SARS-2-CoV (COVID-19)

[Oh Shoot]

6 hours ago, mikegideon said:

Empire needs a mass firing. All they accomplish is their own personal wealth. Maybe if you start with a bunch of first term folks, they will accomplish a little of the peoples' work.

Often said, but the impediment to that is also long standing, ie, "legislators suck, except for mine."

- OS

[Quavodus]

5 hours ago, FUJIMO said:

He's at least getting more careful with his rhetoric. Why, I can remember when he said 2 weeks was gonna kick it's ass.

Yeah, first no mask required, then wear a mask, then wear 2 masks. "Our little boy is growing up".

Edited August 9, 2021 by Quavodus

[mikegideon]

13 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Often said, but the impediment to that is also long standing, ie, "legislators suck, except for mine."

- OS

Mine suck too, although I kinda like Rand. He actually does a few good things outside of politics. The only thing that would fix DC is Tzar Bomba.

[Quavodus]

I like Rand Paul too. He seems like he fights, and stands up to all the stupid that's going on.

[mikegideon]

28 minutes ago, Quavodus said:

I like Rand Paul too. He seems like he fights, and stands up to all the stupid that's going on.

He is actually qualified to stand up to the little cockwomble. He is doing us a service. Fauci needs a ghost pepper enema.

[Oh Shoot]

89 TN deaths first week of Aug, the most in a calendar week since March.

- OS

[xsubsailor]

 This article is a year old but it shows how the CDC thinks.

This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.^1,2  This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach¹?

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.^1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.³ In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.^4,5  For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

[FUJIMO]

1 hour ago, xsubsailor said:

 This article is a year old but it shows how the CDC thinks.

This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.^1,2  This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach¹?

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.^1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.³ In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.^4,5  For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

I saw this when it was first released. Walensky has overreached since the get go.

[Quavodus]

I heard on the radio today that Bonaroo will require vaxed proof or negative test to enter the concert. Sounds like attendance will be way down this year.

[OldIronFan]

18 minutes ago, Quavodus said:

I heard on the radio today that Bonaroo will require vaxed proof or negative test to enter the concert. Sounds like attendance will be way down this year.

Lots of venues are already doing this or will be soon. I expect that many public spaces will follow this path since it is completely legal for them to do so. 

[Garufa]

21 minutes ago, Quavodus said:

I heard on the radio today that Bonaroo will require vaxed proof or negative test to enter the concert. Sounds like attendance will be way down this year.

I doubt it will be much of a problem.  

Lolllapalooza a couple of weeks ago had the same requirements.  They had something like 100,000/day over a four day period.  First day report is that over 90% where inoculated.  

[Quavodus]

There's a restaurant owner in Huntington Beach, California of all places, that does not want vaxxed people in his restaurant. Got signs posted.

No Fauci Ouchies wanted. It's actually improved his business. I thought it was hilarious. 

[peejman]

20 hours ago, xsubsailor said:

 This article is a year old but it shows how the CDC thinks.

This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.^1,2  This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach¹?

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.^1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.³ In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.^4,5  For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

Internment camps?  Segregation?  Someone actually wrote that down.  Wow.  

[Static_USMC]

If this has been posted already please delete.  I encourage Tn. residents to read the EO or at least google it.  There is quite a bit in it, most concerning being:  

link to pdf of Executive order 83:

Lee’s Executive Order Opens Door For Construction Of Temporary Quarantine/Isolation Facilities In TN - Tennessee Conservative (tennesseeconservativenews.com)

8. Discretion to utilize National Guard and State Guard members in connection with certain health care and m rgency services operations. This Paragraph 8 is issued for the limited purpose of authorizing personnel recognized under Tennessee Code Annotated, Sections 58-1-203, 58-1-204, and 58-1-402 (collectively, "Personnel"), to serve in certain health care and emergency services roles to reduce system capacity strain resulting from COVID-19. Namely, Personnel may: (1) perform authorized diagnostic testing for COVID-19 in health care settings, including but not to limited to hospitals, emergency departments, and alternate care sites (collectively, "Facilities"); (2) perform authorized nursing and other functions in Facilities; and (3) operate public or privately owned, permitted ambulance service vehicles with a licensed service. Accordingly, the following provisions are hereby suspended to the extent necessary to facilitate this Paragraph 8: Tennessee Code Annotated, Titles 63 and Title 68, and related rules, with respect to licensure, continuing education, and other requirements for Personnel or Facilities utilizing Personnel; Title 68, Chapter 140, Part 3, with respect to Personnel and licensed ambulance services utilizing Personnel; and any other state or local law, order, rule, or regulation that would limit the application of this Paragraph 8 is hereby suspended to the extent necessary to facilitate this Paragraph 8. This Paragraph 8 is subject to the following conditions: a. No Personnel shall operate under this Paragraph 8 unless designated by the Adjutant General upon request or order of the Governor; b. Personnel operating pursuant to this Paragraph 8 shall have the appropriate training or skills in the area(s) pertaining to their designations; c. The Adjutant General and Commissioner of Health, or their designees, shall determine the Facilities to which Personnel are assigned, based on need and other reasonable factors, in their sole discretion; d. Any Facility to which Personnel are assigned must submit, in writing to the Commissioner of Health, the responsibilities and tasks that Personnel will be undertaking while operating pursuant to this Paragraph 8; e. A list of Personnel designated to operate under this Paragraph 8 and the Facility or setting in which such Personnel will be operating shall be 9. 10. 11. provided to the Commissioner of Health by the Adjutant General, and this list shall be updated from time to time as necessary;

14. Telephone assessments for involuntary commitment cases are permitted. The provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-4-108, are hereby suspended to the extent necessary to allow the issuance of a certificate of need under Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-6-404, for the emergency involuntary commitment of a person with a mental illness or serious emotional disturbance based upon a telephone assessment of such person by a mandatory pre-screening agent designated pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, Sections 33-6-104 and 33-6- 427, if the following conditions are met: a. The mandatory pre-screening agent is not reasonably able to conduct an evaluation in-person or via readily available telehealth services; and b. The mandatory pre-screening agent determines in the agent's professional judgment that conducting the assessment via telephone with the person is clinically appropriate.

18. Temporary quarantine and isolation facilties may b constructed I. The provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-11-202( c )( 1 )-(8), are hereby suspended to allow for the construction of temporary structures, the plans for which would otherwise be subject to review for new construction, additions, or substantial alterations, as directed by the Commissioner of Health and the Director of TEMA in response to COVID-19; provided, that there shall be inspections of such structures to ensure safety, as necessary.

 

[gregintenn]

Mrs. Tn got the notice today. Take the jab by Sept. 30 or your employment is terminated.

This company is willing to fire a 20+ year employee with a stellar record who is never within 60 miles of the place of employment.

I'm glad Tennessee is a right to work state, but wow.

[FUJIMO]

Definitely some concerning language in there. 

[Moped]

33 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Mrs. Tn got the notice today. Take the jab by Sept. 30 or your employment is terminated.

This company is willing to fire a 20+ year employee with a stellar record who is never within 60 miles of the place of employment.

I'm glad Tennessee is a right to work state, but wow.

That's just wrong.  I'm vaccinated, but I believe in everyone's right to do with their bodies as they will.  This is just another case of driving a wedge between different groups.  I seriously think that people are subconciously itching for some sort a civil war.  

 

[Hozzie]

13 minutes ago, Moped said:

That's just wrong.  I'm vaccinated, but I believe in everyone's right to do with their bodies as they will.  This is just another case of driving a wedge between different groups.  I seriously think that people are subconciously itching for some sort a civil war.  

 

Do you also not believe that it is a business' right to run their business how they see fit?  For me, as long as it is not the government, a business should be able to run things however they see fit.  That actually includes discrimination for any reason. (Not looking for a response to the last part as I know it would have a quick death).  

In seriousness though, we do too much talking out both sides of our mouth's.  It sucks for some people for sure.  Greg, I hope your wife does what she wants.  I suspect you are in a better position than most that she can actually have a decision to make. 

[Quavodus]

I voted for him. Can I have my vote back? I'll give it back when I think he deserves it. 

[Erik88]

A friend of mine had an interesting suggestion. Let folks choose whether or not they want the vaccine. Don't force them. But if someone chooses not to get the vaccine then they lose their right to get medical treatment should they need it. Or at minimum, be put at the bottom of the list for a ventilator. Right now there are only 5 ICU beds available in the Knoxville area. I realize this idea would never happen but seemed reasonable to me. 

[Garufa]

1 minute ago, Erik88 said:

A friend of mine had an interesting suggestion. Let folks choose whether or not they want the vaccine. Don't force them. But if someone chooses not to get the vaccine then they lose their right to get medical treatment should they need it. Or at minimum, be put at the bottom of the list for a ventilator. Right now there are only 5 ICU beds available in the Knoxville area. I realize this idea would never happen but seemed reasonable to me. 

Reddit, is that you?  

[Erik88]

Just now, Garufa said:

Reddit, is that you?  

Surprised I didn't see that on Reddit. That's probably where my friend got the idea. 

[Chucktshoes]

5 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

A friend of mine had an interesting suggestion. Let folks choose whether or not they want the vaccine. Don't force them. But if someone chooses not to get the vaccine then they lose their right to get medical treatment should they need it. Or at minimum, be put at the bottom of the list for a ventilator. Right now there are only 5 ICU beds available in the Knoxville area. I realize this idea would never happen but seemed reasonable to me. 

I’m down for the idea of removing access to social services for those who choose not to get the vaccine but only if it means they get to choose to not pay taxes as well. And if that’s the case, can I give this vaccine back?

[Erik88]

4 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m down for the idea of removing access to social services for those who choose not to get the vaccine but only if it means they get to choose to not pay taxes as well

Not sure I follow. Maybe you are focusing on the financial burden of treating said people? I was more so focusing on the resource side. I just got off the phone with my friend that's a nurse in WA and he said the ER he works at is in the worst shape it's ever been. Staff morale is at an all time low and they are just flat out exhausted with treating covid patients. 

[Grayfox54]

7 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Maybe you are focusing on the financial burden of treating said people? I

A lot of Covid survivors are gonna end up bankrupt.