, because the compromised immune system comment didn't ring true. I didn't see anything about immunodeficiency; there seems to be more concern with the long term effects that short term effects. And I don't know how long "months ago" is... so we have a political commentator talking about medicine, who's not a doctor and probably thought what he said sounded right... but hey, it's on Twitter and he's outraged and typing in caps, so...

Now, the guy donated a kidney. I would think his doctor went over what he needed to do before and after donation. Let's say for the sake of argument, his immune system is compromised, even months after the donation. If I know my immune system is compromised, why would I trust everyone around me to be mindful of me? Even if no pandemic?

Stuff like this reminds me of the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic.

Yeah, I have no idea if this guy is being honest or opportunistic. It is why I'm good with the AG looking into it. If it is a nothing burger, then fine. I'd rather the truth come out, whatever it is. I have no skin in the game. Just added the additional tweets for completeness.

I doubt he is compromised (but I have no idea), but I think some survivors needed dialysis after their covid bout, so with 1 kidney, that's a bigger concern.

 

[SystemShock]

It 'may' be? I think it may be.

If you're comparing someone who new they had a contagious, deadly disease and still came to work and someone who came to work knowing they weren't fully healthy because of a prior surgery -- It's not even in the same ballpark.

I think we all know that.

If by "comparing" you mean saying both actions are equal in whatever scale you want to use, no, I am not comparing anything. And it isn't just coming to work knowing one is not fully healthy, as there is an extraordinary circumstance at this time.

 

[Heathen]

If by "comparing" you mean saying both actions are equal in whatever scale you want to use, no, I am not comparing anything. And it isn't just coming to work knowing one is fully healthy, as there is an extraordinary circumstance at this time.

Great. I'm glad we can agree that one set of actions was egregious, maybe even criminal if in fact the person did so knowingly, and the other -- coming to work after a surgery, was nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[SystemShock]

Great. I'm glad we can agree that one set of actions was egregious, maybe even criminal if in fact the person did so knowingly, and the other -- coming to work after a surgery, was nothing out of the ordinary.

You shouldn't assume any agreement. And he didn't come to work after a surgery.

 

[Heathen]

You shouldn't assume any agreement. And he didn't come to work after a surgery.

Consider: A few posts ago you say that the representative who chastises another member of the legislative body for knowingly coming to work with COVID-19 symptoms "doesn't know what he's talking about". Then said "it isn't just coming to work knowing one is not fully healthy, as there is an extraordinary circumstance at this time".

You seem to be getting at something within the realm of putting the blame on the person who might've been the victim of negligence. If I am off base, feel free to correct.