16 ms·

> individuals should look after their own wellbeing. I don't understand how I'm supposed to look after my wellbeing when I'm employed and need to go to work an

> individuals should look after their own wellbeing. I don't understand how I'm supposed to look after my wellbeing when I'm employed and need to go to work and need to be in close contact with hundreds of people. CDC should advise businesses and should advise everyone to WFH if they can. My boss didn't even hear about this at all, think about that for a second.

missosoup 7y ago
Don't rely on CDC. Don't rely on external parties. You are responsible for your health not your government. If you're in a high risk category (old, history of chronic cough, cardiovascular issues, etc) then you should consider self isolating even at the cost of your job if WFH is not an option. As China and Korea have demonstrated, this quickly becomes a problem much larger than the authorities are resourced to handle. At that point your health is in your hands and your hands only.
- alttab 7y ago
  My company seems to be consistently behind the edge data with regards to policy. For instance, self isolation is still 14 days. This isn't enough. They are also restricting isolation and travel only to "affected areas of Italy" instead of all of Italy. It boggles my mind that people say "the risk is low" and "we don't know how to contain it or where these cases are coming from" in the same presser.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    14 days is still probably enough. There are scattered reports of people staying asymptomatic for longer, but they're hard to confirm (maybe you weren't actually exposed at the start) and certainly very rare. The goal of self-isolation is to severely reduce transmission, not to make it 100% impossible. People say the risk is low because it's probably good on net if the cases are coming from everywhere; it would indicate that the visible clusters where people die a lot are anomalies, and most cases aren't that bad. The worst case scenario is that containment is impossible but it really hasn't spread widely yet.
  - gnulinux 7y ago
    US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny. There is no spike of pneumonia anywhere currently, which means there is likely no huge cluster of 1000s of people infected. That's why it's low risk as in chances of catching COVID-19 is very low. But this doesn't mean they will be able to contain it.
    - pbourke 7y ago
      > US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny Do you have a source for that? I know that there is a nationwide flu surveillance system run by CDC, and it has indicated that most states are at or near peak - is that what you’re referring to?
  - edoceo 7y ago
    Too right! Low risk and unknown risk are very different things.
- yongjik 7y ago
  Excuse me, what the hell? Korea has so far tested 66,652 cases. All under government supervision. Local governments are barging into churches of those damned Sincheonji cultists responsible for the outbreak, in order to obtain the list of church members. Police force is tracking down cultists who failed to respond. Of course, not all is well, and some critics are arguing we should have blocked people coming from China, which is something only the government can do, by the way. Seriously, Korea is a living demonstration how the government is absolutely critical in controlling an epidemic. I'm tired of this fetishization of "individual responsibility" with no basis in reality.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Both government and individual responsibility are critical and necessary to controlling the outbreak. The government can not wash your hands for you, or preemptively tell if you becoming sick. I don't see how reminding people of their individual responsibility is detrimental to a government response.
  - Jommi 7y ago
    Can we refrain from any unfounded hate on a religious group? It's not confirmed that they have some anything malicious, and even so it does nothing to help further solving the problem.
    - three_seagrass 7y ago
      Their comment does not seem to be particularly hateful against the religious group for it's religion, but it's behavior in hiding sick members' identities and increasing transmission rates. It's already becoming well known that that particular church sect is linked to the start of the disease in South Korea: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/808914718/secretive-church-sect-at-the-center-of-south-koreas-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/8089147...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
graeme 7y ago
Many best practices can be done in that context: 1. Wash your hands frequently 2. Especially wash your hands before eating 3. Practice not touching your face. In particular eyes, mouth, nose 4. Keep distance from people. Aim for 1.5 feet. Double that if person coughing or sneezing 5. Don’t shake hands 6. Avoid large gatherings 7. If sick, take sick days 8. Watch out for objects many touch but which are infrequently cleaned. Doorknobs, pens, elevator buttons, etc. Using your elbow or sleeve is better than your hand. Once community spread starts, wear gloves. More here. If everyone did the above the R0 would drop. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/25/wuhan-coronavirus-safety-china/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/25/wuhan-coronavirus-safet...
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  One of my main concerns is food prepared or handled by people who might be sick. I can wash my hands and certain food, but other food that I eat (like a sandwich, bread, all sorts of prepared food) can't be washed by me before I eat it. If someone sick coughed on their hands and then made that food for me, I'm screwed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - graeme 7y ago
    Am unsure how much food can spread covid. But, one way to prepare is to take stock of your eating, and minimize prepared food. Eg pack sandwiches in a lunchbox rather than buy one. You perhaps can’t eliminate it all. But this is a risk reduction game, rather than a perfection game. Taking low impact precautions goes a long way.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  One problem I suspect we'll see is that the sick people most exposed to others won't take sick days, because they don't get paid sick leave. There are a lot of hourly workers in the service economy that don't get sick time, and they still need to pay their bills. I'm not personally worried about the people in my office since I can avoid close contact. I'm worried about the people stocking shelves at grocery stores and pharmacies, working checkout counters and the like.
asveikau 7y ago
Maybe this will cause a number of people in the US to question our culture of "shut up and work, work, work" that encourages people to suppress humanity, vulnerability, and illness in the name of making their bosses more wealthy. Nah.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  There's more to it than that. Poor people, who get poor health care, have poor sanitation, and are malnurished have poor immune systems as a result, and because of that become disease reservoirs. They need to be lifted out of poverty if we are ever going to have a more healthy society as a whole and decrease the likelihood of future epidemics.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    I disagree. You don't need to fix unrelated problems somewhere else to start making people's lives better today. It can be read cynically as a stalling tactic for no progress to be made. The phenomenon I describe happens on a good day in the US, with no epidemics. Sick people go to work because their bosses don't tolerate otherwise. Sick kids go to school because their parents can't miss work to take care of them. A lot of people (not me, I am much more fortunate) cannot take any such breaks to take care of ordinary life situations because a lesser paycheck or lost job for completely legal bullshit reasons drowns them, gets them behind on tight living expenses. These issues exist independent of coronavirus, when things are going "well". I haven't even gotten into how these conditions feed back into stress, mental illness, other health conditions like obesity that are not aided by stress, all self re-enforcing. If all parties wanted to fix this, we could, even without lifting those people out of poverty.
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      It's not unrelated. Poverty is one of the key components of why epidemics like this take hold and spread to the rest of society. Working to eliminate poverty world-wide will go a long way to making us all healthier. That said, I agree that people should get more sick-leave and be allowed to work from home more, if they can do their job from home, and be allowed to go home to take care of their family if they need to. These things and lifting people out of poverty are not mutually exclusive, and improving the one will help improve the other.
downerending 7y ago
> I don't understand how I'm supposed to look after my wellbeing when I'm employed and need to go to work and need to be in close contact with hundreds of people. This sucks, no doubt, and you have my sincere sympathies. This is a problem that many, many people will be facing. It's a lot like any other natural disaster--there's really not much to be done but carry on as best we can. CDC messaging is tough. It needs to be enough to get people to do what can be done (which is not a lot), but not enough to spark irrational silliness (some of which we're seeing right here).

missosoup 7y ago

Don't rely on CDC. Don't rely on external parties. You are responsible for your health not your government. If you're in a high risk category (old, history of chronic cough, cardiovascular issues, etc) then you should consider self isolating even at the cost of your job if WFH is not an option. As China and Korea have demonstrated, this quickly becomes a problem much larger than the authorities are resourced to handle. At that point your health is in your hands and your hands only.

alttab 7y ago
My company seems to be consistently behind the edge data with regards to policy. For instance, self isolation is still 14 days. This isn't enough. They are also restricting isolation and travel only to "affected areas of Italy" instead of all of Italy. It boggles my mind that people say "the risk is low" and "we don't know how to contain it or where these cases are coming from" in the same presser.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  14 days is still probably enough. There are scattered reports of people staying asymptomatic for longer, but they're hard to confirm (maybe you weren't actually exposed at the start) and certainly very rare. The goal of self-isolation is to severely reduce transmission, not to make it 100% impossible. People say the risk is low because it's probably good on net if the cases are coming from everywhere; it would indicate that the visible clusters where people die a lot are anomalies, and most cases aren't that bad. The worst case scenario is that containment is impossible but it really hasn't spread widely yet.
- gnulinux 7y ago
  US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny. There is no spike of pneumonia anywhere currently, which means there is likely no huge cluster of 1000s of people infected. That's why it's low risk as in chances of catching COVID-19 is very low. But this doesn't mean they will be able to contain it.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    > US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny Do you have a source for that? I know that there is a nationwide flu surveillance system run by CDC, and it has indicated that most states are at or near peak - is that what you’re referring to?
- edoceo 7y ago
  Too right! Low risk and unknown risk are very different things.
yongjik 7y ago
Excuse me, what the hell? Korea has so far tested 66,652 cases. All under government supervision. Local governments are barging into churches of those damned Sincheonji cultists responsible for the outbreak, in order to obtain the list of church members. Police force is tracking down cultists who failed to respond. Of course, not all is well, and some critics are arguing we should have blocked people coming from China, which is something only the government can do, by the way. Seriously, Korea is a living demonstration how the government is absolutely critical in controlling an epidemic. I'm tired of this fetishization of "individual responsibility" with no basis in reality.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Both government and individual responsibility are critical and necessary to controlling the outbreak. The government can not wash your hands for you, or preemptively tell if you becoming sick. I don't see how reminding people of their individual responsibility is detrimental to a government response.
- Jommi 7y ago
  Can we refrain from any unfounded hate on a religious group? It's not confirmed that they have some anything malicious, and even so it does nothing to help further solving the problem.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    Their comment does not seem to be particularly hateful against the religious group for it's religion, but it's behavior in hiding sick members' identities and increasing transmission rates. It's already becoming well known that that particular church sect is linked to the start of the disease in South Korea: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/808914718/secretive-church-sect-at-the-center-of-south-koreas-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/8089147...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

graeme 7y ago

Many best practices can be done in that context: 1. Wash your hands frequently 2. Especially wash your hands before eating 3. Practice not touching your face. In particular eyes, mouth, nose 4. Keep distance from people. Aim for 1.5 feet. Double that if person coughing or sneezing 5. Don’t shake hands 6. Avoid large gatherings 7. If sick, take sick days 8. Watch out for objects many touch but which are infrequently cleaned. Doorknobs, pens, elevator buttons, etc. Using your elbow or sleeve is better than your hand. Once community spread starts, wear gloves. More here. If everyone did the above the R0 would drop. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/25/wuhan-coronavirus-safety-china/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/25/wuhan-coronavirus-safet...

pmoriarty 7y ago
One of my main concerns is food prepared or handled by people who might be sick. I can wash my hands and certain food, but other food that I eat (like a sandwich, bread, all sorts of prepared food) can't be washed by me before I eat it. If someone sick coughed on their hands and then made that food for me, I'm screwed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- graeme 7y ago
  Am unsure how much food can spread covid. But, one way to prepare is to take stock of your eating, and minimize prepared food. Eg pack sandwiches in a lunchbox rather than buy one. You perhaps can’t eliminate it all. But this is a risk reduction game, rather than a perfection game. Taking low impact precautions goes a long way.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
One problem I suspect we'll see is that the sick people most exposed to others won't take sick days, because they don't get paid sick leave. There are a lot of hourly workers in the service economy that don't get sick time, and they still need to pay their bills. I'm not personally worried about the people in my office since I can avoid close contact. I'm worried about the people stocking shelves at grocery stores and pharmacies, working checkout counters and the like.

asveikau 7y ago

Maybe this will cause a number of people in the US to question our culture of "shut up and work, work, work" that encourages people to suppress humanity, vulnerability, and illness in the name of making their bosses more wealthy. Nah.

pmoriarty 7y ago
There's more to it than that. Poor people, who get poor health care, have poor sanitation, and are malnurished have poor immune systems as a result, and because of that become disease reservoirs. They need to be lifted out of poverty if we are ever going to have a more healthy society as a whole and decrease the likelihood of future epidemics.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I disagree. You don't need to fix unrelated problems somewhere else to start making people's lives better today. It can be read cynically as a stalling tactic for no progress to be made. The phenomenon I describe happens on a good day in the US, with no epidemics. Sick people go to work because their bosses don't tolerate otherwise. Sick kids go to school because their parents can't miss work to take care of them. A lot of people (not me, I am much more fortunate) cannot take any such breaks to take care of ordinary life situations because a lesser paycheck or lost job for completely legal bullshit reasons drowns them, gets them behind on tight living expenses. These issues exist independent of coronavirus, when things are going "well". I haven't even gotten into how these conditions feed back into stress, mental illness, other health conditions like obesity that are not aided by stress, all self re-enforcing. If all parties wanted to fix this, we could, even without lifting those people out of poverty.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    It's not unrelated. Poverty is one of the key components of why epidemics like this take hold and spread to the rest of society. Working to eliminate poverty world-wide will go a long way to making us all healthier. That said, I agree that people should get more sick-leave and be allowed to work from home more, if they can do their job from home, and be allowed to go home to take care of their family if they need to. These things and lifting people out of poverty are not mutually exclusive, and improving the one will help improve the other.

downerending 7y ago

> I don't understand how I'm supposed to look after my wellbeing when I'm employed and need to go to work and need to be in close contact with hundreds of people. This sucks, no doubt, and you have my sincere sympathies. This is a problem that many, many people will be facing. It's a lot like any other natural disaster--there's really not much to be done but carry on as best we can. CDC messaging is tough. It needs to be enough to get people to do what can be done (which is not a lot), but not enough to spark irrational silliness (some of which we're seeing right here).