Yep, the Skagit Valley Chorale had a single practice where they practiced social distancing in the room, but about 1/3 of the people who showed up caught covid and 4% of them died.
No we absolutely cannot. I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:
The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
You're clearly doing flamewar, that's clearly not what HN is for, regardless of how right you are or which side you're fighting for. It destroys the intended spirit of this place.
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
How important is communion in those churches? From what I can see none of them are Anglican, orthodox, or Roman Catholic. They’re all evangelical Protestant.
The case fatality rate changes quite dramatically when hospitals are overloaded. Additionally, the fatality rate of _other_ causes increases when hospitals are overloaded.
Flatting the curve saves lives even if the total number of infected people remains the same.
The issue I see now is that some areas are locking down when there is no curve to be flattened. This is likely causing more harm than not, because hospitals are sitting empty waiting for when people will inevitably get sick.
There's a national (and international) shortage of nearly all covid-adjacent medical supplies and you think it's a problem that we're not using more of those medical supplies right this very moment?
>The worker was exposed to covid-19, was told to quarantine, and came back on site anyway.
worker was exposed to co-worker with covid-19; Amazon knowingly allowed exposed worker to continue working; when worker found out of the exposure and Amazon's failures worker organized a strike; only after organizing a strike did Amazon require worker to stay home in quarantine.
>This strikes me as an egregious safety violation
Not only a safety violation by Amazon but a Constitutional violation.
Depends on the circumstances of his contact, what parts of the site he was in, who he came into contact...etc. I'm not sure one potential case warrants the entire warehouse being shuttered if appropriate disinfection and continued monitoring are in place. They seemed to catch his exposure via some string of events, so there is some effort in risk analysis happening.
It sounds like they quarantined everyone that was in close contact with someone that got COVID-19. We can argue about whether or not they quarantined the appropriate number of people / wide enough, but given the size of a warehouse, I don't agree that it is reasonable to shutter the entire warehouse based on 1 person.
Shuttering distribution facilities will send more people to grocery stores and supermarkets. It's not really better on-net to shut down the Amazon delivery chain, as long as you take reasonable measures to disinfect the facility.
> You should know that cheerleading Amazon's continued abuse of employees is not a good look.
That's true, but that doesn't appear to be what happened here. It doesn't appear to be abuse.
> This is someone's livelihood you're talking about.
And, if I'm understanding it correctly, that person intentionally effectively brought a deadly weapon to the workplace after being told not to. Their response doesn't seem like abuse, it seems within reason, even if maybe there were other, better options.
>And, if I'm understanding it correctly, that person intentionally effectively brought a deadly weapon to the workplace after being told not to.
You are not understanding it correctly.
Amazon told the worker to quarantine three weeks (!) after they were near another co-worker who had COVID-19.
Amazon did not tell the person with the virus to quarantine. (!)
Amazon did not tell any other worker to quarantine. (!)
Amazon only came up with the "quarantine" argument AFTER the worker led a strike that demanded better health and safety measures.
It's clear Amazon acted unlawfully in this instance, and that the quarantine argument was a pretext in order to fire someone for an action that is protected by law.
You are not understanding it correctly, because Amazon is trying to make it difficult to do so.
The infected person last reported to work on March 11. A two-week period had passed. The striker was the only person ordered to self-quarantine, and he was ordered to do so only after announcing his intention to lead a strike, after any risk of infect had passed.
Can you explain why you only had skepticism towards the worker in this situation, and none towards Amazon?
I'm glad you reevaluated your position once you had more information, but I'm genuinely confused by the thought process in comments like your original comment. Amazon has a history of treating warehouse workers terribly (docking points for taking too many breaks, and firing workers with too many points etc), and this is documented in lots of news articles. They deployed a PR team on Twitter to talk about how their warehouse conditions were great - and the PR team felt the need to mention that they even got bathroom breaks, as if that is something to be proud of. They even have a reputation for treating their office workers like crap, although this varies somewhat from team to team (based on my own experience and those of my friends who also worked at Amazon as software devs, turnover is pretty high). It's actually not that easy to find a journalist willing to listen to you, and requires a lot of persistence and courage on the part of the worker risking their job. Especially with a company with as much power as Amazon, I'm sure many of the workers reaching out to journalists fear that Amazon will be able to figure out who talked.
So where does this skepticism towards the worker's stories come from?
I didn't express skepticism towards anyone involved. Rather,was basing my opinion based purely on the facts I saw presented in the article.
1. Amazon told him to self quarantined because he had been exposed, to not return to the place of work for 2 weeks
2. He came back before the 2 weeks was up
3. The fired him for it
Given those facts, action 3 seems reasonable. I even prefaced my thoughts indicating that they the actions only reason reasonable if I my understanding of the situation is correct.
Turns out, my understanding of the situation was incorrect. More information was presented. If that information is also true, then their actions (firing him) no longer seem reasonable.
Complaints about saving are the most absurd thing ever.
Rich people were getting free money by doing nothing and taking no risk. Now they're getting less free money by doing nothing and taking no risk.
It's crazy that you want to enact policies which would very literally kill thousands of people just because you want rich people (who don't need more money) to get more free unearned money.
In a truly free market wealthy people would have to pay vault, security, and insurance fees to maintain a riskless balance.
^ this is a strong argument for a 100% estate tax, as well as for exceptionally high capital gains taxes.
After all, people with inherited wealth or unearned income will have no incentive to work otherwise. A such, we MUST strip them of their assets so that they may become productive parts of society.
Sheets has had pivots for years. It's become very rare that Sheets doesn't have a feature I want, whereas it's become more common that I'm in Excel and wish I could use Sheets' query function.
