Official Off Topic Discussion Thread #1
- Thread starter Chrisplosion
- Start date
hahaha
1. Who would rige a lawn mower in a store?
2. Who ever wrote that don't write good. ??(doesnt use uses proper grammar)
3. who would be buying patio furniture right now?
Hello; For a serious answer, yes it is. I think it is the same as an area clothing store announcing they will be steaming any clothes a customer tries on but does not buy. I guess they figure sitting on the items will leave them potentially contaminated.
To my thinking it is a protocol too far. By that I mean there is a potential for each item in the store to be handled by someone infected. Or an infected person may cough or sneeze onto items. I started to consider this some weeks ago.
Everything I bring home is considered to be potentially contaminated and I take steps accordingly. If it is something I do not need I simply set it aside for three or four days. If something I need to use right away I wipe it down with a Clorox solution or just leave it in the sun for a little while.
I guess the do not sit on stuff seems sensible if you do not think it out much.
When someone goes to Lowes for a job interview and they start going through their list of qualifications, i'm taking it that english isn't needed!!!
Hello; What I heard is this is due to them only using fresh ground beef, not frozen. There are plenty of the animals right now but the meat processing plants are either closed or running at reduced capacity.
The bigger problem may be a long term result. Some are just killing off livestock they cannot sell now. I guess it winds up in landfills. That is bad enough with hunger increasing. Part of the problem can be the slim profit margins animal and crop farmers run at. They already have an investment in materials needed to produce this crop currently going to waste. Plowing under or killing off the current crops costs them money.
A couple of guys here in Claiborne County TN run a small herd of black angus in a pasture next to my property. I think they have 25 to 30 cattle at any one time. Toward the end of last summer the excessive rains stopped for a few weeks. We had an excess of total rain for the year but that dry spell was timed just right to cost them extra money. The fall grass did not grow well so they had to supplement the cattle with hay some weeks earlier than normal. Normal is to feed hay during the winter months.
They may be able to hold off a while this spring as we are again having excess rain over normal, but eventually they will have to make some culls. I think the immediate problem is some of the young cattle are close to becoming mature. Not a problem for the females but some are males. My understanding is they need to get rid of the males before dominance issues arise. I will ask to be sure next time I see one of the guys.
They have had a really big male for several years (I call him Big Mack). He likes to rest under some trees that border my place. I have not seen him lately so will ask about him. But it is my understanding they only need one male to service the cows so the young males are sold off when they put on the best weight according to a feeding cost formula. Even if they can manage to keep a few males a bit longer there will come a time when the acreage does not support the extra amount cattle to feed.
Not sure it fits the same but to me the food production workers are at a similar lever to health care workers in terms of critical jobs. They are some less likely to come into contact with an infected covid19 person than a health care worker, but it has happened. Being less likely is not the same as not going to happen.
Saw some video last night of milk being dumped and a semi trailer of potatoes being unloaded on the ground. Just two examples of what appears to be happening all across our (USA) food production sites. This caused more dread for me than the virus has so far. I get how early on the "experts" came up with dire predictions that scared our leaders into taking drastic measures. We are lucky so far in the sense that while the virus is deadly, it is not proving as deadly as predicted early on. My big concern has been the negative effects of the very extreme restrictions placed on us. Some of the things made sense, but many are a rule too far.
It appears so far Sweden has taken what may prove to be the better path. They had some guidelines and practices to help with the infections but did not shutdown in the same dire way as other countries. They managed to keep the medical system from being overrun (flatten the curve so to speak) with apparently much less damage to their economy. A few days ago it seemed they have heard immunity approaching 30% already. I get that the tale is not yet fully told and that a final reckoning may be different, but their plan may be the one to give the better outcome.
Hello; I commented on the testing for covid19 in another thread (ebola round 2) some time back. The fuss over testing continues with some strange twists. I figure some of the fuss involves politics and will not get into that stuff.
Some parts about testing for active cases does not exactly line up in a rational manner to me. Let me first acknowledge there is clear value in testing for active cases in some situations. If a person feels ill and has some fear they may have the new virus then yes a test for the active virus makes sense. It seems that the earlier an infected person can get some treatments then the better for them. Even when going in a hospital is not needed the infected person will know to self quarantine. I can see the need to test medical workers often and a few other such cases. Maybe old folks homes and such.
The part of active virus testing that is confusing is the call for everyone to somehow be tested. I guess he call must include everyone to be tested every few days. After all I could have a negative test today and become infected within minutes after. I guess if the capacity to test all 300+ million in the USA every few days did exist some argument could be made.
I saw a Knoxville TV station giving locations where anyone who wanted a test could drive by last weekend if they wanted. I did not make the trip. Yes, testing for the active viral infection is a good and very useful tool in some situations. My guess is somehow this testing is something many have latched onto as a thing to do, but some parts of what I am seeing does not seem completely rational.
I know it is not the same thing but somewhere in the last weeks have been reports of animal shelters having all of their animals adopted out. Some for the first time ever I guess. One of my neighbors is a vet student and I did ask him about it. He thinks it is because they are bored. Better than my best guess as I had not a clue. I asked him what might happen after this temporary event is over what might happen to all the animals. My thinking is that before the lockdowns these folks had reasons to not have a pet and likely some very good reasons. The people and pets will do ok while the lockdowns last but what about later when they go back to work or such. If they had good reasons to not have a pet before, should not those same reasons come back into play after?
To me the only test I look forward to is a reliable antibody test. There is a pretty decent chance I have already been exposed to the virus. If so I should have antibodies and very likely will be immune for a while. A large number of folks are infected without any symptoms, maybe 50% or more. Maybe not 50% in the final tally but some for sure. Others, like me, had a dry cough for a few weeks back in Feb and may have had only mild symptoms. That would mean I can go out and about without a mask or fear. I could also donate plasma for treatment of those who are the most ill.
Some parts about testing for active cases does not exactly line up in a rational manner to me. Let me first acknowledge there is clear value in testing for active cases in some situations. If a person feels ill and has some fear they may have the new virus then yes a test for the active virus makes sense. It seems that the earlier an infected person can get some treatments then the better for them. Even when going in a hospital is not needed the infected person will know to self quarantine. I can see the need to test medical workers often and a few other such cases. Maybe old folks homes and such.
The part of active virus testing that is confusing is the call for everyone to somehow be tested. I guess he call must include everyone to be tested every few days. After all I could have a negative test today and become infected within minutes after. I guess if the capacity to test all 300+ million in the USA every few days did exist some argument could be made.
I saw a Knoxville TV station giving locations where anyone who wanted a test could drive by last weekend if they wanted. I did not make the trip. Yes, testing for the active viral infection is a good and very useful tool in some situations. My guess is somehow this testing is something many have latched onto as a thing to do, but some parts of what I am seeing does not seem completely rational.
I know it is not the same thing but somewhere in the last weeks have been reports of animal shelters having all of their animals adopted out. Some for the first time ever I guess. One of my neighbors is a vet student and I did ask him about it. He thinks it is because they are bored. Better than my best guess as I had not a clue. I asked him what might happen after this temporary event is over what might happen to all the animals. My thinking is that before the lockdowns these folks had reasons to not have a pet and likely some very good reasons. The people and pets will do ok while the lockdowns last but what about later when they go back to work or such. If they had good reasons to not have a pet before, should not those same reasons come back into play after?
To me the only test I look forward to is a reliable antibody test. There is a pretty decent chance I have already been exposed to the virus. If so I should have antibodies and very likely will be immune for a while. A large number of folks are infected without any symptoms, maybe 50% or more. Maybe not 50% in the final tally but some for sure. Others, like me, had a dry cough for a few weeks back in Feb and may have had only mild symptoms. That would mean I can go out and about without a mask or fear. I could also donate plasma for treatment of those who are the most ill.
Hello; Not familiar with H.R. 6666.
Contact tracing is a good practice if you can start it early. I fear that boat has sailed and contact tracing is much less effective now. The virus is too well established and wide spread now. Do not get me wrong, contact tracing is a useful tool in some situations. Early on in an outbreak before there are too many infected it can be the better tool.
I can see it working out in some more rural areas where folks are not crowded together so much. My area is a good example. I think we had a total of five cases in my home county last I knew of. With that few cases the trail of contact might be possible.
Later on after the virus starts to wind down when a decent number of a population have already been infected it may work better again.
The bigger problem with this virus has been so many infected do not have symptoms. Thai allowed the virus to become widespread as there was not a trail of actually sick people to follow.
Look into it when you get some time.I would like to see your take on it.
