Coronavirus - Overall
-
@snowy said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@kirwan Deserved
Fix Hill Street intersection and she will get a shit load more votes up my way.
-
@snowy said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So the question is, when does somone's right to ignore scientific data trump their co-workers right to be protected from a serious illness?
How does one act as an employer to counter that?
I'm not allowed to get rid of an anti vaxxer (that's not even a word) employee.
How do I protect my other staff from one moron?
Is the person coming to work sick? Then I would say the risk is so low not to worry about it
People who are vaccinated should be protected. (otherwise whats the point)
If you are really concerned introduce a temperature reader. Or pay for a weekly spit test for everyone (although they also may refuse). And make ill people stay at home
But lets keep what made the West great. Rather than move too quickly to a nanny state knows best approach and the public must comply. For a virus that is mainly impacting on the older (like me) or those with health conditions. Both of which now have the vaccine option.
-
@winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Is the person coming to work sick? Then I would say the risk is so low not to worry about it
I don't worry about it, other than that my employee is a fool.
The first comment is irrelevant, transmission can be asymptomatic so they won't know if they are sick. So the rest of your post also doesn't carry any water because you are assuming that they know that they are sick.
-
@winger Thing is though @snowy raises a valid point. NZ employers are required by law to provide a safe working environment. This covers health and well-being as well as accidents. In order to comply you want to 'encourage' everyone to get the jab, but then you potentially run foul of personal freedom legislation.
Add to that the potential for ant-vaxxers to be ostracised or pressured by colleagues and then you open up the whole stress can of worms.
Common sense tells you what the reaction should be but the law doesn't always follow.
-
@winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@snowy said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So the question is, when does somone's right to ignore scientific data trump their co-workers right to be protected from a serious illness?
How does one act as an employer to counter that?
I'm not allowed to get rid of an anti vaxxer (that's not even a word) employee.
How do I protect my other staff from one moron?
Is the person coming to work sick? Then I would say the risk is so low not to worry about it
People who are vaccinated should be protected. (otherwise whats the point)
If you are really concerned introduce a temperature reader. Or pay for a weekly spit test for everyone (although they also may refuse). And make ill people stay at home
But lets keep what made the West great. Rather than move too quickly to a nanny state knows best approach and the public must comply. For a virus that is mainly impacting on the older (like me) or those with health conditions. Both of which now have the vaccine option.
See, there you go again. You don't understand how vaccines work.
Take 2mins and 46 seconds of your time to remedy that.
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
See, there you go again. You don't understand how vaccines work.
I think youre confusing 2 separate issues. One is does vaccines give protection as I stated above? Yes it does
The other is how to ALMOST wipe out a disease. This is covered with the herd immunity video. That the protection from vaccines plays a big part. The figure in the video is 70% vaccinated
But please correct me if Im wrong. Im saying vaccines give protection. IMO its an obvious statement. I support the right of those to get vaccine. But I also support the right of those (maybe 5-10%) who want to go a different route. For example some react to the flu vaccine as I noted elsewhere. I don't like a nanny state knows best world and stuff individual right where health care is concerned.
It also means a small control group is available. To compare the outcome.
And I did note there would still be a small risk. But my view is (sadly) we will never life in a risk free world with health (as Im finding out over the last few weeks ) . Esp as people abuse their bodies with shit food, too much stress, smoking etc
-
The news from India is looking pretty bleak. Numbers are huge but given the size of population not that awful. The health service however is a different thing altogether. Gives more credence to the āflattening the curveā rationale trotted out in the UK from pretty much the beginning.
-
@catogrande TBF thier numbers must surely be significantly higher than they are reporting, not because they are hiding anything, more they dont have the capacity to test and report sufficiently?
-
@taniwharugby I would think youāre right in that and Iām sure there are gaps in the reporting all around the world too. But yeah the sheer numbers and the infrastructure would make accurate reporting difficult over there. But still, given those numbers there is a long way to go for them to match some of the European countries, UK included. Iāll search out the relevant data to compare.
-
OK. So according to Worldometers the stats for cases per 1M population and deaths for per 1M population for India and the UK are:
India
Cases 11,396
Deaths 136UK
Cases 64,556
Deaths 1,869 -
@catogrande although id guess the margin for error for uk would be say +/- 3% whereas India likely +/- an awful lot.
Must be huge swathes of India where there is no testing, similarly parts of other densely populated nations....'cept China of course.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@catogrande although id guess the margin for error for uk would be say +/- 3% whereas India likely +/- an awful lot.
Must be huge swathes of India where there is no testing, similarly parts of other densely populated nations....'cept China of course.
For sure re India but there's still a log way to go for them. Without wishing to be too callous though, they have plenty of people, on a wider scale deaths are not the issue. Health infrastructure is.
Re China, hmm, do we trust the governance...?
-
@catogrande oh yea I dont think INdia is under reporting, I just dont think they could probably keep up due to the sheer numbers for testing the living or dead.
Quite worrying really
-
@rapido said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Current surge mostly Mumbai and Delhi at the moment. So national numbers wont look as bad at moment as it will likely get. Unless they can do an Italy/Lombardy first wave and contain it.
I just fear the numbers here. So many people. So little order.
-
Thoughts please