Results 30,451 to 30,475 of 41810
-
11-21-2020, 06:34 AM #30451
10% of all COVID-19 cases reported in Nevada since the beginning of the pandemic were reported in the last seven days.
-
11-21-2020, 07:32 AM #30452lysterine
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 670
Saw a good idea the other day that I think the government should adopt once saner heads are running the place next year. Feds should pay people $1,500 to take one of the vaccines as part of a bonus stimulus plan.
Get your shots and get $1,500 would make a lot of anti-vax and potential anti-vax folks think a little bit harder about their ideological positions when there's cold hard cash on the line.
-
11-21-2020, 07:37 AM #30453
-
11-21-2020, 07:44 AM #30454
There are mitigative strategies for exposed asymptomatic critical workers that balance risk. Lots-o-algorithms and revisions. The constant push between IP/ID and HR with OH in the middle. What I see is working out well mostly.
North Dakota would be an example of shit going south.Originally Posted by blurred
-
11-21-2020, 07:45 AM #30455
-
11-21-2020, 07:52 AM #30456
That would be cheaper than paying people $500 per week to test negative. Which would be cheaper than anything we've done so far
-
11-21-2020, 08:19 AM #30457
-
11-21-2020, 08:22 AM #30458
-
11-21-2020, 08:26 AM #30459
Imho, the approach of having your temp taken everywhere would be a great help.
Quick temp scans to enter all kinds of public spaces....
It’s not a magic bullet, but just catching anyone with a fever and denying those people access to mingling would be an awesome move.
-
11-21-2020, 08:29 AM #30460Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,609
-
11-21-2020, 08:49 AM #30461
Yes. Some idiot is probably going to reply to you and say it won't catch everyone because a lot of people who catch it don't get a fever. That's an idiotic response. Every case that is caught and isolated is one less infection source. Just like masks aren't 100% effective. It's all about the aggregate. So yes, temp checks to enter buildings.
-
11-21-2020, 09:10 AM #30462Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,609
People are infectious for up to 2 weeks. Fever generally lasts only a few of those days. It would be overly burdensome for businesses to implement while not really doing anything. Would it help? Yeah, slightly. As much as distancing and masks? Not even close. There's a reason it hasn't been fully implemented many places.
-
11-21-2020, 09:18 AM #30463lysterine
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 670
I had kinda settled on flying or train riding being somewhat low risk, but not totally risk free.
This story from New Zealand puts that to the test from a flight from Dubai to NZ with 4 infected passengers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trave...-flight-covid/
The caveat being that it was an 18-hour plane ride. Shorter hops of 5 hours or less may carry less risk, but the long-haul routes just seem prone to transmission at this point.
(Also, if getting Jenny McCarthy to stfu about vaccines for only $1,500, I declare that government money well spent.)
-
11-21-2020, 09:29 AM #30464
^^^
I would chip in 5 bucks to never have to listen to her ever again. And I would go 10 bucks to Kennedy.I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
11-21-2020, 09:40 AM #30465
At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.
(Thanks for answering my question.)
Besides the fact that many of the infected have no fever, or any other symptoms, those that do have a fever are sick enough that very, very few are out and about. There are places where temp screening makes sense because people are highly motivated to go there even if sick--I'm thinking of airports--but for the most I think temp screening is a waste of effort and money. It's safety theater. Yes, temp screening will once in a great while pick up a case and save spread--but the money spent on temp screening will prevent more cases if spent elsewhere. Widely available rapid tests for example. Even if a rapid test picks up only half the positives that's a lot more cases than temp screening will catch.
-
11-21-2020, 09:45 AM #30466Rod9301
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Squaw valley
- Posts
- 4,639
If i had a business i would check the temperature of people coming in, it's not that hard and if it saves one of my employees from getting sick?
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
-
11-21-2020, 09:45 AM #30467
Last edited by KQ; 11-21-2020 at 09:40 PM.
“When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something. To do something." Rep. John Lewis
Kindness is a bridge between all people
Dunkin’ Donuts Worker Dances With Customer Who Has Autism
-
11-21-2020, 09:55 AM #30468
-
11-21-2020, 10:05 AM #30469
-
11-21-2020, 10:06 AM #30470
-
11-21-2020, 10:11 AM #30471
-
11-21-2020, 10:28 AM #30472
-
11-21-2020, 10:39 AM #30473
I decided to take my temperature with both an oral thermometer and one of the lazer gun looking things that is common in businesses. Closest temp I could get with the lazer gun was 2.2 degres lower than the oral.
I'm having a hard time believing it wouldn't already be fairly obvious that someone is sick if they have a 102.6 degree fever.
-
11-21-2020, 11:12 AM #30474
-
11-21-2020, 11:13 AM #30475
Bookmarks