Economic pain train's a coming (Boston: condos, violent crime, evictions)

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Stop quoting deaths as though there haven't been hundred in the 40's-60's which haven't been hospitalized and intubated. That s__t ain't fun, never mind the hospital bills.

If I were in my late 50's+ I wouldn't step foot in a large office or public transit. Essentially a 1 in 10 chance of ending up in MGH's ICU.

Maybe not 1 in 10 of landing in the ICU on a ventilator but it's that level of odds that the pulse oximeter wouldn't read in the 90s and I'd need oxygen. I turn 62 this month. The severe pneumonia risk is high enough that I'll continue to stick to my bubble for the moment. What I normally do for a living requires airplanes, hotels, rental cars, and spending time in large offices.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Yeah. Nobody they injected it with died yet. There are dozens of other candidate vaccines out there in the world that can say the same thing.


Personally, I'll become a Gwyneth Paltrow if they shortcut the testing cycle in the name of political expediency.

You're going to vagina egg the 'rona away??

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

Not in MA, deaths in 40s is 51, 50s is 207. Compared to 3630 for 80+. If you listened to the media, you would think this thing was ebola.

You have to draw the line somewhere because you will be shutting down too long/often.

Hospitalization rate for ages 50-74 is 10%. Yes, not 1 in 10 are ending up in ICU, but if I were in the age cohort I wouldn't roll the dice. For reference, a bad flu year has hospitalizations in the 3-5% range.

This said, I've developed med devices, including ventilators and ECMOs (google it - not fun), so I have a rather sober understanding of what worst case is and therefor am more risk adverse. Not so much for myself, but in regards to potential transfer.

I do think the way to approach to this would have been to provide financial "life support" for at risk populations, but in practice, I suspect that would have put job pressures on older and health compromised workers who are already battling ageism. Anyone claiming simple binary solutions here is either extraordinarily naive and/or full of s___. It's an extremely difficult situation to manage ethically and practically.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by robr2

You're going to vagina egg the 'rona away??

They injected 8 volunteers. Nobody died. They measured antibodies that might or might not provide immunity for some period of time. It’s more encouraging than aquarium cleaner but it’s going to be many months before if it’s known if that is the best vaccine candidate among many.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Hospitalization rate for ages 50-74 is 10%. Yes, not 1 in 10 are ending up in ICU, but if I were in the age cohort I wouldn't roll the dice. For reference, a bad flu year has hospitalizations in the 3-5% range.

This said, I've developed med devices, including ventilators and ECMOs (google it - not fun), so I have a rather sober understanding of what worst case is and therefor am more risk adverse. Not so much for myself, but in regards to potential transfer.

I do think the way to approach to this would have been to provide financial "life support" for at risk populations, but in practice, I suspect that would have put job pressures on older and health compromised workers who are already battling ageism. Anyone claiming simple binary solutions here is either extraordinarily naive and/or full of s___. It's an extremely difficult situation to manage ethically and practically.

There's a third option: someone who sees this as binary has no qualms with chucking ethics out the window and sticking with what's practical. It doesn't win voters so I'm sure the politicians won't touch that approach, but sooner or later feelings will have to give way to rationality.

There's plenty of younger (and older) people whose risk tolerances have shifted back to reality in the last few months and are more than happy to leave home again. There's plenty of older and high risk people who can voluntarily stay in isolation (hopefully with no retribution from their employers in doing so). I'd sign a waiver right now forfeiting my right to go to a hospital should I become symptomatic if it meant my travel and out-and-about restrictions were lifted.

A slow death of suffocation is preferable to putting up with another battleaxe at Star who loses her sh*t every time someone comes within 8 feet of her.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by id77

There's a third option: someone who sees this as binary has no qualms with chucking ethics out the window and sticking with what's practical. It doesn't win voters so I'm sure the politicians won't touch that approach, but sooner or later feelings will have to give way to rationality.

There's plenty of younger (and older) people whose risk tolerances have shifted back to reality in the last few months and are more than happy to leave home again. There's plenty of older and high risk people who can voluntarily stay in isolation (hopefully with no retribution from their employers in doing so). I'd sign a waiver right now forfeiting my right to go to a hospital should I become symptomatic if it meant my travel and out-and-about restrictions were lifted.

A slow death of suffocation is preferable to putting up with another battleaxe at Star who loses her sh*t every time someone comes within 8 feet of her.

Some politicians have willing adopted this approach. The question is whether corporate and political entities can resolve the liability issues - as of now, businesses are near universal in lobbying for liability shielding. Granted, the burden of proof is working against employees as to whether they were/are exposed due to improper employer protections or outside of their employment.

I'm no legal scholar, but my understanding of liability waivers is that they hardly guarantee liability release for the employer.

[mdovell]

I'm not exactly a expert in employment law but I think that there's a general expectation that when people come to work that they would not be subject to something that could under no fault of their own subject themselves to the possibility of death. There are some jobs that are dangerous just by default like being a fisherman. If a boat capsizes or crashes naturally that's going to have an impact on whether they live or die. But working with Nixon finds of an office there are various forms of fire code, building code, and health code that are supposed to secure the operations and continuity a performance within a building.

There is some parts of a building that certainly have to be more protected like if asbestos is friable or if lead paint chips can somehow get in the air and of course there's such things like mold that can affect air quality.

The Achilles heel here is not so much that someone will instantly die. But more over in that there are those that are systematic and if those people spread as a precautionary effort other people could be told to go back and work from home over and over again.

About 18 or so years ago I was at an employer that mandated that we should all use our virus Checkers on a workpiece sees the second we get in. That might have made sense but they didn't exactly have a good it department and it would literally take a half an hour for a computer to finish the entire scan. Now their networks are more cloud-based and have more Technologies to safeguard viruses. I would argue that there could be more automatic processes that could take temperatures ahead of time. But is this enough? I don't know but if a new normal means that it comes at a higher cost and lower productivity due to compliance we're just going to continue to work from home.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I'm not exactly a expert in employment law but I think that there's a general expectation that when people come to work that they would not be subject to something that could under no fault of their own subject themselves to the possibility of death.
:
:

I am also no expert, but I believe that under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are required to provide a safe workplace that's free from known hazards. Covid-19 is by now, a well-known hazard. I don't know the fine points, but I don't think there needs to be a guarantee of safety - there is no such thing for other hazards...but that "reasonable" measures need to be taken to protect employees.

For example, all these meat-packing plants that basically did zero until their staff was overwhelmed with infections and in some cases deaths, I imagine they could be sued. There was no PPE of any kind, no social distancing, no testing, no communications, no nothing. It was business as usual, and continued to be so, even as the cases mounted. There were no reasonable measures by any standard, as there were no measures at all. If that's not malfeasance, I don't know what is.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

I am also no expert, but I believe that under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are required to provide a safe workplace that's free from known hazards. Covid-19 is by now, a well-known hazard. I don't know the fine points, but I don't think there needs to be a guarantee of safety - there is no such thing for other hazards...but that "reasonable" measures need to be taken to protect employees.

For example, all these meat-packing plants that basically did zero until their staff was overwhelmed with infections and in some cases deaths, I imagine they could be sued. There was no PPE of any kind, no social distancing, no testing, no communications, no nothing. It was business as usual, and continued to be so, even as the cases mounted. There were no reasonable measures by any standard, as there were no measures at all. If that's not malfeasance, I don't know what is.

This is exactly why Mitch McConnell and his cronies are insisting that any legislation includes language shielding these companies from any liability for contracting Covid-19.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

This is exactly why Mitch McConnell and his cronies are insisting that any legislation includes language shielding these companies from any liability for contracting Covid-19.

Wrong. There are already existing measures they must take to protect their employees, which they can already be liable for not adhering to. This new legislation puts them at risk for being sued, even HAD they followed those existing measures. That's how I understand it, anyway.