Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic


China

Recommended Posts

Retailers put brakes on Texas and Mississippi move to scrap mask mandates

 

As Texas and Mississippi move to join a dozen other U.S. states without statewide mask requirements, many major retailers and employers aren't ready to nix face covering requirements amid a pandemic that killed more than 1,800 Americans on Tuesday alone.

 

The governors of both states said they are dispensing with mask mandates and allowing businesses to operate at full capacity. 

 

"We must now do more to restore livelihoods and normalcy for Texans by opening Texas 100 percent," Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement. "We are ensuring that all businesses and families in Texas have the freedom to determine their own destiny."

 

In Mississippi, Governor Tate Reeves is also lifting mask mandates for all counties, saying his office is "getting out of the business of telling people what they can and can't do." 

 

Despite the push to reopen, Texas and Mississippi residents will still need to wear face masks if they want to step inside many supermarkets and other large retail chains. The retailers, which include Kroger, Target and Walgreens, cited guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in continuing to require masks and take other measures to protect workers and consumers from the virus. 

 

"There is no change at this time to the company mask mandate policy or any current safety protocols that are in place in our stores or any work locations to protect our customers and team members. We are following current CDC and OSHA guidelines regarding safety protocols," a spokesperson for Walgreens said in an email. 

 

The drugstore chain's policy all along has been to "gently remind customers who are shopping without masks about the requirement, but out of concern for our employees' safety, we do not stop these customers from shopping," a spokesperson added.

 

Another major pharmacy, CVS Health, will also keep its face covering policy in place at stores nationwide, with a CVS Health spokesperson citing the "strong scientific evidence that masks help prevent the spread of COVID-19."

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

"out of concern for our employees' safety, we do not stop these customers from shopping"

 

That basically means "We know anti-maskers can be bat**** insane and potentially violent and we don't want any of them to hurt our employees"


People without masks CAN hurt their employees by spreading COVID to them.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:


People without masks CAN hurt their employees by spreading COVID to them.

 

Good point. That's a pretty ****ty choice to have to make when it comes to your employees...protect them from direct violence by anti-maskers, or protect them from the virus potentially carried by anti-maskers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

Good point. That's a pretty ****ty choice to have to make when it comes to your employees...protect them from direct violence by anti-maskers, or protect them from the virus potentially carried by anti-maskers.

It is a ****ty choice and I get it. One of the main sources of my frustration and anger every day I work when I see maskless wonders,(or maskholes as someone on Twitter called them not too long ago),roaming through the store. Been as many as 12 to 14 scattered through store at the same time the past week on a consistent basis. Those of us who chose to understand this nasty little virus follow the rules and I really follow and enforce the 6 foot one. All but tell them to stay the **** away from me. I actively avoid them and the area they've been hovering in when applicable  Best we can do. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw on Chris Hayes that there were 1,499 diagnosed cases of influenza this season in the US. 

We usually have about 200 pediatric deaths from flu every year...this season, the total was 1.  A single digit.  The most single digit. 

 

Masks work, people.  Social distancing and cleaning stuff down works.  Keep at it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

I just saw on Chris Hayes that there were 1,499 diagnosed cases of influenza this season in the US. 

We usually have about 200 pediatric deaths from flu every year...this season, the total was 1.  A single digit.  The most single digit. 

 

Masks work, people.  Social distancing and cleaning stuff down works.  Keep at it. 

 

 

Imagine if the US were to practice mask wearing and social distancing every flu season (like Asia). 

 

Here was the tweet.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Imagine if the US were to practice mask wearing and social distancing every flu season (like Asia). 

 

Here was the tweet.

 

 

I've already seen the Trumpers claim it's because they are misdiagnosing people with the flu and saying they have rona instead.  Been hearing that for months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best part of the maskholes is that they’re so unaware of their stupidity that they willfully display it publicly constantly and unintentionally 

 

my favorite is when they go any sort of rant about:

well they said this, then they said that

 

or

 

well they said this, and then that happened

 

 

 

how dumb does one have to be to expect the experts to get it right the first time, and quickly, when dealing with a global pandemic during the (so far) height of globalization 

?


and to take it one step further, to then use that to craft a - they’re wrong/lying/stupid - argument and walk around saying it to everyone with this little chuckle at the end that screams “I THINK I’M CLEVER!”


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I’m probably going to be wearing a mask in public for the foreseeable future. 

I’ve often thought about post pandemic life, and gone back and forth. 
 

on the one hand, data (and logic), clearly shows that without the pandemic mask wearing significant decreases the spread of viruses. Look at flu numbers. Something that kills 11k a year can be significantly lowered with masks. 
 

but I do wonder the long term effects of people not being exposed to (what we consider) routine viruses. 
 

I have that concern as someone who’s woefully unqualified to form an opinion on such a thing 😂 but it has been something I’ve been going back and forth in for months...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The COVID-19 Baby Bust Is Here

 

Angela Di Iorio wanted to be pregnant with her first baby by now. Instead, the 36-year-old Italian, who just postponed her wedding for a second time, is starting to wonder whether she should have a child at all.

 

“Our plan was always to get married and then to start a family," said Ms. Di Iorio, an osteopath from Rome whose fiance has been out of work for nearly a year, ever since a gym they co-own was forced to close because of measures to stop the spread of Covid-19. “We no longer have the kind of stability my partner and I worked so hard to achieve. And I’m getting older," she said.

 

A year into the pandemic, early data and surveys point to a baby bust in many advanced economies from the U.S. to Europe to East Asia, often on top of existing downward trends in births.

A combination of health and economic crises is prompting many people to delay or abandon plans to have children. Demographers warn the dip is unlikely to be temporary, especially if the pandemic and its economic consequences drag on.

 

“All evidence points to a sharp decline in fertility rates and in the number of births across highly developed countries," said Tomas Sobotka, a researcher at the Wittgenstein Center for Demography and Global Human Capital in Vienna. “The longer this period of uncertainty lasts, the more it will have lifelong effects on the fertility rate."

 

A survey carried out by Italian research group Osservatorio Giovani between late March and early April in Western Europe’s five largest countries—Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the U.K.—found that over two-thirds of respondents who initially planned to have a child in 2020 decided to postpone or abandon plans to conceive over the next year.

 

In the U.S., a survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization, found that one-third of women polled in late April and early May wanted to delay childbearing or have fewer children because of the pandemic.

 

The Brookings Institution estimated in December that, as a result of the pandemic, 300,000 fewer babies would be born in the U.S. in 2021 compared with last year. That estimate is based on survey evidence and the historical experience that a one-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate reduces the birthrate by roughly 1%.

 

For many countries, detailed data on births in late 2020 are still months away. Where numbers are available, they aren’t encouraging.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2021 at 8:58 AM, tshile said:

I’ve often thought about post pandemic life, and gone back and forth. 
 

on the one hand, data (and logic), clearly shows that without the pandemic mask wearing significant decreases the spread of viruses. Look at flu numbers. Something that kills 11k a year can be significantly lowered with masks. 
 

but I do wonder the long term effects of people not being exposed to (what we consider) routine viruses. 
 

I have that concern as someone who’s woefully unqualified to form an opinion on such a thing 😂 but it has been something I’ve been going back and forth in for months...

I’ve thought a bit about the post pandemic era and I think there may not be such a thing. I suspect that due to the (nonexistent) global warming, habitat loss and perhaps other environmental issues, pandemics may go from once per X hundred year phenomenon to maybe once every few decades. No basis for that view yet, just a gut feeling given the general warnings we’ve seen about changes caused by global warming. Yay.😒😒

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

I’ve thought a bit about the post pandemic era and I think there may not be such a thing. I suspect that due to the (nonexistent) global warming, habitat loss and perhaps other environmental issues, pandemics may go from once per X hundred year phenomenon to maybe once every few decades. No basis for that view yet, just a gut feeling given the general warnings we’ve seen about changes caused by global warming. Yay.😒😒


I bet you’re fun at parties.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is definitely scientific basis to the idea that global warming and deforestation can lead to species moving into civilized places they wouldn’t normally go and interacting with species they wouldn’t normally interact with, leading ultimately to more pandemics. 
 

But I think if we survived this one, which one can argue was under the worst circumstances possible, we can survive the next. As long as it’s not something ultra deadly like Ebola or some crazy **** like that. I mean think about it. Half of our country didn’t even believe it was a thing, and their leadership used it politically against them. That’s HOPEFULLY never going to happen again cause we must have learned from that right!?!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...