tmwiese55

Yup they have the shields too, but from what I understand some splatters gets onto the masks at times. And no I didn't mean like a full blown splashing or gobs on it if that's the way it sounded, I think that would warrant the end of that mask. Or of course I could've mistaken what she meant or was describing.

I don't think you know enough about me and many other people to make this sort of statement. It's a needlessly confrontational generalization based on your biases. Didn't mean to, I rephrased it. I see what you mean.

great post owbc. On the hospital workers and masks topic. As of 2-3 weeks ago, my friend who works in the hospital in Madison (not on covid) has still been forced to re-use masks as long as they possibly can. This reminds me to maybe ask her tonight what the current status is. Early March they went from normal down to 1 per day. Then I'd say by mid April it was down to as long as possible. This is heart surgeries too, so you're often going patient to patient with blood from one patient to the next multiple times once this got put in place. And just in general, wearing a blood stained mask for days.

Pretty much agree with Bruce's summary there. Took the least bad option. There's plenty these folks have gotten wrong, who couldn't with this, but for the most part they're doing their best and giving the best answers they can at the time they're asked. It's just funny to see people now making the case that since the medical folks lied on this one they can't be trusted. Buuuut there is a huge chunk of them and a lot of overlap who adamantly believe everything a repeated lifelong liar says like he's the beacon of truth out there. Some of course are just looking at it out of principle that med people should never lie, which is fine. The biggest thing that has hurt the messaging is that the largest figure of the government undermines over and over so there is no clear message. You essentially have the federal government playing both sides, the medical people say one thing and administration the opposite. You're intentionally stirring the pot and making those adamant supporters not believe this, and that's probably something like 25-30% of the population. For the we can't make people where masks talk. You totally can, each business can do what they want on dress codes. think no shirt no shoes, no service. It's the same thing. The government could do it too. They make us where pants don't they? That said, I do not think they should do this and create more fighting over it. The negativity around is too much as it is now. As someone just said, a person without one is not a total POS we need to shame and someone wearing it is not a beacon of purity. Just relax and be nice to each other.

Because one is regulated and the other is let go. People are not denied jobs if they drank alcohol within a month of applying. Logically, alcohol should be as regulated as weed is now. Or weed should be looked the other way on like we do alcohol. Either way is sound logic, but to treat one as this big deal and the other as not is not good logic. But this outdated notion that if someone uses weed it means they must do it all the time because it's so bad/evil. That's essentially what the tests are presuming. When the reality is something like that is way more likely with alcohol. I've seen people who are whipped up on this issue say things like "so legalize and now everyone is high all the time, teachers, nurses, dental assistants etc". The reality is a huge chunk of normal people you interact with now are regular weed users and you don't know it (they're not high all day long, just like casual drinkers aren't drunk all day long), it's so easy to get and common that legalizing would essentially change nothing. People who want to do it are currently doing it. And if you're not around younger people much, it is a huge percentage and I don't think we're seeing some big problem from it. And second, why are you not worried that everyone is drunk all the time? Also I believe it is factual that it is not physically addictive.

No sports for 3 months has already done enough damage to society as a whole. Sure if you're 25 years it's not such a big deal, but when you are a senior you cherish every healthy year you have left or if you have a terminal illness, every possible distraction from your suffering is meaningful and not having daily sports to watch/follow IS a BIG DEAL. Especially when the alternative is constant bombardment of turmoil in our streets. Athletes, owners, sports media, politicians. There's plenty of blame to go around. Sports has been a fabric of American society for generations and a unifying thread. But like most American institutions, it too seems to be under attack. You're correct on everything here. And as a sports nerd I fully get that. I also just had a friend with terminal illness so saw that aspect first hand in wanting the titles we got so close in baseball and basketball the last two years. He actually had a great joke while talking about trades and such (think deadline deals in baseball) in that he'd say something along the lines of "well, I'm clearly in win now all in mode" Really was merely saying that we've already lost at least half due to the situation, we've now had 3 months with nothing so I'm kinda used to it (never thought I'd say that) so if it doesn't come through it won't change much from status quo. I guess, I've basically just accepted that the the negatives you just pointed out (again, it's correct) are already happening. So, if it ends up not I'll be pleasantly surprised. Oh and assuming football and NBA happens we'll actually have too many sports to distract us then as that will be with all the other things that were delayed and pushed back to fall. I'd gladly take it. But yea if all were to not happen it would be absolutely brutal. The 50ish game season would sure be weird. But would definitely put an interesting twist on baseball by making each game so important (the opposite of the vibe of a normal very long season).

Still the overall points he said hold true. That's kind of why I said I'm still not crazy worried as of now, worth watching and for those areas to address but still IMO not a 'cripes here we go again' type thing. To me the most important info in there was the hospitalization numbers in those few spots, I think TX/AZ if I remember. That's really the key to all this, need this data out and available so rises/spikes/hotspots or whatever you want to call them can be identified and made aware so it can be addressed. There shouldn't be immediate bashing the media for getting the info out and then the other side have to defend it, then each side retreats to their corner.

That seems like a good phrasing for how I'm looking at it now for the next few weeks/months. We've cut it down drastically with all we done and we'll kind of have to accept that it's going to be there at some level, and it might just be in the ballpark we're at now (still hope for a noticeable level down though). I'd have preferred a few more weeks of patience to have gotten to a lower starting point, but it seems the majority didn't want that so we're at this point and have to do our best. So I'm kind of accepting (as in I'm not going to get worked up that its happening) what you said while hoping for some improvement down still.

I'm not sure I'd quite use the word 'worried' for myself, especially in WI. But something like my ears have perked back up again to be watching more closely. For the last 1-2 weeks I've been in the mold of hey it's been 4-6 weeks since places have started opening and nothing has gotten crazy, generally good sign and all. Knowing there would be some spikes here or there, but still confident that with all the other safeguards in place that nothing will get crazy bad again. Now some of this data comes in and its like 'ugh, can't we can't catch a break'. I also read some data a week or two back that if you take out the numbers in the previous hotbed NY/NJ the rest of the country's number don't look so good as far as trends. Then this stuff this week. But, the rest of those states are in such a better starting point than NY was that even with that hopefully it's nothing big. Still think even with this info coming in that there won't be a drastic spike and we just have to realize it's not gonna disappear and it will be there with some blips here and there. But, certainly have to pay close to attention to all this stuff

Nice. Asking just to be clear, the idea would be that if you get tested and are positive but not really sick yet due to the week-ish delay that you'd take this and it would greatly reduce your chances of serious illness? If I understand that correctly I agree this could be a big big plus to people living more freely again. Combine that with lots of testing/tracing available and it would be a huge reduction of risk. Find out a coworker (or I guess anyone you crossed paths with) tests positive, get yourself tested right away, take this if you're positive. I saw the French doctor thing a month or so back but hadn't followed up. Thanks for that info. That could all get really interesting.

Not disagreeing with that any impairment is bad. But that's the point, we're hammering on weed but alcohol flies under the radar (specific to the drug test discussion). You're 100% on anything that impairs is dangerous. But specific to the drug test stuff and riskiness it wasn't so much as to what's less risky to be on if impaired, as you say both clearly are. I'd say booze impairs you more and is worse, but as you say both are bad so it's irrelevant. For this discussion it's which is more likely to cause a dependency type problem that causes someone to be doing it while at work. Then factor in the hangover impairment and have alcohol in your system the next morning. Remember the Dante Stallworth case. Seems pretty clear alcohol is worse in that sense. For addiction, well that's anecdotal. But yea I guess you can call it addictive just like anyone can get a compulsion on basically anything. But it's just chemically not addictive like alcohol, coke, heroin, etc. Again, unless some of this new aged stuff is adding stuff in, idk. Which really then if we'd legalize we could regulate that out.

Then what are you arguing about of my sole point that it's not a roll back, change of course, deception, contradiction? You: They're walking back on this due to the outside pressure today. Me: No, the clarifications they emphasized now were all in the initial report so its not a rollback or any change of course. Just a bad quote. Not some kind conspiracy (I acknowledge better use of word should've been used) You: But x y z was in the initial too. and you're arguing tactics are bad. Don't call me a conspiracy theorist for my argument accusing of these guys of deceiving us Me: All I said it's all in the initial report so it can't be a roll back like you're saying. You're latching onto parts of it and ignoring everything they pointed out today. Again, which was all there the whole time if you read it You: what about x y z said since then and don't call me stupid (which was never done) Me: It was in the initial report. you're push that they're changing their story (and implication we're being deceived) is inaccurate You: I know what was in the initial report Me: Soooo, they didn't change their points based on the pushback yesterday? Or, you really haven't read it.

I wouldn't say I don't care. But at this point I've accepted it as very real possibility and will not be overly upset or angry if it's the case. 3 months of no sports has more than prepped more for it and it won't be a big deal to me

Two of the four quotes I pulled from my initial post are from the report stating this info. I don't need to "address" it because it was in my first post. The one you did not read, and said was "horribly phrased" even though in contained this info. this is like pulling teeth. Their distinctions of 'Pre' and "A" were in the initial report. Their points of very few people truly don't show symptoms was in the initial. The things you're accusing them of rolling back after the fact were all there initially. That is the whole point and you're ignoring it. Your whole point was that they're changing their story (due to pressure yesterday) and that is factually not true That's truly fascinating because the WHO itself stated that it was a "misunderstanding" and that they "don't have the answer yet." Meanwhile Dr. Fauci called the statement flat-out "wrong." Seems completely at odds with what you're saying, but make another teeth-pulling comment to "imply that I'm stupid" why don't you? ---- No I give up. If you're refusing to acknowledge or read what was said right away that night it's pointless. I have a post in here as I read it that night laying all this out as I read it, it was all there right away. The more data needed and possible unreliability of it was there. And yes, WHO is right, people are misunderstaing it do that horrible quote, seems you are too. I implore to just find data and ignore trying to catch people in mistakes and proving them right/wrong. And that if they're wrong about one thing then they're wrong about everything or are intentionally misleading. And most importantly looking at everything as if you're being deceived.

Two of the four quotes I pulled from my initial post are from the report stating this info. I don't need to "address" it because it was in my first post. The one you did not read, and said was "horribly phrased" even though in contained this info. this is like pulling teeth. Their distinctions of 'Pre' and "A" were in the initial report. Their points of very few people truly don't show symptoms was in the initial. The things you're accusing them of rolling back after the fact were all there initially. That is the whole point and you're ignoring it. Your whole point was that they're changing their story (due to pressure yesterday) and that is factually not true

You have completely ignored the point that all this info was in the initial report. You have literally not addressed the point at all. And even in your recent school post you seem to be misusing the 'asymptomatic' spread that I/they clarified and was in the initial report that it the presymptomatic is still very much a concern worry. It seems you're now taking that and running with it when it was never the point of the report at all. I'd also be very surprised if WI public schools don't happen in the fall.

Agree yea by no means would I say there isn't negatives to it. That's a bridge the legalization push has gone too far on. It's just that the negatives don't warrant the financial resources we're spending against it, warrant the negative effects that enforcement is causing, etc. Perhaps these new medically potent ones do have some addictive things added, could be wrong there. But weed itself is proven to have no chemical addictiveness to it like say alcohol or cocaine does. As far as drug screening for work goes (such as heavy machinery/driving) as being discussed here, weed is way less risky than alcohol.

Another poor debate tactic is to attach the person's debate tactics instead of hte points. It's very similar to may politicians tactic of attacking the media instead of dealign with the real issues. It simply is not Walkback if it was in the initial report. You've latched into one person making a horrible quote that did not at all reflect the info in the report, and them clarifying the info is some 'gotcha' on them. You're more focused on proving someone was wrong or deceiving you than to just focus on the info. Your quotes are about asymptomatic spread, so not sure what you're saying there. Of course more data is needed. As I said, I agree the word conspiracy probably is too strong as it implies too much pre planned coordination. But is it not accurate that you're accusing multiple parties of doing something harmful here? I thought of something probably a bit better though "intentionally misleading/deceiving". Again, all this info was in the initial report, they are not deceiving anyone. They are not contradicting themselves, lying, changing their tune, etc. The mistakes were a horrible quote and for newsites to run with the horrible quote as headline even though it didn't accurately reflect that report. And for people not being able to read fully data past the headlines.

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times. It should be more about the specific job that you have, and not the company you work for or state you live in. If you are doing anything that has a chance to put other people's health or safety at risk, there should be drug screening. Don't want anybody driving a truck or performing surgery that tests positive for anything. But if you're stacking boxes in a warehouse or programming computers, can probably have a relaxed drug policy. Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol. As others have said though, everyone knows this is the current state of tests. You know you're looking, it shouldn't be hard to just not during the search.

See my post on this last night in the other thread. They're not walking back anything. It was all in there once you read past the headline. It's just people latched onto what seemed like good news, like I did. And then another faction such as yourself want to point out "See you were wrong" whenever they can. WHO communication department sure seems like it needs an overhaul, that's for sure. Their phrasing on this was brutal. But I know conspiracies are fun. Still towing that straw man I see. Who said ANYTHING about a "conspiracy"? Can you please, respectfully, stop doing this? You are taking this way too personally for some reason as if people are personally attacking you for the WHO's laughable handling of this. You are engaging in the exact tactic that I was referring to pages earlier, where you brand anyone who disagrees with you a nutcase conspiracy theorist. And it doesn't come off any other way besides ad hominem and being unable to defend your position And yes, there is walking back. The bulk of the article was that asymptomatic spread was nowhere near what the initial briefings suggested, with one sentence that we "still needed to be cautious." I read the full article. Here are some choice excerpts: “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.” "More research and data are needed to “truly answer” the question of whether the coronavirus can spread widely through asymptomatic carriers, Van Kerkhove added. “We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”" Then concludes with this: “These findings also suggest that to control the pandemic, it might not be enough for only persons with symptoms to limit their contact with others because persons without symptoms might transmit infection,” the CDC study said. That is a far cry from the initial response. Of course after this cycled for 24 hours, they came out today and "clarified" the statements because some thought they were presumptuous and sloppy which is of course possible. Being wrong isn't a conspiracy. It's amazing to me though that you accuse others of digging in their heels when you do exactly that. You are implying a conspiracy (there's probably a lighter sounding word that is more accurate but I can't think of) by saying they're walking back on it due to the public pressure as if it's some plot to keep this myth going. As I said, everything was in the initial data that came out the night of my original post. Therefore it is not a walkback due to the pushback they got the next day as you're accusing. The only thing they had to clarify was their horrible phrasing, the points they were making were the exact same as the original output, if you actually read it. You are jumping to conclusions based on horribly phrased quotes taken out of context. And then accusing them of a walkback or change of tune due to pressure from politics/media or whatever (conspiracy). The original info that caused the confusion and you're falling for the confusion is the distinction between Assymptomatic and PRe-symptomatic. Like you, I assumed they're one in the same. Turns out the WHO with their horrible comms said the Asymptomatic lines you're talking about and ignored that everyone would assume it covers all. When in reality they meant only people who never shows symptoms. And then concluded that people that truly never show symptoms is very rare, therefore assymptomatic is very rare. Horrible way of phrasing. But instead of reading the info, you're accusing them of a walkback and deception. I don't think they could've come out with a worse way to say "It's very rare for someone to truly never show symptoms, but if someone never shows symptoms they are very low risk to spread".

I have the impression from the media that OMG TEXAS ARIZONA GEORGIA etc are about to go into covid crisis. From the numbers you posted it doesn’t appear the case (big surprise)...although yes we’re having an uptick. To be expected with people going about their business and thousands of angry protestors completely ignoring the very social distancing guidelines they forced the country to obey. Everything doesn't have to be so extreme. Putting data out there is not saying crisis is happening. When things started opening saying "this is a risk that could lead to an increase". Is not saying "there will be a spike" so then it's a 'gotcha' if there isn't. This is all exactly how it should be being covered. We have to watch these things and see what happens. Get data, report it. There has also been plenty of reports saying how there hasn't been a noticeable uptick in many other states. It would help everyone if folks didn't rush to their corners and scream at each other (don't mean here, in general though)

See my post on this last night in the other thread. They're not walking back anything. It was all in there once you read past the headline. It's just people latched onto what seemed like good news, like I did. And then another faction such as yourself want to point out "See you were wrong" whenever they can. WHO communication department sure seems like it needs an overhaul, that's for sure. Their phrasing on this was brutal. But I know conspiracies are fun.

It would work in some situations, see the Packers. But the majority of situations would get very complicated. As just pointed out, if the govt owns it they essentially can't sell it either. So then you get into at what level do accept losses year over year tacked into a state or city budget. You could very easily run into a lot of teams operating like Oakland because they can't float big losses year over year (to go for it) using the public's money. Now if you put in a big time shakeup of all revenue systems to work around that well then maybe something could be devised, but think how complicated that all gets. Man, and then imagine the complaining and such if the team is doing poorly on the field, we can't get the public to agree on anything as it is, and now we'll have entered political bickering into sports too. No thanks.

Off topic of course, but thought of due to your Selig vs Bonds/Mac HOF. I think it's a joke Tony LaRussa is in while the players involved are not.

Don't get me wrong, yea you know the current state of drug tests cover it. So simply don't when looking, it shouldn't be that hard. Nevertheless, it's outdated and should just get taken out. However, I've had to deal with people who live in legal states/countries applying to jobs in in legal states. Yet the company testing rules still have weed and it becomes a problem. The actual manager and people involved don't care, it's an outdated HR thing that hasn't been updated