3 ms·

Right, to say they have no purpose at all is rather disingenuous, or belies a rather extreme view towards COVID. And as far as the virtue-signaling goes, there

Right, to say they have no purpose at all is rather disingenuous, or belies a rather extreme view towards COVID. And as far as the virtue-signaling goes, there is plenty of that from all sides. The one good point I thought he made was the creation of the ‘COVIDeaucracy’, which like any established bureauacracy can bias towards self-preservation vs. its original purpose.

WFHRenaissance 5y ago
Fair point RE bureaucratization. Similar perverse incentives exist for pretty much any organization touching COVID right now. Vaccine manufacturers, PPE manufacturers, hazard/risk consultancies, cleanup crews, et cetera. I'm not sure what will happen. I'm assuming that eventually COVID will become a relatively infectious but also relatively harmless virus (based on mostly conjecture from virologists online making some sort of evolutionary argument that I honestly have not appraised). We don't have seasonal flu inspectors, yet it can claim lives or at least weeks of someone's life at any time each year, and if we had sentries/surveillance to lower flu cases... well I could see that people a potentially popular option for these staff as well. I do think that COVID will probably end up looking a lot like "9/11 for health" in the next couple decades. As long as large projects/businesses have the $ to spend on making themselves more resilient to the risk of infectious disease I could see these teams justifying their existence. Ultimately, I think until the liability for the employer is eliminated or diminished we'll continue to see these teams do their work on set. I'm waiting for the first SCOTUS case RE COVID damages/compensation/liability. Maybe COVID waivers will be included in onboarding documents for new-hires in 2022? IDK! LOL