gomerschlep said:

---

Apology accepted.

Until we really know how this effects different populations long term, specifically the risks for my sons specific condition, we are acting out of an abundance of caution. Some might say it's overkill, but I only have one child. I intend to keep it that way.

I will also say that the way our company has handled this is ridiculous. I barely trust them to make payroll, much less keep me and my family safe. That's our job.

---

Thank you.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And reporting them as "cases" for a virus with an IFR of about 0.3%?

To my knowledge we have never done this with any other respiratory spread infections including those with a higher IFR.

And I am not trying to be inflammatory, it just seems totally illogical and unprecedented.

---

The vast majority of asymptomatic testing in October 2020 is mandatory screening of employees and residents in high risk facilities. Nursing homes, long term care facilities, prisons/jails, dialysis centers, etc. The most common widespread use of asymptomatic testing in young healthy individuals not involved in such settings are athletes.

---

Where I went this morning, the lobby was full of people who were wearing their work "uniforms". Not scrubs, mind you, but t-shirts from bars and restaurants. I overheard many of them tell the front desk that their boss required a negative test for them to return because a coworker or a customer had tested positive. I asked one of them about it. Most of the people I know in town that aren't medical are all service industry, I've heard this story before.

He works at a popular local bar that has been open for some time because they used the "food" loophole. He said it's the 3rd time they've had to shut BACK down since the original shutdown. They open, someone gets sick, then they have to fumigate the place and everyone has to go get tested before they can open up. If you don't go get tested you're fired. If you test positive, it's no paycheck or tips until you come back with a negative test, if your job still exists by then. There are plenty of candidates looking.

To be fair to the bar owner, he was paying out of pocket for all the tests. The bar employees all had some kind of voucher with them.

gomerschlep said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And reporting them as "cases" for a virus with an IFR of about 0.3%?

To my knowledge we have never done this with any other respiratory spread infections including those with a higher IFR.

And I am not trying to be inflammatory, it just seems totally illogical and unprecedented.

---

The vast majority of asymptomatic testing in October 2020 is mandatory screening of employees and residents in high risk facilities. Nursing homes, long term care facilities, prisons/jails, dialysis centers, etc. The most common widespread use of asymptomatic testing in young healthy individuals not involved in such settings are athletes.

---

Where I went this morning, the lobby was full of people who were wearing their work "uniforms". Not scrubs, mind you, but t-shirts from bars and restaurants. I overheard many of them tell the front desk that their boss required a negative test for them to return because a coworker or a customer had tested positive. I asked one of them about it. Most of the people I know in town that aren't medical are all service industry, I've heard this story before.

He works at a popular local bar that has been open for some time because they used the "food" loophole. He said it's the 3rd time they've had to shut BACK down since the original shutdown. They open, someone gets sick, then they have to fumigate the place and everyone has to go get tested before they can open up. If you don't go get tested you're fired. If you test positive, it's no paycheck or tips until you come back with a negative test, if your job still exists by then. There are plenty of candidates looking.

To be fair to the bar owner, he was paying out of pocket for all the tests. The bar employees all had some kind of voucher with them.

---

I suppose it's his prerogative, but the owner is just wasting money. It's not gonna change anything.

The funny thing is most of the private businesses who do this don't even know or care what specific test their employees are getting, they just want "a negative test" which in a vacuum means nothing.

High risk facilities and jobs have specific testing protocols and timelines for testing that actually make the results somewhat meaningful and helpful in preventing outbreaks.

I agree, but it's not isolated to non-medical employers.

Mine is letting asymptomatic COVID+'s continue to come to work and provide direct patient care as long as they wear a procedure mask (we don't have enough N95s to go around).

gomerschlep said:

---

I agree, but it's not isolated to non-medical employers.

Mine is letting asymptomatic COVID+'s continue to come to work and provide direct patient care as long as they wear a procedure mask (we don't have enough N95s to go around).

---

That's certainly a huge liability. Sure, if someone correctly uses full contact/droplet precautions at all times, changes them from one patient to the next, washes their hands every time they don and doff, etc. they are low risk of transmitting (we're also finding asymptomatic patients are probably less likely to transmit than symptomatic patients). I certainly wouldn't risk it though in a healthcare setting.