***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[gry60]

It seems obvious, to me, that more testing is generally better than less testing. But we can agree to disagree on that

Yeah, no. This is not a matter of opinion. There are requirements that need to be met in order to qualify the response as good or not good. The number of tests is one of them, but meeting that number doesn't mean that all the other requirements get to be ignored. Are we testing more than other countries? Yes. Are we testing as many as we should? No. Are we testing as fast as we should to quickly separate those infected from those who aren't? No. Therefore, the response isn't good. It isn't even acceptable. Why? Because the current strategy doesn't address the issue that the speed of discovery of infected people is still lower than the speed of the virus propagation.

This what happens when you let a disease run rampant and when you let the prosperity gospel preachers convince you that you can pray away that disease. We don't have to imagine what the dark ages were like anymore, we're in it.

 

[gry60]

Yes, I think waiting long periods for more tests is better than waiting long periods for less tests.

Then you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Person A is asymptomatic and gets tested Monday. If it is in the US, they'll have to go 5-10 days before getting the results back. In the meantime, they go grocery shopping, maybe attend an event or two, go to work, take the subway, etc... and infect a bunch of people in the span of 5-10 days.

Person B is asymptomatic and gets tested outside of the US. Results come back in 24-48h. The person is immediately quarantined. Probably went grocery shopping in that 24-48h window, but they knew their result fast enough to cancel planned events, call out sick, stay home and infect a much lower amount of people.

It's very depressing to know that we have people walking around with bachelor's/master's degrees and they can't apply a basic level of reasoning to situations outside their field of expertise.

 

[Belgium]

Belgium is bout it in these cyber skreets

Allegedly

 

[IATT]

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[dwalk31]

Yeah, my work won't start quarantining people until there's a positive test. This means that people are potentially walking around spreading the virus in the time it takes to get the results. But dwalk says more testing is better so what do I know.

It is my understanding that under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act employees can receive 10 days regular pay for quarantining if they are seeking medical diagnosis for COVID. So waiting on test results would seemingly fall under that.

This is a link to questions and answers provided by the DOL to address some of the issues:

Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Questions and Answers

www.dol.gov

Question 62 appears to directly address the issue:

I am an employee. I become ill with COVID-19 symptoms, decide to quarantine myself for two weeks, and then return to work. I do not seek a medical diagnosis or the advice of a health care provider. Can I get paid for those two weeks under the FFCRA?

Generally no. If you become ill with COVID-19 symptoms, you may take paid sick leave under the FFCRA only to seek a medical diagnosis or if a health care provider otherwise advises you to self-quarantine. If you test positive for the virus associated with COVID-19 or are advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine, you may continue to take paid sick leave. You may not take paid sick leave under the FFCRA if you unilaterally decide to self-quarantine for an illness without medical advice, even if you have COVID-19 symptoms. Note that you may not take paid sick leave under the FFCRA if you become ill with an illness not related to COVID-19. Depending on your employer’s expectations and your condition, however, you may be able to telework during your period of quarantine.

 

[dwalk31]

Then you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Person A is asymptomatic and gets tested Monday. If it is in the US, they'll have to go 5-10 days before getting the results back. In the meantime, they go grocery shopping, maybe attend an event or two, go to work, take the subway, etc... and infect a bunch of people in the span of 5-10 days.

Person B is asymptomatic and gets tested outside of the US. Results come back in 24-48h. The person is immediately quarantined. Probably went grocery shopping in that 24-48h window, but they knew their result fast enough to cancel planned events, call out sick, stay home and infect a much lower amount of people.

It's very depressing to know that we have people walking around with bachelor's/master's degrees and they can't apply a basic level of reasoning to situations outside their field of expertise.

Your Person B got results faster than Person A. But that is not the scenario that I described. In my scenario, both tests take 5-10 days before they get the results back. In that scenario more tests (with a long wait time) is better than less tests (with the same longer wait time).

That is what I wrote initially; I think you misread it. Obviously a shorter wait time is better than a longer one. But the question was about comparing the number of tests with the same wait periods for results.

 

[dwalk31]

Yeah, no. This is not a matter of opinion. There are requirements that need to be met in order to qualify the response as good or not good. The number of tests is one of them, but meeting that number doesn't mean that all the other requirements get to be ignored. Are we testing more than other countries? Yes. Are we testing as many as we should? No. Are we testing as fast as we should to quickly separate those infected from those who aren't? No. Therefore, the response isn't good. It isn't even acceptable. Why? Because the current strategy doesn't address the issue that the speed of discovery of infected people is still lower than the speed of the virus propagation.

This what happens when you let a disease run rampant and when you let the prosperity gospel preachers convince you that you can pray away that disease. We don't have to imagine what the dark ages were like anymore, we're in it.

This is a red herring. I stated from the beginning that the response could be much much better. That addresses all of your concerns. But generally more testing is better than less testing. That doesn't mean that more testing, by itself, makes a response perfect or "good." And I never said it did.

There is a common approach in here to read things into my posts and then argue against ideas I didn't have.

 

[Belgium]

 

[dacomeup]

That doesn't mean that more testing, by itself, makes a response perfect or "good." And I never said it did.

what makes the response good, then?

 

[reformeDWS]

publicly undermining your own medical health experts is not leadership. this is an absolute joke.

 

[dwalk31]

what makes the response good, then?

Where are you getting good from? That is not something that I have said.

I said the response was okay, given the information known at the time. But it could have been much much better.

A better response would include many of the things mentioned by the other posters. Including quicker turnaround times for tests, better contact tracing, etc.

 

[dacomeup]

Where are you getting good from? That is not something that I have said.

I said the response was okay, given the information known at the time. But it could have been much much better.

A better response would include many of the things mentioned by the other posters. Including quicker turnaround times for tests, better contact tracing, etc.

So you're saying that the response wasn't good?

 

[frshstunna]

So you're saying that the response wasn't good?

You know yo won’t answer this directly ...His words can NEVER paint his political party in a negative light, the best you’ll get is a “everybody can do better” type answer ...All his responses are in bad faith

 

[reformeDWS]

what makes the response good, then?

Where are you getting good from? That is not something that I have said.

I said the response was okay, given the information known at the time. But it could have been much much better.

A better response would include many of the things mentioned by the other posters. Including quicker turnaround times for tests, better contact tracing, etc.

exclamation
exclamation: okay

1. used to express assent, agreement, or acceptance.

adjective
adjective: okay

1. satisfactory but not exceptionally or especially good.

adverb
adverb: okay

1. in a satisfactory manner or to a satisfactory extent.

noun
noun: okay

1. an authorization or approval.

verb
verb: okay

1. sanction or give approval to.

I know you'll likely latch onto the one that says "satisfactory but not exceptionally or especially good". In advance of that, i'll preemptively make clear that the definition is satisfactory, and the second half that states "but not exceptionally or especially good" itself is an admission that it is good, but does not rise to the level of the modifications being "exceptionally good" or "especially good". in other words, "okay" means "good".

 

[boris]

It is my understanding that under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act employees can receive 10 days regular pay for quarantining if they are seeking medical diagnosis for COVID. So waiting on test results would seemingly fall under that.

This is a link to questions and answers provided by the DOL to address some of the issues:

Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Questions and Answers

www.dol.gov

Question 62 appears to directly address the issue:

I am an employee. I become ill with COVID-19 symptoms, decide to quarantine myself for two weeks, and then return to work. I do not seek a medical diagnosis or the advice of a health care provider. Can I get paid for those two weeks under the FFCRA?

Generally no. If you become ill with COVID-19 symptoms, you may take paid sick leave under the FFCRA only to seek a medical diagnosis or if a health care provider otherwise advises you to self-quarantine. If you test positive for the virus associated with COVID-19 or are advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine, you may continue to take paid sick leave. You may not take paid sick leave under the FFCRA if you unilaterally decide to self-quarantine for an illness without medical advice, even if you have COVID-19 symptoms. Note that you may not take paid sick leave under the FFCRA if you become ill with an illness not related to COVID-19. Depending on your employer’s expectations and your condition, however, you may be able to telework during your period of quarantine.

So, there are the people under quarantine that are being tested because there’s reason to believe they were exposed to someone that was infected, but then there are people that have been exposed to the people that are in quarantine that are waiting for test results.

At my work the people that were exposed to the people waiting for test results aren’t being quarantined unless the person they were exposed to has a positive test.

As a result people are potentially spreading the virus due to this **** policy and the time it takes to get the results back.

 

[dwalk31]

So you're saying that the response wasn't good?

Correct. Good is not the word I would use. Instead, I am saying the response was okay, given the information known at the time.

 

[dwalk31]

So, there are the people under quarantine that are being tested because there’s reason to believe they were exposed to someone that was infected, but then there are people that have been exposed to the people that are in quarantine that are waiting for test results.

At my work the people that were exposed to the people waiting for test results aren’t being quarantined unless the person they were exposed to has a positive test.

As a result people are potentially spreading the virus due to this **** policy and the time it takes to get the results back.

If your job has more than 50 people and less than 500, it is my understanding that the FFCRA applies. If your employer has over 500 then it does not apply.

If the FFCRA does apply, then the information I posted provides greater protection than your job does. And it is my understanding that people seeking medical diagnosis can self-quarantine and receive their regular rate of pay in that situation. I posted the link which should shed more light. Also, here is a .pdf poster explaining certain employee rights that breaks it down as well.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/posters/FFCRA_Poster_WH1422_Non-Federal.pdf

Hopefully this is helpful. If you are awaiting test results, and your company has fewer than 500, this should apply.

 

[dwalk31]

exclamation
exclamation: okay

1. used to express assent, agreement, or acceptance.

adjective
adjective: okay

1. satisfactory but not exceptionally or especially good.

adverb
adverb: okay

1. in a satisfactory manner or to a satisfactory extent.

noun
noun: okay

1. an authorization or approval.

verb
verb: okay

1. sanction or give approval to.

I know you'll likely latch onto the one that says "satisfactory but not exceptionally or especially good". In advance of that, i'll preemptively make clear that the definition is satisfactory, and the second half that states "but not exceptionally or especially good" itself is an admission that it is good, but does not rise to the level of the modifications being "exceptionally good" or "especially good". in other words, "okay" means "good".

I intentionally used the word okay.

 

[reformeDWS]

Correct. Good is not the word I would use. Instead, I am saying the response was okay, given the information known at the time.

I intentionally used the word okay.

So you approve and/or are satisfied with the administration's response.

While most states looked to the federal government as a guiding light in preparing their response, the president downplayed the virus and its potential spread and undermined his top medical experts. In hindsight, it appears he did so because he prioritized the economy over the health and well-being of american citizens. To top it off, he authorized the use of $765 million dollars in taxpayer money to, in the White House's words, "transform Kodak into a pharmaceutical company that can help produce essential medicines in the United States."

I do not approve and am not satisfied with our administration's response and you shouldn't be either. We deserve better.

 

[dwalk31]

So you approve and/or are satisfied with the administration's response.

While most states looked to the federal government as a guiding light in preparing their response, the president downplayed the virus and its potential spread and undermined his top medical experts. In hindsight, it appears he did so because he prioritized the economy over the health and well-being of american citizens. To top it off, he authorized the use of $765 million dollars in taxpayer money to, in the White House's words, "transform Kodak into a pharmaceutical company that can help produce essential medicines in the United States."

I do not approve and am not satisfied with our administration's response and you shouldn't be either. We deserve better.

I certainly respect your position.

As I said from the onset, the response could have been much much better.

 

[boris]

If your job has more than 50 people and less than 500, it is my understanding that the FFCRA applies. If your employer has over 500 then it does not apply.

If the FFCRA does apply, then the information I posted provides greater protection than your job does. And it is my understanding that people seeking medical diagnosis can self-quarantine and receive their regular rate of pay in that situation. I posted the link which should shed more light. Also, here is a .pdf poster explaining certain employee rights that breaks it down as well.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/posters/FFCRA_Poster_WH1422_Non-Federal.pdf

Hopefully this is helpful. If you are awaiting test results, and your company has fewer than 500, this should apply.

We employ tens of thousands. The poster's qualifying reasons don't seem to cover what I'm talking about. The example you gave in your first post is about someone who exhibits symptoms. The people I'm talking about aren't exhibiting symptoms, but they were exposed to possible cases that haven't been confirmed yet.