10 ms·

Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the weekend they or

Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the weekend they order him and only him into quarantine. A full 18 days after his 5 min exposure. From my reading of it, this almost certainly looks like retaliatory action due to the strike, and a company using the excuse of quarantine to cover it up. Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet again, why you never 100% believe a company's PR response when they're trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to intentionally mislead. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/amazon-strike-worker-fired-organizing-walkout-chris-smallls https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/amazon-strik... > According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day, a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon as 25 March. > Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until 28 March, three weeks after the exposure. > “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”. > “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice. > According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.

voxic11 7y ago
I think you can be contagious 18 days after exposure, isn't the incubation period around 2 weeks? And we know there are asymptomatic cases so a lack of symptoms after that period doesn't mean he isn't contagious. However if he was indeed the only employee asked to quarantine that is highly suspicious.
- btilly 7y ago
  The incubation period averages 5 days or so. The 2 weeks figure is because we're reasonably confident that if you haven't turned up with symptoms in 2 weeks, you aren't going to.
  - nck4222 7y ago
    > reasonably confident that if you haven't turned up with symptoms in 2 weeks, you aren't going to. Visible symptoms aren't the only concern, you can be contagious without symptoms, and there are studies showing that 50% of all infections could be asymptomatic - https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180 https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.20...
    - btilly 7y ago
      Agreed. I was precisely stating the reasoning behind the number we see everywhere. I was not offering an opinion on whether that reasoning is sufficient to prevent the spread of COVID-19. That said, in an emergency it makes sense to focus on people with symptoms and tell everyone else to act like they might be exposed. In which case people who have been exposed and have symptoms should act like you want everyone else to act. Which means that if they are working in a warehouse, you want them to have protective gear to prevent them from giving it to people. Which is exactly one of the things that this strike was about.
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      But if you've been asymptomatic for 2 weeks you are at very low risk for infecting anyone else.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  The incubation period is 2 to 14 days, with 5 days being the median.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > The incubation period is 2 to 14 days, with 5 days being the median. However, there are reports of cases with an incubation period of up to 27 days. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incubation-period/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incuba...
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      What do you think is more likely, that after more than 2 weeks of not giving a shit about quarantining an employee, suddenly Amazon was worried about a 0.01% outlier of 27 days before symptoms showed, or that this was a retaliatory action for the worker attempting to organize a strike. I sure know what I'd be placing a large amount of money on if I was a betting man.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        Tangent: would you make a bet on a question of fact where there is no authority you and your betting partner mutually trust to decide?
    - three_seagrass 7y ago
      >there are reports of cases with an incubation period of up to 27 days. There is only one report based on one case of a 70 year old man in Hubei province, based on contact testing, and did not rule out that he contacted it later.
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      And this would be a total reasonable defense if they quarantine any worker who has any contact with anyone who is infected for any amount of time for 27 days. But that' isn't a policy the company follows. Also they let him work during the 2 weeks he was most likely to be contagious.
rayuela 7y ago
These here are the important details about this and it looks pretty egregious on Amazon's behalf. Imagine the sort of leverage they could wield over their employees if they are able to get away with this kind of behavior?
kevingadd 7y ago
If it took them that long to discover the exposure and notify the worker that really proves the workers' case that they're being subjected to an unsafe work environment. They're striking for protective gear and Amazon's response is to go 'oops, we didn't notice you were exposed weeks ago'? Ouch. Suddenly it's all Personal Responsibility when the worker's exposure happens even though Amazon could have prevented it.
Reedx 7y ago
We should apply rigor to both sides. Each has incentive to cherry pick and mislead. > key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th Did they claim that? I'm looking for a source on this. "According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March", but when you look at their linked source[1] it says: "Amazon confirmed an associate, who reported for work on 11 March, has since been diagnosed with Covid-19". > “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true. Pretty damning if so, though. > “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice. Viral transmission has no minimum timeline and often occurs at first point of contact (e.g., handshake) or cough/sneeze at any time. Kind of irresponsible to even print that quote without correcting the argument. It may be that Amazon retaliated, but stuff like this doesn't prove it. We need the hard facts. At this point it's unclear and sounds fishy on both sides. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/30/amazon-workers-strike-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/30/amazon-wo...
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  Ordering quarantine 3 weeks after exposure is the the big one.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true. From Vice >Amazon did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday morning asking how many people at the site have been ordered into self-quarantine Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain. It would be harder to explain why Amazon didn't put on quarantine an employee who was vocal about his exposure to the virus. At most it sounds like malevolent compliance.
eternalban 7y ago
IMO, the misuse of pandemic response procedures will not be limited to the private sector. The 'ideological clarity' of the novel virus is quite fearful [& provocative] ..
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
While I personally am leaning towards retalation explanation, both statements could be true. Assuming Corona exposure was just happy coincidence that would allow company to fire employee and maybe even suggest that the fired employee was responsible for endangering others health. Somewhat related, I have been receiving a lot unsolicited communications for signing various anti-amazon documents.

voxic11 7y ago

I think you can be contagious 18 days after exposure, isn't the incubation period around 2 weeks? And we know there are asymptomatic cases so a lack of symptoms after that period doesn't mean he isn't contagious. However if he was indeed the only employee asked to quarantine that is highly suspicious.

btilly 7y ago
The incubation period averages 5 days or so. The 2 weeks figure is because we're reasonably confident that if you haven't turned up with symptoms in 2 weeks, you aren't going to.
- nck4222 7y ago
  > reasonably confident that if you haven't turned up with symptoms in 2 weeks, you aren't going to. Visible symptoms aren't the only concern, you can be contagious without symptoms, and there are studies showing that 50% of all infections could be asymptomatic - https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180 https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.20...
  - btilly 7y ago
    Agreed. I was precisely stating the reasoning behind the number we see everywhere. I was not offering an opinion on whether that reasoning is sufficient to prevent the spread of COVID-19. That said, in an emergency it makes sense to focus on people with symptoms and tell everyone else to act like they might be exposed. In which case people who have been exposed and have symptoms should act like you want everyone else to act. Which means that if they are working in a warehouse, you want them to have protective gear to prevent them from giving it to people. Which is exactly one of the things that this strike was about.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    But if you've been asymptomatic for 2 weeks you are at very low risk for infecting anyone else.
jonny_eh 7y ago
The incubation period is 2 to 14 days, with 5 days being the median.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rumanator 7y ago
  > The incubation period is 2 to 14 days, with 5 days being the median. However, there are reports of cases with an incubation period of up to 27 days. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incubation-period/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incuba...
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    What do you think is more likely, that after more than 2 weeks of not giving a shit about quarantining an employee, suddenly Amazon was worried about a 0.01% outlier of 27 days before symptoms showed, or that this was a retaliatory action for the worker attempting to organize a strike. I sure know what I'd be placing a large amount of money on if I was a betting man.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      Tangent: would you make a bet on a question of fact where there is no authority you and your betting partner mutually trust to decide?
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    >there are reports of cases with an incubation period of up to 27 days. There is only one report based on one case of a 70 year old man in Hubei province, based on contact testing, and did not rule out that he contacted it later.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    And this would be a total reasonable defense if they quarantine any worker who has any contact with anyone who is infected for any amount of time for 27 days. But that' isn't a policy the company follows. Also they let him work during the 2 weeks he was most likely to be contagious.

rayuela 7y ago

These here are the important details about this and it looks pretty egregious on Amazon's behalf. Imagine the sort of leverage they could wield over their employees if they are able to get away with this kind of behavior?

kevingadd 7y ago

If it took them that long to discover the exposure and notify the worker that really proves the workers' case that they're being subjected to an unsafe work environment. They're striking for protective gear and Amazon's response is to go 'oops, we didn't notice you were exposed weeks ago'? Ouch. Suddenly it's all Personal Responsibility when the worker's exposure happens even though Amazon could have prevented it.

Reedx 7y ago

We should apply rigor to both sides. Each has incentive to cherry pick and mislead. > key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th Did they claim that? I'm looking for a source on this. "According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March", but when you look at their linked source[1] it says: "Amazon confirmed an associate, who reported for work on 11 March, has since been diagnosed with Covid-19". > “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true. Pretty damning if so, though. > “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice. Viral transmission has no minimum timeline and often occurs at first point of contact (e.g., handshake) or cough/sneeze at any time. Kind of irresponsible to even print that quote without correcting the argument. It may be that Amazon retaliated, but stuff like this doesn't prove it. We need the hard facts. At this point it's unclear and sounds fishy on both sides. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/30/amazon-workers-strike-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/30/amazon-wo...

jonny_eh 7y ago
Ordering quarantine 3 weeks after exposure is the the big one.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true. From Vice >Amazon did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday morning asking how many people at the site have been ordered into self-quarantine Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain. It would be harder to explain why Amazon didn't put on quarantine an employee who was vocal about his exposure to the virus. At most it sounds like malevolent compliance.

eternalban 7y ago

IMO, the misuse of pandemic response procedures will not be limited to the private sector. The 'ideological clarity' of the novel virus is quite fearful [& provocative] ..

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

While I personally am leaning towards retalation explanation, both statements could be true. Assuming Corona exposure was just happy coincidence that would allow company to fire employee and maybe even suggest that the fired employee was responsible for endangering others health. Somewhat related, I have been receiving a lot unsolicited communications for signing various anti-amazon documents.