Valley Girl
-
Posts
1,977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Valley Girl
-
-
🙂
Well, there's an image I didn't need in my head before my second cup of coffee. Gee, thanks, Katie.
-
2
-
7
-
-
6 minutes ago, square_25 said:
I don't see any reason not to have social pressure for things that are globally a good idea, even when there are obviously going to be people who can't do it. Social pressure can be helpful to communicate to those who do have a choice.
The devil is in the details, then. Advertise and promote the benefits? Fine. Let people know if there is assistance with delivery charges? Great. Go the route of some other behavior that apparently passes for "social pressure" today, forget it.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:
I think there's a difference between "everyone should get delivery!" and wondering why people who CAN afford it aren't doing so. I know lots of people going to stores who don't have to, even in NYC, and I personally don't understand the decision.
I think a more robust governmental response would have frankly asked people to stay home entirely and paid for the deliveries, in the name of public health.
I suppose. That's still a one-size-fits-all solution that's not going to work for everyone for reasons that were mentioned upthread (substitutions, allergies, lack of slots, etc.). As long as it's acknowledged that the rest are still going to have to do things the old-fashioned way for a variety of reasons--and people don't get lectured or "socially pressured" to conform--that's fine. Options are good, and if people have slots available, can afford any extra cost, and are basically satisfied with the results, more power to them.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:
Agreed. Plus the practical aspects--with our delivery options here there is no way to say "I'd like a watermelon but only if it looks good--yellow underside instead of white, a dried stem, not green" or "3 mangoes, but if they don't look good I'd like a pineapple instead."
And of course not knowing what's even available makes ordering difficult to impossible. If I need main dishes for seven meals I need main dishes for seven meals. If I go in person and they don't have the boneless chicken thighs I wanted for Tuesday's dinner then I pick something else. Ordering online would likely mean I wouldn't get a meat protein for Tuesday's dinner at all.
Truthfully, I don't get why people don't understand that ordering online is full of difficulties.
Exactly. We are on an extremely limited budget and will continue to be for some time. I don't have extra to pay for delivery and tip. If a store is out of an item, I need to be able to make an on-the-spot substitution based on what's available and what I have at home. Because of cost/availability, I can't do all my shopping at one store Obviously, I try to minimize trips out, wear a mask, etc. but the whole "just order online" doesn't work for everyone and--as with so many other things--shows a lack of understanding that not everybody lives the same life.
-
6
-
-
54 minutes ago, Pen said:
I have no idea what Canada tolerates, but I think your relatives who were visited should call the Toronto, or wherever, police immediately.
Or, in fact, that with modern ease of long distance communicate you perhaps could do so.
If true, I would consider this a police matter.
I agree. That kind of behavior is flat-out criminal, in intent even if not in law.
You know, lots of people disagree with the degree of shutdown, etc. and some of the policies being instituted. That's ok. People can disagree and they should do it vocally because the powers that be (whomever they may be) aren't always altruistic their motivations.
I'm one who disagrees with some of the decisions made. But I would never deliberately set out to expose someone else. Heck, we said "no thanks" to a family gathering this weekend because we thought that kind of thing was just too soon given the overall situation. I also have immediate family who work in essential businesses and are in contact with the public daily. If any germs have been brought home, they're going to stay here to the extent I can reasonably manage it.
I hope your family members who were exposed to this level of sheer malice are OK, Melissa.
-
1
-
-
I hope you're OK, Reefgazer, and that whatever has you concerned is more just wanting privacy (which I totally get) rather than a safety issue.
-
2
-
-
On 5/15/2020 at 8:29 AM, PeterPan said:
Oh there's a whole lot of stupidity to go around. I just saw a news report last night about a county level govt (here in the US) that has to shut down and disinfect to the tune of $10k because one employee who is married to a sheriff who GOT SICK AND WAS DIAGNOSED came into work. And she's like oh, I called the doctor and he said it was fine as long as I felt fine and didn't have a temp! LOL
Just can't help stupid.
But who's being stupid in that case? If she accurately described the situation to the doctor (i.e. said her husband was symptomatic and diagnosed) and was told she was OK to go to work OR her husband's doctor failed to offer direction as to what the rest of the family should do in response after he diagnosed the husband, then I'm all for labeling the medical personnel stupid. If she ignored the direction to stay home, then she's the one who's stupid. I'm not sure I'd call her stupid if she were genuinely following the actual advice she was given--despite WTM expectations about what people should or should not know.
-
3
-
-
What a complete jerk! I know you said you don't have an HOA, but does your city have any laws about cleaning up after pets? (I didn't go back through the thread to see if you'd mentioned it.) If so and I knew where she lived, I'd be mailing her a copy of the ordinance with the pertinent instructions highlighted. If she continued, I'd also likely report her if I could get it on tape.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:
Without getting too specific sometimes it is life and limb. Even first responders need to make these assessments.
thinking a lot of those LA guys right now
Ah, got it.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:
I was actually thinking about this firefighter analogy last night. They aren’t making these kind of decisions about individual lives, but our volunteer brigade do make some decisions like this. If there’s a raging bushfire and your property is a hoarder level mess with gas bottles etc everywhere and next door is well prepared with available water you know which one is getting the fire truck. At a certain level they do get to make a decision about which situation present an unacceptable level of personal risk to the crew and just choose to opt out.
I should have been clearer. When I was using firefighters, etc. as an example, I had in mind situations where life and limb were at risk (e.g. someone still in the building). I wasn't thinking about property loss at all. I agree with you that property loss is an entirely different animal.
-
1
-
-
Fully prepared to be told I'm clueless here, but wouldn't no smoking rules cover this situation if people are doing it where cigarette smoking is prohibited? I would think they'd apply whether people are smoking cigarettes, pot, or banana peels. Put me down on the side that thinks it's just as disgusting.
-
1 hour ago, kand said:
I definitely agree things aren’t black and white at all, and I think most here probably do as well. This is hard and we don’t know yet how we’re going to get out of it or when, and that makes it 100 times harder. I think if this whole thing could have started out differently here in the US, without political lines being drawn about it before it ever hit our shore, we would be coping so much better as a country. I think about the way we came together after 9/11, and how different it would be if we had that kind of response now. Which we really should. It’s been said over and over, but there’s nothing political about this virus, and it’s going to take science and not politics to resolve it.
Completely agree with you on that. DS and I were studying 9/11 just a week ago in his history class, and one of the things I told him was that in the immediate aftermath, there was no right or left, there was just a people united in grief and shock... and that we saw the very best of people working together. It was the one redeeming grace in the horror. To the extent that we don't have that now for political reasons is something BOTH sides share blame for, in my opinion. (I won't say more per board rules.) It's too late to change that, unfortunately, but I sure hope for better going forward.
-
1
-
-
I was thinking about the whole "I don't want to wear a mask or do whatever" thing this morning.
One the one hand, people on this board say--quite rightly--that information and recommendations change because the virus is novel... we're constantly learning new things about how it spreads and affects people... treatments and recommendations will subsequently be modified in response to new information, etc. That's to be expected with any new illness. And we have to roll with it and adapt.
But I think it's EQUALLY normal to expect that people will have different responses to that changing information. You can't say, on the one hand, that the information will change and then expect millions of people to just be in lockstep with whatever the recommendation du jour is. Add in the fact that states are handling things differently and some officials at every level of government have been unclear or committed acts of overreach in regard to restrictions (despite any good intentions), and you have a recipe for confusion and grounds for disagreement.
There's also the fact (at least I think it's a fact) that the WTM forum is a bubble. The vast majority of people are not poring over graphs and models... dissecting studies... discussing the merits of vitamin D vs. other preventatives... etc. They're just not. Even if people have access to and pay attention to the news, they're likely not digesting a constant stream of it. It's too much, and people are busy living their lives and trying to navigate the many serious and practical issues resulting from the pandemic and the accompanying restrictions.
I understand wanting everyone to do their part. I do, especially if on the surface it's relatively simple. I just get frustrated with some of the... derision... I see on these threads toward people who have made different decisions as though they're all operating from the same mindset and negative motivation. (Some are, I admit, just like I think some officials may be getting a little drunk on their own power.)
And for the record, before anyone starts accusing me of not caring about healthcare workers or people with health issues or whatever, we're wearing masks. I'm making them for others. We're still staying home as much as possible despite things opening up. I just don't think things are as black and white as some here would like them to be.
-
14
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:
I don't think anyone was saying that care workers should refuse care to anyone. They were saying that those who are saying they WANT to get this, consider that their choice impacts other people's health risks, not just their own. That making the decision or expressing a desire to catch this shouldn't be made in a bubble, just considering their own health, but that of others.
Just as someone doesn't get to say, 'i'm going to drive drunk, and I'm willing to take the risk of dying" because we know that it isn't just their own life they are risking, but that of others.
Now, there is a spectrum to be sure, of risky activities...things like mountain climbing come to mind, and the risk SAR people take, etc.
Another aspect is that in a hurricaine, we flat out tell people that we won't rescue them from an evacuation zone during the storm, if they choose not to evacuate.
Still, I think there is a huge difference between people doing things that they think are not risky, even if it is or even if it does expose them, and people saying, "screw it, I don't care".
And even those people yes, should be treated.
I see what you're saying and the distinction you're making.
-
27 minutes ago, J-rap said:
I think you are both right and probably agree with each other, no? The "my choice, your problem" mindset is abhorrent. (That type of ignorant selfishness really rattles me!)
And yet, if those people end up getting sick, we treat them anyway, because that's the merciful thing to do.
I wouldn't blame health care workers at all for opting out, or changing to a different department or facility, although I know that's not always possible. Maybe that's when the community/government/private groups need to really step it up and offer more support to health care workers for making such a sacrifice. I don't know. There are unfortunately no perfect solutions.
I do know that maybe it's easier for me to make (hopefully) wise decisions about staying home and taking this stay-at-home period seriously and wearing a mask and social distancing anytime I'm required to be out in public, because of my upbringing and my experiences and the people in my life today. If I had grown up in a different home with different experiences and different people in my life right now, I might be making the same selfish-looking decisions I see others making. I try and keep that in mind.
(I'm speaking about this in general terms... There will always be exceptions that will require an exceptional response.)
I think you make good points. People who are sick and deliberately attempt to sicken others are one of those exceptional cases requiring exceptional response. So I'm NOT talking about those people when I say God help us all if the attitude of "you did xyz, so you don't get care" becomes the standard way of operating. Should firefighters evaluate whether or not someone is worthy of rescue before acting? How about law enforcement? Border control? All these first-response occupations potentially expose workers to great risk. Should they stand back and only help the "worthy" as defined by whom?
Again, I'm not talking about people who know they are sick and are deliberately trying to hurt others. But the idea that people should be refused care for making different decisions when those decisions reflect changing or uncertain info is disturbing. Be very careful what you wish for.
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, HeighHo said:
I can only comment on my area. You want to generalize from my store to yours, go ahead. You want to deny my reality, go ahead. Enjoy yourself.
You made a general comment. I did, too.
Yes, I will go ahead and enjoy myself. Thanks so much.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, 2ndGenHomeschooler said:
There are medical conditions that cause a constant cough. These are fairly common in elderly people. COPD, chronic bronchitis, asthma, to name a few. People who cough frequently due to lung conditions would also be part of the group for whom wearing masks would be contraindicated as people who already struggle to get enough oxygen should avoid wearing masks if at all possible. The people in my life who deal with these kinds of health issues would appreciate people not making assumptions.
I did not think about that when I said there was no excuse for not covering up if you have a cough. (I have allergies/asthma.) Obviously people have to breathe. It's a tough one, isn't it? People don't know why I may be cough or sneeze. And not everybody can trusted to stay home if they're actually sick.
-
9 minutes ago, HeighHo said:
I see where they are coming from too. And I know they have gathering spots where they can socialize....every town here has a nice Senior Center. Every one of these 'elders' can meet at the Senior Center walking path, parking lot, or the exercise area and have social hour. They do not need to visit the grocery, behave poorly with their scooters or carts, ignore the six foot distancing and aisle directional arrows and cough on strangers. I thank the Governor for his reminders that civilized people care about the rest of their community and they wear a mask so they don't spread their droplets on others. I think he needs to add medical advice...if you have had a cough all winter, you really need to get checked out for pneumonia. And you need to pay the bills for everyone you gave that pneumonia to if they don't have cheap Medicaid or Medicare.
There is no excuse for having a cough and not covering up in the current situation, I agree with you. I don't care if the cough is from illness, allergies, whatever. It's just common sense. But I have seen PLENTY of healthy-looking younger people, including people with kids in tow, who are ignoring the one-way aisle instructional signs, ignoring social distancing, and blocking aisles or otherwise being less-than-considerate with carts. That's not an older person or "boomer" thing. Not by a long shot.
-
2
-
1
-
-
If you received the message that the reams were out of stock yesterday, check again. A few moments ago, I was able to snag 4 reams at $5 each before applying the coupon, which still works.
-
1
-
-
It's frustrating to be sure. Ours seems unable to properly or in a timely way delivery certified mai, including stuff sent across town.
But those problems predate the pandemic by several months.
-
1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:
Are other states not doing this? My state is plastering the number contact tracing calls come, and what they will and will not ask, from everywhere so people know which # is legit, and also know what info will not ever be asked for (like no SSN or medical insurance info will be asked for).
That's great. It doesn't mean that everyone single person is going to know or remember that information. (The vast majority likely will or will know where to look for it.) But unless the agency doing the calling can somehow prevent those phone numbers from being spoofed, I'm still going to be wary. I've dealt with way too many scam calls over the years. Sorry, that's just how it is. Again, I'd provide the information, just not at the point of the call. I would initiate follow-up contact with the agency and provide it. Your mileage may vary.
-
1
-
-
Dreamergirl, I read this thread last night and just wanted to say that I understand your concerns. I don't give out info over the phone to people I don't know.
When random roofer calls after a storm offering a free roof check and wanting to know how old my roof is, I don't tell him.
When the group that claims to want to altuistically save me money on my electric bill calls and wants to know my monthly bill, I don't tell them.
When a caller asked questions about a neighbor years ago (I suspect for bill collection), he was told that I don't give out information about my neighbors to strangers.
When someone calling from my health insurance company cold-called to get info for coordination of benefits, I didn't give it. (I did, however, explain my reluctance to give personal info just in case the call was legitimate. Then I called the health insurance company directly.)
I'm not "hiding" anything. None of that information is "secret." It is, however, with the exception of the insurance company, none of anyone else's damn business. They have no right to the info and I have no obligation to provide it just because someone, who may or may not be whom they claim to be, asks for it.
Obviously, contact tracing during a pandemic is different. I still would not provide anyone's personal information over the phone. Numbers can be spoofed. Dishonest people and businesses scam. What I would do, though, it take the person's name and contact information. Then I'd take the initiative to verify whether or not the call was legitimate (e.g. calling the state health department at a number I looked up, etc.)
For Pete's sake, we've already been warned about bogus text messages being sent out to people about how they've been exposed and need to click a link for information. So caution in response to information requests (secret or otherwise) by anyone claiming governmental or health authority is completely understandable.
These entities need to make it easy for people to independently verify that calls are legit if they want cooperation.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:
I'm seriously tempted to take a poll on our neighborhood facebook page because the number of people annoyed by this astounds me.
Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. You mentioned that you'd be OK letting someone pop in in your garbage can so they didn't have to "carry around a steaming bag of (poop)." Other people don't want to have to fish that same steaming bag out of their trash can when it doesn't get picked up by the hauler, or deal with its smell in their garage, or clean it out of the trash can if it breaks or oozes or whatever. I'm very much a my-dog-my-problem person.
ETA: In other words, why should the convenience of the dog owner who is responsible for the animal and its bodily functions outweigh the homeowners' right not to have to deal with waste product of a pet that is not their own?
-
5
-
-
3 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:
For those of you who feel this is an unpardonable sin, how would you feel if you had been outside and the offender asked if if was okay if they used your trash? Would you tell them no?
I would have said, "I'm sorry, but I prefer that you don't."
-
4
-
Workers in my yard without permission
in The Chat Board
Posted
I don't mind being accommodating to neighbors, but I'd be REALLY ticked to find a stranger in my yard. Not to mention the dog would go nuts. Most gates around here are unlocked, so lawn care people have access. Ours is always locked. (We cut our own.)