COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (2 Viewers)

[Dago]

I've been reading some articles on how China's economy is in serious trouble.....those of working age are having difficulty finding jobs and the ratio between working age people and those that are elderly/retired is at a very dangerous level.

Then I saw this story here and it makes me wonder if China is allowing covid to go on rampage on purpose

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/16/china/china-cremation-data-covid-19-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[Dago]

I don't understand why it matters.

I can think of a few (if the lab leak is true)

1) Officially there are 7 million dead but we know it is FAR higher....we are talking about at least 7 million cases of manslaughter at the very least
2) During the pandemic, anybody who suggested it could have been leaked from the lab was crucified (figuratively) and censored for spreading 'misinformation'
3) The coverup made it far worse by delaying actions that could have saved lives

 

[J-Donk]

I can think of a few (if the lab leak is true)

1) Officially there are 7 million dead but we know it is FAR higher....we are talking about at least 7 million cases of manslaughter at the very least
2) During the pandemic, anybody who suggested it could have been leaked from the lab was crucified (figuratively) and censored for spreading 'misinformation'
3) The coverup made it far worse by delaying actions that could have saved lives

It's not just that. It should permanently kill all gain of function research.

Also, all the scientist who signed the "It can't be a lab leak" letter back in March of 2020 should be ostracized out of the field. They should be on a government blacklist to never receive funding again.

 

[Eeyore]

I can think of a few (if the lab leak is true)

1) Officially there are 7 million dead but we know it is FAR higher....we are talking about at least 7 million cases of manslaughter at the very least
2) During the pandemic, anybody who suggested it could have been leaked from the lab was crucified (figuratively) and censored for spreading 'misinformation'
3) The coverup made it far worse by delaying actions that could have saved lives

I think that people, in general, are too stupid to protect themselves even if there is complete transparency and everything that they need is provided for them. There could have been a proven vaccine available a decade in advance with with a multi-month warning and the same people who have refused would have refused.



Example: We know that seatbelts save lives and limit injuries. The seatbelts are provided for us. We are educated about their use and effectiveness. We are mandated to use them. Automotive manufacturers install safeguards on some vehicles that prevent operation without them in use.

 

[Dago]

I think that people, in general, are too stupid to protect themselves even if there is complete transparency and everything that they need is provided for them. There could have been a proven vaccine available a decade in advance with with a multi-month warning and the same people who have refused would have refused.



Example: We know that seatbelts save lives and limit injuries. The seatbelts are provided for us. We are educated about their use and effectiveness. We are mandated to use them. Automotive manufacturers install safeguards on some vehicles that prevent operation without them in use.

I don't disagree but the fact that people do stupid sheet doesn't change what I said or would it absolve those involved

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials released an intelligence report Friday that rejected several points raised by those who argue COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab, instead reiterating that American spy agencies remain divided over how the pandemic began.

The report was issued at the behest of Congress, which in March passed a bill giving U.S. intelligence 90 days to declassify intelligence related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Intelligence officials during the Biden administration have been pushed by lawmakers to release more material about the origins of COVID-19. But they have repeatedly argued China’s official obstruction of independent reviews has made it perhaps impossible to determine how the pandemic began.

The newest report is likely to anger Republicans who say the administration is wrongly withholding classified information and researchers who accuse the U.S. of not being forthcoming.



There was newfound interest from researchers following the revelation earlier this year that the Department of Energy’s intelligence arm had issued a report arguing for a lab-related incident.

But Friday’s report said the intelligence community has not gone further. Four agencies still believe the virus was transferred from animals to humans, and two agencies — the Energy Department and the FBI — believe the virus leaked from a lab. The CIA and another agency have not made an assessment.

Located in the city where the pandemic is believed to have began, the lab has faced intense scrutiny for its previous research into bat coronaviruses and its reported security lapses.……

US intelligence report on COVID-19 origins rejects some points raised by lab leak theory proponents

A new U.S. intelligence report rejects several points raised by those who argue COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab. It instead reiterates that American spy agencies remain divided over how the pandemic began. Some think it was caused by a lab accident; others think it naturally transmitted from...

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

When the Biden administration declared the end of the Covid-19 public health emergency this spring, the last mask mandate holdouts began to jettison the requirement. Unconscionably, this has included many hospitals and health care facilities.

There’s no question that masks are annoying and add to hospitals’ costs, but that in no way justifies adopting policies that could endanger the very populations health care centers are supposed to serve. Those at highest risk for severe disease and death from Covid also happen to be the ones who generally need to access health care the most.

And while Covid hospitalizations and deaths may be lower, hospitals could still be risky for many since they are places where sick people congregate – and those who come there often have no option of skipping care to protect themselves, lest their health deteriorate from something else.

Indeed, hospitals that are removing masking measures are applying the wrong lesson from combating Covid: Our success doesn’t mean we can get rid of all the measures that kept the vulnerable safe, but that we have identified new tools to use in maintaining health. Masks are one of them, and they don’t just help against Covid, but against other respiratory illnesses, such as the flu, for which immunocompromised groups are at high risk as well.

Hospital-acquired infections have long been a problem in the United States – according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 1 in every 31 patients acquires at least one infection from a health care setting. This amounts to about 1.7 million infected patients and 98,000 deaths a year and results in at least $28.4 billion in additional health care costs.

We should be trying to reduce these numbers, not add to them. And, in other ways, hospitals are trying to do just that, such as by encouraging frequent handwashing, collecting data about infections and maintaining a hygienic facility. Handwashing, for instance, can prevent 50% of avoidable infections obtained during health care delivery, according to the World Health Organization.


Covid can also be a hospital-acquired infection – and when so, it can pose more of a threat than elsewhere. Scientists in the UK reported in the journal Frontiers in Immunology that between January 2020 and September 2021, the risk of death was 1.3 times higher for those who get Covid after arriving in the hospital rather than those who contracted it in the community, as this group had a high number of cancer and transplant patients..............

MSN

 

[Booker]

Deer spread COVID to humans multiple times, new research suggests

Researchers also found humans have likely spread the virus to deer at least hundreds of times.

www.yahoo.com

 

[gboudx]

This past Monday was "Return to Work" at the company I'm employed. People who are designated "full-time office" must work in a building 3-5 days a week. There has been plenty of push-back since this was first brought up late last year, with people commenting on how productive they are from home, their commute will limit productivity, etc. In the end the company said here's the policy, everyone must adhere to it, if someone doesn't like it, we hope they give it a chance for a few weeks, but if it's not for them, then they're free to find employment elsewhere. There are people who haven't badged into any building since the lockdown started in March 2020. And the parking situation is terrible, but it was terrible pre-Covid as well.

 

[Booker]

This past Monday was "Return to Work" at the company I'm employed. People who are designated "full-time office" must work in a building 3-5 days a week. There has been plenty of push-back since this was first brought up late last year, with people commenting on how productive they are from home, their commute will limit productivity, etc. In the end the company said here's the policy, everyone must adhere to it, if someone doesn't like it, we hope they give it a chance for a few weeks, but if it's not for them, then they're free to find employment elsewhere. There are people who haven't badged into any building since the lockdown started in March 2020. And the parking situation is terrible, but it was terrible pre-Covid as well.

That's interesting, as my employer is also now requiring everyone to be in the office at least 3 days a week also as of this past Monday. The office "reopened" after two years with most people fully remote in April of 2022, but likewise, there are people who haven't been seen since March 2020. And that's not including people who will come into the office if there is a specific meeting or function to attend and then head out right after.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

I think companies that are stubborn about requiring people to come in to the office when it isn't absolutely necessary are going to have a hard time recruiting and retaining good employees.

The job market right now is pretty tight, so employees have more leverage than they usually have.

 

[gboudx]

And that's not including people who will come into the office if there is a specific meeting or function to attend and then head out right after.

This company isn't really checking if people are in the office and collaborating. The metric being used is badge-in rates. You could scan your badge at the front door, turn around and go home, and you would be counted as being badged-in. We don't badge-out, so there's no way to track how long an employee was at the office. If someone wanted to game it, they easily could.

 

[gboudx]

I think companies that are stubborn about requiring people to come in to the office when it isn't absolutely necessary are going to have a hard time recruiting and retaining good employees.

The job market right now is pretty tight, so employees have more leverage than they usually have.

I think companies are willing to take that chance. As more and more companies adopt a hybrid/flexible work model, employees won't have much choice if they only want to work remote. And from what I see here, I feel like this mandate has an intended, but not informed purpose to reduce headcount via attrition rather than layoffs. This reduces costs to the company by not paying out severance. For sure, some employees are deemed to be virtual and they are allowed to work remote. I also think that if a high performing employee is mandated to come in 3-5 days a week, but threatens to leave, the company has provided enough flexibility in the policy to make exceptions.

 

[Booker]

This company isn't really checking if people are in the office and collaborating. The metric being used is badge-in rates. You could scan your badge at the front door, turn around and go home, and you would be counted as being badged-in. We don't badge-out, so there's no way to track how long an employee was at the office. If someone wanted to game it, they easily could.

That's basically the same thing the company I work for is doing. Once your badge is scanned is shows you were in the office that day, doesn't matter how long you stay.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

I think companies are willing to take that chance. As more and more companies adopt a hybrid/flexible work model, employees won't have much choice if they only want to work remote. And from what I see here, I feel like this mandate has an intended, but not informed purpose to reduce headcount via attrition rather than layoffs. This reduces costs to the company by not paying out severance. For sure, some employees are deemed to be virtual and they are allowed to work remote. I also think that if a high performing employee is mandated to come in 3-5 days a week, but threatens to leave, the company has provided enough flexibility in the policy to make exceptions.

Companies that take that chance will regret it.

Many of them are tied into commercial real estate right now, so they are trying to force employees to suffer because of that.

There is really no good reason to force many employees to come to the office, and companies that adapt to maximizing remote work are going to be more successful going forward.