PelotonBillsFan Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 May the odds be forever in your favor Railway Ticket Worker Dies From Coronavirus After Passenger's Spit Attack London ticket office worker Belly Mujinga died two weeks after she was spat at and coughed on by a man who claimed he had COVID-19.
Boatdrinks Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 37 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: For a while now, Trump has been saying it is needed (if you watched the pressers...) I hope they do have some sort of limited-liability for businesses (COVID-19 related, only). Agreed, it is needed. Reasonable standards need to be met, but that’s it. You can take every precaution and it’s still possible someone could contract a virus. It would be very difficult to prove where someone contracted a virus, and even if they did it doesn’t imply negligence. Perhaps all employees in any communal setting should be required to sign a type of waiver as a condition of employment. While even best practices are being followed, there is still some risk and the employee is voluntarily participating by choosing to work there or not.
RochesterRob Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 37 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: Speaking of which, Federal Flite Control No. 5 1 3/4 oz Turkey is my go to, but cannot find it so had to settle for Rem Mag. Have since moved 9mm from gun safe to drawer in living room with extra mags, 45 in night stand, and my 12 gauge is loaded with buck shot with open choke in front hallway. If anyone wants to come in uninvited, I sincerely hope they have health insurance because there is a very good chance they will have a very bad case of lead poisoning. No hand gun but 12 gauge in the house and 222 in location that I am not disclosing here. 1
Koko78 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Interesting: 'comply or starve'. 2
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Interesting: 'comply or starve'. I watched it, and he didn't say that, but why wouldn't anyone comply?? Could anything be stupider than running around KNOWING your ill, and could infect/harm/possibly kill other people? I mean when I'm drunk I'm not allowed to drive, because I could hurt other people. Why is this different than that? It is also very misleading to leave out that he gave assurances that they will be checked in on daily, and they will receive the groceries and medicine they need if they had no outside sources. Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: I watched it, and he didn't say that, but why wouldn't anyone comply?? Could anything be stupider than running around KNOWING your ill, and could infect/herm/possibly kill other people? I mean when I'm drunk I'm not allowed to drive, because I could hurt other people. Why is this different than that? So you agree the government should be able to come to your home and involuntarily subject you and your family to invasive medical testing on a hunch that you could, possibly, maybe have a virus that has a .1% mortality rate?
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: So you agree the government should be able to come to your home and involuntarily subject you and your family to invasive medical testing on a hunch that you could, possibly, maybe have a virus that has a .1% mortality rate? Did you even read it, or watch the video? It's if you test positive. Also, please don't throw numbers around about something you really don't understand.
SectionC3 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 26 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Agreed, it is needed. Reasonable standards need to be met, but that’s it. You can take every precaution and it’s still possible someone could contract a virus. It would be very difficult to prove where someone contracted a virus, and even if they did it doesn’t imply negligence. Perhaps all employees in any communal setting should be required to sign a type of waiver as a condition of employment. While even best practices are being followed, there is still some risk and the employee is voluntarily participating by choosing to work there or not. A case like that probably would be very tough to prove absent a cluster and a very diligent plaintiff who otherwise could establish that he/she took stringent precautions outside the area in question.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, daz28 said: Did you even read it, or watch the video? It's if you test positive. Also, please don't throw numbers around about something you really don't understand. He is talking about contact tracing. It is not right to say comply with the government or starve. 3
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: He is talking about contact tracing. It is not right to say comply with the government or starve. It depends on what the reasoning for it is. Is it right to send lepers off to an island to live with other lepers to keep everyone else from getting leprosy? People are tracked all the time by their employers, and that's only to ensure they are getting the proper labor for what they are paying the employee. This is literally a matter of life or death. Also, it didn't say what happens if you don't comply. I'm using logic here to assume that starving isn't in any realm of possibility. If you don't comply, then that means you're leaving, and going about your business. No where does it say they will surround your home, and allow no supplies in like it were a castle siege. Comply or starve is simply the term you're using as red meat to rile people up. 100% sensationalism. I suppose worst case scenario is you get fed in jail. Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28
IDBillzFan Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Interesting: 'comply or starve'. They also plan to have you sign in your personal information if you go to any restaurant. I'm 20 minutes from Washington state and it's like being in a completely different country compared to those nuts. 2
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: A case like that probably would be very tough to prove absent a cluster and a very diligent plaintiff who otherwise could establish that he/she took stringent precautions outside the area in question. I was talking with a lawyer years ago who defended restaurants in food poisoning cases. She said she always asks “did the plaintiff give a stool sample within 24 hours of eating at the restaurant in question?” The answer is usually no. So, according to her, there is no proof the illness came from that restaurant. Case dismissed! Easy money.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, daz28 said: It depends on what the reasoning for it is. Is it right to send lepers off to an island to live with other lepers to keep everyone else from getting leprosy? People are tracked all the time by their employers, and that's only to ensure they are getting the proper labor for what they are paying the employee. This is literally a matter of life or death. The employee consents to their employer tracking them. The Governor is walking barefoot on glass with this order. There is no way I can see a moderate court saying it is ok for the state to be allowed to knock on your door and say you and your family must obey and submit to an invasive medical procedure or be locked in your home under guard by the state police for 14 days. There is a reason AG Barr designated a task force to monitor the states and their lockdown orders, he had the foresight to see how they would evolve into draconian measures. 1 1
Uncle Joe Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Saw this interview yesterday, Alright, alright, alright I am not the biggest Matthew McConaughy fan (and it was on Fox) but I like what he said about "the pandemic being hijacked by partisan politics" 1
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: The employee consents to their employer tracking them. The Governor is walking barefoot on glass with this order. There is no way I can see a moderate court saying it is ok for the state to be allowed to knock on your door and say you and your family must obey and submit to an invasive medical procedure or be locked in your home under guard by the state police for 14 days. There is a reason AG Barr designated a task force to monitor the states and their lockdown orders, he had the foresight to see how they would evolve into draconian measures. Does the employee WANT to consent, or do they feel compelled to? Here's another way to phrase it: "would you be willing to submit to this for the good of yourself, your family, and your community?" Has a court determined that DWI is of grave enough concern that citizens may be stopped, and inspected at any time for the good of society? Stop trying to make it sound so draconian. Does AG Barr have a better plan to stop the spread of the virus? Also, is that the same Bill Barr that said the Patriot Act which wasn't even debated didn't go far enough? I don't see a terrorist act being much worse than this is. Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, daz28 said: It depends on what the reasoning for it is. It only does if your understanding of your innate rights and the constitution is as shallow as a dried puddle. 1 1
Boatdrinks Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 53 minutes ago, daz28 said: I watched it, and he didn't say that, but why wouldn't anyone comply?? Could anything be stupider than running around KNOWING your ill, and could infect/harm/possibly kill other people? I mean when I'm drunk I'm not allowed to drive, because I could hurt other people. Why is this different than that? It is also very misleading to leave out that he gave assurances that they will be checked in on daily, and they will receive the groceries and medicine they need if they had no outside sources. If you’ve not been tested , nobody knows that you are ill. You may be fine. Invasion of privacy
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It only does if your understanding of your innate rights and the constitution is as shallow as a dried puddle. If you understand it so well, then where's the outrage for roadblocks and drawing your blood? The Patriot Act basically took away a ridiculous amount of your rights over 3k deaths, and the president said if you don't vote for it the next attack is on you. Neither I, nor probably anyone likes this idea, but it may be what's necessary. They also really have no grounds to continue the measures when the threat is over. 3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: If you’ve not been tested , nobody knows that you are ill. You may be fine. Invasion of privacy It doesn't say anything about mandatory testing. It literally says, "Those who test positive will need to isolate for 14 days"
Recommended Posts