3 ms·

It's the businesses choice to make healthcare a job benefit. I know we've gotten to where the practice it's common, but that doesn't make it any less of a busi

It's the businesses choice to make healthcare a job benefit. I know we've gotten to where the practice it's common, but that doesn't make it any less of a business decision. So what happens when companies start screening new hires for expensive health issues?

bastawhiz 5y ago
If the health issues were communicable to the other employees in the office, I would personally probably support those screenings. Besides being expensive for the company that pays me, it's entirely reasonable to expect my coworkers have done the absolute bare minimum to also protect me from an awful disease.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Fauci was also for banning hiv/ aids patients from public places in the 80s. Because a novel disease was thought to be more communicable, more deadly, and more of a pandemic than it really was.
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    > more deadly, and more of a pandemic than it really was Essentially 100% of people who contracted HIV in the 80s died from it. So I'm really not sure how you can say that it was thought to be "more deadly" or "more of a pandemic than it really was." HIV was a death sentence, and without treatment, it continues to be a death sentence. HIV and COVID-19 are not comparable, and the politics around them cannot be boiled down to a single person's opinion at any one point in time.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      No one cought it by having a conversation or casual contact at work or in public. >Essentially 100% of people who contracted HIV in the 80s died from it. You need highly contagious and deadly. Not or. Speed of spread/ death counts, as well. Besides, COVID was initially sold as being much more deadly than actually is. Hindsight makes justification/ lack of easy. Yet how long would the hypothetical lockdowns have taken credit for slowing the spread back then? Even without lockdowns, how long did the cooties stigma last? >cannot be boiled down to a single person's opinion at any one point in time. I've been told to trust the experts.
      - bastawhiz 5y ago
        Unfortunately, the only fact you've stated is this: > No one cought it by having a conversation or casual contact at work or in public. Correct. The transmission of HIV was also not understood. Nor was it even known to be a virus for quite some time, hence why it was called "the gay cancer." Part of the reason why it wasn't understood was the government's intentional apathy towards it, out of bigotry. > Besides, COVID was initially sold as being much more deadly than actually is. You might recall that the first wave completely depleted the availability of ventilators. In fact, this very website hosted links to DIY ventilator projects because the problem was so bad. Who are you to decide how much death is enough death to warrant concern? If the world healthcare systems cannot keep up, it's a problem. Five million people will have died by the end of the year. No other disease in US history has ever killed as many people. Your waffling about what makes a disease worthy of concern is unnecessary: salmonella only kills 0.4% of people who contract it, but we don't argue about restaurant staff using clean cooking equipment.

bastawhiz 5y ago

If the health issues were communicable to the other employees in the office, I would personally probably support those screenings. Besides being expensive for the company that pays me, it's entirely reasonable to expect my coworkers have done the absolute bare minimum to also protect me from an awful disease.

beerandt 5y ago
Fauci was also for banning hiv/ aids patients from public places in the 80s. Because a novel disease was thought to be more communicable, more deadly, and more of a pandemic than it really was.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  > more deadly, and more of a pandemic than it really was Essentially 100% of people who contracted HIV in the 80s died from it. So I'm really not sure how you can say that it was thought to be "more deadly" or "more of a pandemic than it really was." HIV was a death sentence, and without treatment, it continues to be a death sentence. HIV and COVID-19 are not comparable, and the politics around them cannot be boiled down to a single person's opinion at any one point in time.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    No one cought it by having a conversation or casual contact at work or in public. >Essentially 100% of people who contracted HIV in the 80s died from it. You need highly contagious and deadly. Not or. Speed of spread/ death counts, as well. Besides, COVID was initially sold as being much more deadly than actually is. Hindsight makes justification/ lack of easy. Yet how long would the hypothetical lockdowns have taken credit for slowing the spread back then? Even without lockdowns, how long did the cooties stigma last? >cannot be boiled down to a single person's opinion at any one point in time. I've been told to trust the experts.
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      Unfortunately, the only fact you've stated is this: > No one cought it by having a conversation or casual contact at work or in public. Correct. The transmission of HIV was also not understood. Nor was it even known to be a virus for quite some time, hence why it was called "the gay cancer." Part of the reason why it wasn't understood was the government's intentional apathy towards it, out of bigotry. > Besides, COVID was initially sold as being much more deadly than actually is. You might recall that the first wave completely depleted the availability of ventilators. In fact, this very website hosted links to DIY ventilator projects because the problem was so bad. Who are you to decide how much death is enough death to warrant concern? If the world healthcare systems cannot keep up, it's a problem. Five million people will have died by the end of the year. No other disease in US history has ever killed as many people. Your waffling about what makes a disease worthy of concern is unnecessary: salmonella only kills 0.4% of people who contract it, but we don't argue about restaurant staff using clean cooking equipment.