I mean, you aren't even stepping out of the car—they’re basically walking around in hazmat suits. We’re running these tests specifically to find the positive cases. If the people who actually suspect they might be sick refuse to show up, then what’s the whole point of testing in the first place?
Rachel Jones8 said:I get what you're saying. But if you're just self-isolating without any actual symptoms... then a negative test doesn't really change anything, right? What's even the point?
Look, there’s nothing to lose here. Nobody is checking your rapid test results to see if you’re actually in quarantine or just sitting on your couch—it’s not like there's some federal inspector at the door. You just have to claim you've got some COVID symptoms. And let's be honest, isn't everything a symptom these days? It's a slippery slope. I drove all the way to the clinic for nothing—got a negative result when I was actually hoping for a positive one. At this point, a positive test feels like hitting the jackpot in the state lottery. Besides, the crowds are gone. Those ladies in full hazmat suits are probably bored out of their minds anyway.
Legally speaking, sick leave starts at a minimum of 75%—though, of course, an employer can choose to be more generous if their own policy dictates it. Usually, during that first month, the cost falls directly on the employer. Once you hit that window, things shift over to the state unemployment office, where the benefit is capped at $4,250. Naturally, a company can always opt to pay out more if they actually care about their employees. Unless, of course, they’ve gone and changed the rules on us.
Zachary Smith44 said:Anyone here who went through the hassle of claiming isolation pay from Medicare—assuming you’re pulling in more than $1417 take-home per month—mind doing the math for me? Like, what was the actual daily rate they cut you a check for?
What does salary even have to do with it? Isolation pay is set at $4,250 a month. Just take that, look at how many business days are in the month, and run the numbers. It’s better to just stay positive, isn't it?
Honestly, it’s just ridiculous. They ought to send a damn detective to check in on everyone—figure out exactly when and why the whole thing started spiraling—but nobody seems to give a single damn about those first couple of days. It’s like those forty-eight hours don't even exist. Besides, there are probably at least twenty thousand people walking around feeling absolutely terrible right now without having any clue why... it’s a mess. How old are you anyway?
mellowskipper said:I didn't underestimate it. I am fully aware that it's a neurological symptom. I actually mentioned this a few days ago—saying I plan to get a brain MRI in about two years—and some people actually mocked me for it.
Sent from my iPhone 15 using Reddit
Well, there’s really no reason to laugh. If you ask me, medical imaging isn't harmful, so why wouldn't you do it? Who doesn't like peace of mind? Granted, it's always a bit of a toss-up what you'll actually find, but it could potentially catch an aneurysm or something similar. Might as well make it useful. As we age, we just collect more "wear and tear"—it's inevitable. You're bound to find something eventually. That's just life.
mellowskipper said:Either you guys managed to isolate yourselves well enough that he didn't catch it—or maybe his immune system is just incredibly strong.
Personally, I’ve seen plenty of live examples of this, so I guess the only rule is that there aren't any rules. I just lost my sense of smell and taste, but I do have antibodies. A colleague of mine from my office—totally asymptomatic—has three times the antibodies I do. Then there's a younger colleague who just had a headache and some fatigue for two days. Yet, he has enough antibodies to look like he survived a ventilator. Another young female colleague spent four days with her husband before it turned out he had COVID-19, so they split up. She didn't catch it, and she doesn't have antibodies.
Sent from my iPhone 15 using Reddit
That is all anecdotal evidence. However—and I think you're underestimating the loss of taste and smell—that is a neurological symptom. It's a sign that the virus has breached the nasal mucosa (your first line of defense) and potentially reached the brain via the nerves connecting the nose to the skull. In that scenario, we are talking about a systemic variant of the disease. You can technically be asymptomatic while the virus spreads to your heart and blood vessels, where it can cause severe damage. With a systemic form of the illness, you'll trigger a massive immune response—one you might not even realize is happening.
Honestly, I think those kids have brought enough viruses and bacteria through our front door over the last decade to make me practically immune. This thing doesn't stand a chance against my system. 😬 Not seeing any symptoms at all... 🙂
A lot of people seem to possess immunity driven primarily by T cells—it’s a different mechanism entirely. In these cases, the virus simply fails to trigger a severe enough reaction for the body to bother producing antibodies. Essentially, cytotoxic T cells step in and wipe out the infected cells before the virus even gets a chance to replicate effectively. They’ll likely end up testing positive on a PCR test, sure, but they almost never actually show symptoms. Most people who experience those mild, nagging symptoms don't even develop antibodies. It’s usually the ones with moderate issues who do, and then you have the severe cases—those folks almost always produce them.
Alright, I missed that point—but honestly, once you have kids in the picture, all those isolation rules go right out the window. You aren't just going to lock your own mother away. Personally? I’d much rather be at the office. There’s nobody there anyway, and the building is huge and fully climate-controlled—meaning the air is constantly being cycled through. But no, I have to stay home. I actually ordered a rapid test hoping it comes back positive. If it doesn't, I'll just get the antibody test done later. My oldest was practically crawling all over me while he was infectious before we even realized he had tested positive by pure chance. And he was definitely more clingy during this bout. 😬 which means he was crawling all over both me and Mom.
So, yeah—all that nonsense about self-isolating at home only really works if you don't have children. By the time you realize a kid is positive, you've already been exposed. And if you haven't been infected yet, you likely won't be because you're already immune. Besides, most families have kids. The only exception might be when visiting grandparents, though they've both already recovered from it.
So, are you really going to distance yourself from a small child just because they tested positive? Is that where we're at now? Do you even have kids of your own?
frozengardener7 said:I recently finished reading Samuel Huntington’s famous book, Clash of Civilizations—admittedly a bit late—and it really got me thinking. However, I feel everything I gathered was more vividly elaborated upon in the documentary "All Being White in Barking," which essentially visualizes everything dear Sam set out to carry out himself.
Do you think multiculturalism is actually successful in the West? Can different civilizations truly coexist? In theory, this all sounds beautiful and, above all, humane (and that is my stance—HUMANELY speaking—so please don't hit me with any racist elaborations), but does it actually hold up in practice?
In one segment of an interview, an American couple visits a Black family and brings over a bottle of alcohol (a gift basket, the wife says, though she feels it looks a bit too fancy) but the family doesn't drink. Still, in an effort to be good hosts, the family serves them some traditional meat dish (mind you, these are Americans who can eat almost anything) and they are visibly revolted, barely able to swallow it. In another part of the same program, an American man (whose daughter suffered violence at the hands of a Black man) points to a Black woman in traditional African clothing and remarks, "See, this is integration. They are in the West, yet they dress like they're back in their homeland..." It is somewhat paradoxical, especially regarding people from Islamic states fleeing a country that stands in opposition to the West, only to attempt to recreate their own distinct nations within Western states. And indeed, as depicted in the documentary, the shops and markets bear an irresistible resemblance to immigrant enclaves, and I must admit, Huntington's clash of civilizations is clearly visible there. Particularly interesting is the end of the documentary when an Albanian family is asked if they would like a Black man as a son-in-law for their daughter, and they say, "Yes, of course, we have no issue with other races." But then they are asked if they would want a Mexican as a son-in-law. Naturally, there is just a blank stare into the camera followed by a slight side-eye. What can I say? I am witnessing not just an external conflict, but an internal one as well. And we know that, for instance, Anglo-Saxon countries aren't particularly fond of Slavic ones, etc.
Returning to Huntington. The West—once fractured by kingdoms, then by ideologies—seems like a complicated concept, yet it remains unified by its influence on the rest of the world (the West versus everyone else). However, when it comes to Western equality and freedom, the matter is deeply paradoxical. Not only do we fail to see unifying liberal factors amidst the fractures, but according to certain data, the idea that "freedom = the West" is viewed as a total fallacy by the global citizen.
My question to you: Can cultures adapt to coexistence and give rise to a new, better, or more humane race, or is it the opposite? Furthermore, how do you believe the clash of civilizations manifests in theory versus how it manifests in practice? I hope this discussion doesn't veer in the wrong direction; I find these topics particularly fascinating, and they are subjects that must be discussed.
There is no paradox here. They didn't flee from Islam; they are Muslims. They fled poverty. Some might have even fled the extreme stubbornness associated with it, but not from Islam itself. Ghettoization is a choice. Honestly, if heaven forbid I had to move to Switzerland, I’d much rather live in an working-class urban neighborhood than a Swiss one. You know the vibe—the grill is smoking, the neighbor yells for you to come over for a beer, kids are jumping around from dawn till dusk, dogs are barking... wives are teasing their husbands... Rather than having a Swiss neighbor glare at me because my lawn is 0.23mm taller than the legal limit—measured by a tool certified by the local municipal office for grass measurement, accurate to within +/- 1 micrometer.
Nicole James said:If 20 percent of the population has actually been infected, then they still need at least that much more to reach herd immunity—meaning we'd be looking at 40,000 deaths.
In other words, for reasons that remain completely unexplained, we aren't seeing 10,000 deaths plus whatever else is needed to hit that herd immunity threshold. Personally, I don't think it's particularly wise to just bank on those "unexplained" reasons.
The number of people required to reach immunity is being overestimated. Just look at the curve in New York City; they’re getting close. Based on current data here in the States, it's easy to calculate that the IFR is lower than 0.15%. Why there is such a massive discrepancy in mortality rates remains a mystery, but the data across different countries makes it clear. Anyway, lockdowns are just guesswork at this point. Look at the example of Israel.
Nicole James said:If that's the case, how do you explain the fact that over 20,000 people have already died in New York City, and they haven't even reached herd immunity yet?
They're getting close—you can see the curve has flattened out now. In the city itself, you've likely got about 20% of the population infected, which puts it at roughly 1.6 million people, and out of those, about 24,000 have passed away. That works out to an IFR of 1.5%. Now, America clearly has a significantly lower IFR, and honestly, there are massive discrepancies between different countries due to all sorts of inexplicable factors.
Nicole James said:We don't "practically" have a vaccine. We might have one by early next year—maybe. By summer, we might finally have enough doses to cover a significant portion of the population.
Quincy:
That isn't my math to do. That’s up to the WHO. Go complain to them if you're so concerned.
The WHO states that tuberculosis has been killing roughly 1.5 million people annually in recent years. This epidemic, for most of the world, has been going on for just over six months. Do the math.
Quincy:
I’m not interested in your abstract "cases." I want clinical presentations and actual deaths. Do us all a favor and produce real-time data regarding clinical symptoms and autopsy-confirmed fatalities. Then you can see what the numbers actually look like. I honestly don't understand how people fall for this fearmongering based on "cases"—a positive PCR test doesn't necessarily mean someone is sick or contagious, nor can it confirm a cause of death.
Were all those tuberculosis deaths you mentioned above confirmed via autopsy? ☕
Quincy:
Both of those things are happening for political reasons. But I don't quite grasp why everyone is pretending to be oblivious and accepting a PCR test as a definitive diagnosis of an illness.
Because PCR is the diagnostic gold standard?
Quincy:
I know. It's because you don't realize how effective fear is as a tool for control. And control is always in the interest of any establishment.
Right, which is exactly why authoritarian politicians everywhere try to downplay the danger... just look at Trump's "it will just go away" approach...
Look, I’m really not one to defend Trump, but we have to remember that the US is a federal republic—most of these decisions actually fall under the jurisdiction of individual states and their governors. If we were dealing with some kind of absolute dictator, sure, he might try to declare a national state of emergency... maybe. But you don't see things playing out that easily in America. Most of these governors have been dragging their feet on certain measures, hoping they could essentially trap Trump in a legal corner.😁
neonpuma30 said:Wait, what kind of math is that? How does 1.5% of 4 million equal 4,200?🤔
The mortality rate isn't actually that high—the IFR here in the States is sitting somewhere around 0.1%. Maybe even lower, if you ask me. Honestly, my gut feeling? This whole COVID situation in America is probably going to end up looking like just another average flu season—with or without all the restrictions. We’re likely looking at somewhere between 500 and 1,000 deaths. Just an estimate, of course.
You can track the percentage of positive tests right here:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing Right now, the US is sitting at 8.5%—but let’s be realistic—epidemics typically hit their peak when that number climbs somewhere between 30 and 40%.
Nicole James said:Not at all. It’s pretty obvious that contact tracing is becoming a thing of the past—which, frankly, feels like just another step toward exponential growth. We might get another month or two of breathing room, but then we'll likely face the Italian scenario: a massive spike followed by a total national lockdown, forcing us to start the whole process over from scratch...
There are just too many infected people at this point for contact tracing to even matter; it's become a pointless exercise. Once the temperature drops a bit more, that exponential curve is going to take its course—we're looking at a million people getting sick in ten or twenty days. At that stage, who cares who's living or dying? The virus will burn itself out in the next thirty days. That is quite literally our only hope for this madness to end. resistance is futile. 🧐