Started by Adam Doyle63 · · 👁 45 views · 1.4K replies
…
Elizabeth Wells2 said:Does anyone know how much sick pay you actually get if a doctor puts you on mandatory isolation? How does the process work? Do you file a claim through Medicare, and what’s the payout look like?
I've been ordered into isolation for 24 days.
🤣🤣
dustymarlin10 said:Pneumonia?
🙂
Pretty sure it's just 70% of your paycheck, same as any other sick leave.
Elizabeth Wells2 said:My wife tested positive, though I'm still clear. I have to stay in quarantine for another 14 days just in case symptoms develop.🙏
I'm looking for specifics from anyone who has actually been in quarantine—how much did your paycheck actually drop? I've looked online, but the details are a bit murky.
😁
dustymarlin10 said:So basically;
You're lying.
And when you get caught, what happens?
Instead of just admitting you're wrong and moving on, you start digging deeper with even more excuses.
Honestly, why am I even surprised?
dustymarlin10 said:The execution is still moving along.
Who even taught you how to do that?
Elizabeth Wells2 said:Does anyone know how much sick pay you actually get if a doctor puts you on mandatory isolation? How does the process work? Do you file a claim through Medicare, and what’s the payout look like?
I've been ordered into isolation for 24 days.
🤣🤣
Anthony Wood11 said:I have a question regarding self-isolation protocols; I want to ensure my understanding hasn't been flawed by misinformation.
If an individual comes into contact with someone who tested positive, does that necessitate a ten-day isolation period provided no symptoms manifest? And if symptoms do actually arise, does the duration then shift based on how long those symptoms persist? Furthermore, if I've grasped this correctly, can someone who tests positive via a PCR test but remains asymptomatic potentially conclude their isolation in less than ten days? From what I have gathered, one might remain PCR-positive for weeks on end without being infectious—supposedly just a few days after symptoms subside. Of course, this is entirely subject to the individual's specific biological response. If memory serves, during the initial rollout, health authorities were demanding a negative PCR result to end isolation, though it seems they eventually conceded that a person may no longer be contagious even before such a result is obtained.
"What is absolutely certain, based on the literature and scientific studies, is that both vaccinated individuals and those who have recovered can also briefly carry the virus on their mucosa and transmit it to someone else, though certainly to a much lesser extent than vulnerable people who, because they are susceptible, may fall ill and then—whether symptomatic or asymptomatic—spread the virus to others. To my knowledge, no one in the world has mandated testing for vaccinated people unless they are working with immunocompromised patients. In those cases, if exposure to a sick person is proven, they must be tested, which is clearly stated in our guidelines. We always maintain that regardless of vaccination or prior infection, standard epidemiological measures must still be followed, as these measures are essential for reducing the risk of spreading the infection to others," said Capak.
I suppose I should probably address this—though I’m not entirely sure if anyone actually cares to hear my take on it. It seems we've reached a point where everything needs to be dissected, doesn't it? I guess I’ll dive in, though I might wander off track—it happens—but let's see where this goes. kaže:
Here are the updated guidelines for self-isolation, effective October 1st, 2021.
If you’ve got someone sick in the house—say, a child being cared for by parents—where actual isolation just isn't an option, then the rest of the household basically enters quarantine. This starts once the sick person finally meets the criteria to end their own isolation period. Now, if you are in constant, close contact with them, I guess that technically means a full 20-day quarantine from the initial date of illness—that would be the ten days they are actually contagious, plus another ten days of quarantine following their last infectious day. Of course, this all hinges on two things: first, that the patient actually satisfies the requirements to stop isolating after those ten days, and second, that the contacts don't start showing symptoms themselves... which, I suppose, is something your primary care physician would have to evaluate and confirm.
So, I guess if my dietitian comes back from testing positive for COVID—assuming they actually use a standard test, of course—then me, my wife, and our other kid would all be stuck in quarantine for twenty days just because we share a roof? That seems... well, it's a bit much, I suppose. It’s basically saying that if one person in the household gets hit, everyone else is automatically sidelined for nearly three weeks. Just an observation, really.🤦
gentleharbor3 said:Let’s keep this going. Capak confirmed that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, so why aren't they being tested and sent into isolation when a close
family member gets sick?"What is absolutely certain, based on the literature and scientific studies, is that both vaccinated individuals and those who have recovered can also briefly carry the virus on their mucosa and transmit it to someone else, though certainly to a much lesser extent than vulnerable people who, because they are susceptible, may fall ill and then—whether symptomatic or asymptomatic—spread the virus to others. To my knowledge, no one in the world has mandated testing for vaccinated people unless they are working with immunocompromised patients. In those cases, if exposure to a sick person is proven, they must be tested, which is clearly stated in our guidelines. We always maintain that regardless of vaccination or prior infection, standard epidemiological measures must still be followed, as these measures are essential for reducing the risk of spreading the infection to others," said Capak.
Forget about "to a much lesser extent." That's total BS. The bottom line is whether they can transmit it or not, and the answer is: yes, they can!
It's the same logic as being able to get infected and develop symptoms; if you can catch it and feel it, you can pass it on.
The severity of the symptoms doesn't change the fact. There is only one truth here: vaccination
might protect YOU from the worst outcomes, but it doesn't stop the infection itself! It is high time this was clearly and publicly defined.
Besides, this guy is a terrible communicator. He's so bad at it he sounds like he has zero clue what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes.
He is literally contradicting the very information posted on his own agency's website.
And then people wonder why vaccination rates are so low. After all this, I wouldn't believe Capak if he told me it was raining outside.
fadedtrucker said:They basically extended the validity of those certificates for a year just as a bureaucratic move to force people into getting shots. That whole call is totally arbitrary and authoritarian; it isn't based on any actual medical or epidemiological data.
Basically, it's a reward for the rule-followers and a slap in the face to anyone pushing back. No authority figure ever backs down from their agenda, no matter how much it hurts the people they're trying to control.
Think about it: when you realize some toxic, selfish, narcissistic parent is trying to break a kid's will based on something that has zero BASIS, what happens? They don't apologize. They just get worse, more aggressive, and way more arrogant. That's exactly how the government acts. Exactly like that. Total psychopaths.
fadedtrucker said:They basically extended the validity of those certificates for a year just as a bureaucratic move to force people into getting shots. That whole call is totally arbitrary and authoritarian; it isn't based on any actual medical or epidemiological data.
Basically, it's a reward for the rule-followers and a slap in the face to anyone pushing back. No authority figure ever backs down from their agenda, no matter how much it hurts the people they're trying to control.
Think about it: when you realize some toxic, selfish, narcissistic parent is trying to break a kid's will based on something that has zero BASIS, what happens? They don't apologize. They just get worse, more aggressive, and way more arrogant. That's exactly how the government acts. Exactly like that. Total psychopaths.
Carol Kelly3 said:That’s just not true. I mean, a clearance proves someone was vaccinated, recovered, or recently tested—it confirms actual facts, and it lasts as long as it lasts. How the government chooses to use it is a different story. I’ve said before that it shouldn't be used for anything essential. If the people in power weren't such cowards—which seems to be the case everywhere in the West, I suppose—they could have used it as a work requirement. Then we'd see how brave those "experts" actually are.
Introductory remarks, maybe. You call the only people trying to help us out "psychopaths," but you don't seem to notice the actual aggressors and real sociopaths on the other side. 😵It’s probably going to take us a really long time to recover from this, especially since we've swallowed so much propaganda.
