Jump to content

Menu

Our shelter in place just got extended through May 30 and people are DONE


sassenach
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Trust me, as someone writing from my child's beside in PICU right now, I am highly motivated to protect health care workers, both because I love and appreciate them and because it's my only hope of keeping my child safe from this virus.  

But I was responding to a specific comment that if someone chooses to take a "my body my choice" approach they shouldn't be allowed to go to the doctor if they get sick.  

You misread me. I did not say that they should not be allowed to go to the doctor. What I said was that (if they are being logically consistent with their choices) that they should not be exposing others (like essential workers in essential businesses and healthcare workers) to the consequences of their foolishness. But don’t worry- I know that none of them will actually take responsibility for their choices. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kiwik said:

I don't think she meant they shouldn't see a doctor just that if they really do believe "my body my choice" and take needless risks then the logical follow up would be "my illness my problem".  But the usual approach seems more "my choice,  your problem".  This is understandable but does not help an overburdened health system or protect staff.  Most other self induced problems are not catching.  AIDS is catching but I have never heard of anyone catching from a patient except perhaps if the patient got violent and stabbed them with a dirty needle. 

Actually people have gone to jail for knowing that they were HIV positive and then infecting others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kiwik said:

I don't think she meant they shouldn't see a doctor just that if they really do believe "my body my choice" and take needless risks then the logical follow up would be "my illness my problem".  But the usual approach seems more "my choice,  your problem".  This is understandable but does not help an overburdened health system or protect staff.  Most other self induced problems are not catching.  AIDS is catching but I have never heard of anyone catching from a patient except perhaps if the patient got violent and stabbed them with a dirty needle. 

There are a whole host of infectious communicable diseases that are caused or exacerbated by poor life choices and patients end up exposing hcws because of said choices. Talk to an ER nurse or tech or doctor that's ever had bodily fluid exposure or worked all day with someone before droplet precautions were put in place or been bitten by a combative patient, or... it's a weird, gross world out there and people act selfishly and with hubris and even malice all the time...and it is inhumane to deny them care even though their choices result in harm to others, hcws and numerous other people in society.

I don't personally want to catch covid. I also don't want to be around people who are cavalier about catching it, but I also know they, for the most part, don't consider themselves to be cavalier either. They think they are making the same risk assessment I am making and coming to a different conclusion. I don't think we should be declining to treat those people who make different distancing choices, even out of hubris and selfishness thinking this won't effect them. I don't think we should tell them they shouldn't go to the doctor.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Actually people have gone to jail for knowing that they were HIV positive and then infecting others. 

Yes, if someone is deliberately infecting people when they know they are sick, please press criminal charges. But a person who doesn't know they are sick won't be convicted for risky sexual behaviors, nor will hcws tell them not to bother showing up because they didn't choose to practice safe sex and predictably caught an infectious disease.

If a healthy someone decides not to wear a mask at the Walmarts and then gets covid, that is not the same thing as getting a positive test and coughing all over the  produce on purpose. The latter should be criminally charged. The first person shouldn't be told they don't deserve to go to the doctor.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

You misread me. I did not say that they should not be allowed to go to the doctor. What I said was that (if they are being logically consistent with their choices) that they should not be exposing others (like essential workers in essential businesses and healthcare workers) to the consequences of their foolishness. But don’t worry- I know that none of them will actually take responsibility for their choices. 

Yes,  I am misreading the meaning in "Nor should they go to the doctor if they get sick.  In other words, they should own their decision totally."

I thought you meant they shouldn't get care because they made a choice that resulted in a medically worse outcome than they anticipated, thus putting hcws and others in society at risk with their poor choices. 

All I'm saying is that if we are going to get on a high horse about people who shouldn't attempt to get medical care because they acted stupidly or even maliciously and put hcws or first responders at risk, then you're going to be culling the herd quite a bit in order that people should take responsibility for their own choices.

That is not to say that I don't understand the gravity of health care professions being dangerous and unforgiving because of said stupid choices, especially now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

I don't see what's confusing.

As Jean said and others said, the mindset of 'my choice, your problem' with regard to COVID, reckless self-exposure, and subsequent exposure of treating hcw's, is morally abhorrent, and logically inconsistent.

 

 

It's confusing to say they shouldn't get medical treatment because that must be the logical consequences of making dumb decisions as defined by...who exactly? *That* is morally abhorrent.

People eat too much sugar, smoke cigarettes, drink too much alcohol, and exercise too little, and maybe decide they don't need to worry about going to their friend's house for socializing with too many people. All of these factors could lead them to a higher chance of needing to avail themselves of a hcw's assistance should they get covid. To say that the logical conclusions of their poor choices means they also shouldn't bother getting treated because "their choice, their problem" is not the moral high ground you and Jean think it is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EmseB said:

We treat people in hospitals who behave recklessly and endanger others all the time. Healthcare workers are confronted with infectious disease due to poor personal choices as a matter of course, sometimes every day if they work in the ED. Bed bugs, c diff, mrsa, hiv/aids, measles, and on and on. Combat medics and trauma surgeons treat people who were actively trying to kill them minutes before they got injured. This idea that we don't treat people who get sick because they have the audacity to...do whatever, go to the store or go live life,, I'm not even sure what...is gross.

My neighbors were all out partying on our block last week. I think it is unwise but to say they don't get treated if they get sick is inhumane. Plus, given the fact that risk assessment is very much not an exact science who decides who gets treated or not based on which criteria?

Other than Ebola and also maybe HIV, I don’t think that there has been an illness with potentially so much harm to HCWs in the 37 years I’ve been a nurse. I completely agree that we treat everyone regardless of how they contracted an illness and have done so my whole career. But hearing people say it’s like many other illnesses is just not true and I have to say it ticks me off. I’m 56 and this is the first time that I’ve felt I was a bit more vulnerable than my younger colleagues. I’ve spent the last month or so looking after Covid patients and it is not like anything I’ve had to do before in terms of being nervous about being safe at work.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

It's confusing to say they shouldn't get medical treatment because that must be the logical consequences of making dumb decisions as defined by...who exactly? *That* is morally abhorrent.

People eat too much sugar, smoke cigarettes, drink too much alcohol, and exercise too little, and maybe decide they don't need to worry about going to their friend's house for socializing with too many people. All of these factors could lead them to a higher chance of needing to avail themselves of a hcw's assistance should they get covid. To say that the logical conclusions of their poor choices means they also shouldn't bother getting treated because "their choice, their problem" is not the moral high ground you and Jean think it is.

Sugar lack of exercise and smoking don’t actively increase the risk to health care workers though.  Alcohol and drugs sometimes do due to the aggression and violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Arcadia said:

My city gave out masks to those who have difficulty buying. I ask for my kids and was given a 10pack for my kids to share.

 

 

My husband's employer sent us a 10 pack of masks.  I thought it was a nice gesture.  They've been really, really great throughout this whole thing and have sent other goodies to us, too. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, StellaM said:

As Jean said and others said, the mindset of 'my choice, your problem' with regard to COVID, reckless self-exposure, and subsequent exposure of treating hcw's, is morally abhorrent, and logically inconsistent.

 

9 hours ago, EmseB said:

It's confusing to say they shouldn't get medical treatment because that must be the logical consequences of making dumb decisions as defined by...who exactly? *That* is morally abhorrent.

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.)

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Valley Girl said:

 

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.

 

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. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TCB said:

Other than Ebola and also maybe HIV, I don’t think that there has been an illness with potentially so much harm to HCWs in the 37 years I’ve been a nurse. I completely agree that we treat everyone regardless of how they contracted an illness and have done so my whole career. But hearing people say it’s like many other illnesses is just not true and I have to say it ticks me off. I’m 56 and this is the first time that I’ve felt I was a bit more vulnerable than my younger colleagues. I’ve spent the last month or so looking after Covid patients and it is not like anything I’ve had to do before in terms of being nervous about being safe at work.

I'm not saying it's like other illnesses. I'm not saying it's not a risk. I posted as such. I'm saying it is gross to me to suggest that people who make poor personal choices about their health should not see a doctor if they get covid because that is the logical conclusion of their actions. It's more the contempt that gets me, but I'm sure it can be rationalized and justified. When we know so little about transmission and who is actually at risk for contracting and spreading this, looking with such derision on people who go out and about,  while also claiming to be the most concerned about high risk and vulnerable dying gets my goat.

Also, I hesitate to say it, but I have several medical types (well, two nurses and a doctor) on my FB who are...less fearful I guess I would say. One of them protested at a capital in their state for reopening, one is super interested in the research/infectious disease study aspect, and one is a former corpsman so doesn't seem phased in their posts. I am only mentioning it to say that it probably colors my high opinion of hcws and how they are coping or approaching the issue. I also follow a few medical types on Twitter who have a waaay different tone than that of this board. I accept they are not a representative sample of people, but they do provide a sharp contrast to the attitudes here. There is not the same level of hostility to people making different choices.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I'm not saying it's like other illnesses. I'm not saying it's not a risk. I posted as such. I'm saying it is gross to me to suggest that people who make poor personal choices about their health should not see a doctor if they get covid because that is the logical conclusion of their actions. It's more the contempt that gets me, but I'm sure it can be rationalized and justified. When we know so little about transmission and who is actually at risk for contracting and spreading this, looking with such derision on people who go out and about,  while also claiming to be the most concerned about high risk and vulnerable dying gets my goat.

Also, I hesitate to say it, but I have several medical types (well, two nurses and a doctor) on my FB who are...less fearful I guess I would say. One of them protested at a capital in their state for reopening, one is super interested in the research/infectious disease study aspect, and one is a former corpsman so doesn't seem phased in their posts. I am only mentioning it to say that it probably colors my high opinion of hcws and how they are coping or approaching the issue. I also follow a few medical types on Twitter who have a waaay different tone than that of this board. I accept they are not a representative sample of people, but they do provide a sharp contrast to the attitudes here. There is not the same level of hostility to people making different choices.

I definitely don’t believe in treating anyone with contempt and I can assure you that I have never done so to any patient no matter what the reason or origin of their illness.

It would appear that you may be saying I’m unnecessarily concerned for my own or HCW’s risks at the moment. I can only speak for myself, I don’t know what others are experiencing. Again I can assure you that I am not allowing my concern to interfere with my work and am following all the guidelines. I don’t know how old your friends are but as I’m over 55 I feel some concern about this since it seems there are HCWs of that age or more who have indeed contracted it and died. Not sure how else to say that - makes sense to me but maybe not to you.

I think the people that are difficult to have sympathy for are those who are denying there is any problem or risk and then taking actions that could place others at risk.

Anyway who really knows what’s going to happen. We’ll just have to wait and see. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I specifically said that it is morally right to treat all people.

I  am not talking about people who just disagree with me.  I am not talking about people who leave the house as allowed by their local regulations.  I am not talking about people who are expressing their views on the country opening up (which by the way is happening in some form or another all over the place despite it being at different rates depending on whether it is a hotspot or not). 

I am talking about people who are screaming that they want to get it, while screaming at store employees who want them to wear a mask (as dictated by either their store policy or their local regulations), who are congregating in big groups (again against current health regulations) and who are not social distancing at all while doing all of the above.  I was reading an article about some of the violence that has erupted in stores - a person was quoted saying something like "if this is all overblown then putting on a mask and staying six feet away still isn't going to hurt you but if the health care advice is correct, then not doing it does put people at risk."  (This is a paraphrase and not a direct quote)

Dh is a health care worker in a field that has very high risk people and which can't shut down or people will die.  They have had patients die from COVID19 and have had staff and patients contract it and come through.  He's conservative politically but he's obeying all health regulations.  He understands the science.  He's not "living in fear" (which is a pejorative meant to shame those who don't agree with those who think that it's all overblown).  He's living responsibly. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I specifically said that it is morally right to treat all people.

I  am not talking about people who just disagree with me.  I am not talking about people who leave the house as allowed by their local regulations.  I am not talking about people who are expressing their views on the country opening up (which by the way is happening in some form or another all over the place despite it being at different rates depending on whether it is a hotspot or not). 

I am talking about people who are screaming that they want to get it, while screaming at store employees who want them to wear a mask (as dictated by either their store policy or their local regulations), who are congregating in big groups (again against current health regulations) and who are not social distancing at all while doing all of the above.  I was reading an article about some of the violence that has erupted in stores - a person was quoted saying something like "if this is all overblown then putting on a mask and staying six feet away still isn't going to hurt you but if the health care advice is correct, then not doing it does put people at risk."  (This is a paraphrase and not a direct quote)

Dh is a health care worker in a field that has very high risk people and which can't shut down or people will die.  They have had patients die from COVID19 and have had staff and patients contract it and come through.  He's conservative politically but he's obeying all health regulations.  He understands the science.  He's not "living in fear" (which is a pejorative meant to shame those who don't agree with those who think that it's all overblown).  He's living responsibly. 

I think you and I are talking past each other or you have a different idea of what I'm trying to say. Same with @TCB. I'm sorry I'm not communicating clearly. I don't disagree with most of what you say here. I'll say that for the most part I AM personally living in fear of catching this virus and I don't consider it a pejorative. It is my reality right now. I am also conservative politically and am obeying all health regulations. If you're only talking about outliers who are yelling at people for whatever reason, of course I don't agree with rudeness or violence (obviously I don't support violence to enforce social distancing rules in public either, so we might differ on how masking and keeping businesses closwd should be handled by police, idk).

Anyway, it's clear to me that I'm communicating poorly because all of this post seems like a strawman to what I'm actually saying.

Also, I have a keen feeling that no matter how much I think someone deserves my contempt, in my own heart I'm a sinner and deserve no better than them even if they look really, really bad on the outside, but i also hesitate to bring my own personal religious beliefs into things.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2020 at 2:36 PM, kand said:

How do the healthcare workers factor into the “my body, my choice” decision when it comes to the virus?  I feel frustrated on their behalf about how cavalier people can be about the very real danger to people working in hospitals right now, and every additional Coronavirus patient is added risk for them. I have read so many sad, sad articles about doctors and nurses who have died of COVID-19 who were begging and pleading with people via social media before they got sick to please stay home and not choose to expose themselves when not necessary, putting medical workers at risk. It’s heartbreaking to read these stories,  So it makes it extra hard to hear people arguing that it’s their choice whether they decide it’s worth getting sick or not.  Our actions don’t only affect ourselves. 

It may be hard to hear, but it is still their personal liberty and their choice to decide what to do with their bodies.  I assume there are *zero* health care workers who went into their professional field who did not give the 100% probability of coming into contact with an infectious disease consideration.  That too was their choice on what to do with their body.  

Edited by Reefgazer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

It may be hard to hear, but it is still their personal liberty and their choice to decide what to do with their bodies.  I assume there are *zero* health care workers who went into their professional field who did not give the 100% probability of coming into contact with an infectious disease consideration.  That too was their choice on what to do with their body.  

Is it also then their personal liberty to decide to get intoxicated and then drive? Or do they have a responsibility to society that needs to balance out their liberty?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I just try to stay away.

I really don't want this virus until there are better treatments. 

Part of my motivation in not wanting to get this virus, is because my specialist has been treating COVID patients, and the fewer people he has to treat, the better. For him, and his family and his patients. I do NOT want him to get sick because of people being idiots at the flipping mall. Or, God forbid, by deliberately trying to get infected. 

I keep him in mind, mostly. And the nurses working with him. 

I truly do not understand what is wrong in people's heads (and I'm not talking about people here, most of whom are behaving responsibily whether they agree with a shut-down or not) that they are not thinking about minimising their risk for the sake of the medical staff they'll put at risk of exposure if they get sick and need treatment!

I think a lot of people have a sociopathic streak and it doesn't bother them at all to cause suffering to others.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

It may be hard to hear, but it is still their personal liberty and their choice to decide what to do with their bodies.  I assume there are *zero* health care workers who went into their professional field who did not give the 100% probability of coming into contact with an infectious disease consideration.  That too was their choice on what to do with their body.  

I’m guessing most healthcare workers never imagined being in the situation of high exposure to a very contagious virus that can be deadly while lacking adequate protective gear. At least in the US, the lack of adequate PPE is as novel as the virus itself.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Valley Girl said:

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.

 

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Valley Girl said:

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.

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 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Is it also then their personal liberty to decide to get intoxicated and then drive? Or do they have a responsibility to society that needs to balance out their liberty?

Are you asking if it should be free of consequences?

People should not drink and drive or be irresponsible. That doesn't change the fact that people will be irresponsible. They will make horrible choices based out of ignorance, malice, or fear, or laziness. They will hurt others. They will put themselves at risk. People do already have the liberty to drink and drive; our system of justice is necessarily punitive after the fact, not so much preventative precisely because of personal liberty.

Can someone decide to drink and drive and kill someone else? Absolutely! Should they? No. I don't know what you mean by personal liberty in that regard, or how you would compare it to someone not masking or deciding to offer hair appointments or laying out on the beach. Rights are always balanced by responsibilities and consequences. We have not, as far as I know, as a society said that one of those consequences should be being left without medical treatment regardless of what landed them in the hospital. We even treat people who get hurt when they try to murder someone else. Jean has said she didn't mean they should go without treatment and I believe her. I don't know where else this conversation goes, tbh.

Going out to Walmart without a mask or even being vocal about not wanting to wear a mask or take other as of yet unproven actions isn't the equivalent of drunk driving. But even if you view it as such, we give drunk drivers medical treatment if they crash their car and kill someone elthe.

In any case, we may find out in 30 days that some of the things we're doing now don't work or were unnecessary, or maybe had the opposite effect we intended. To that end, I'm inclined to give a little grace to the naysayers, whatever they want to naysay in the moment, even if I think they are wrong.  Even the YouTube lady filming herself on the beach pointing out what everyone else was doing wrong in her eyes, lol.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I just try to stay away.

I really don't want this virus until there are better treatments. 

Part of my motivation in not wanting to get this virus, is because my specialist has been treating COVID patients, and the fewer people he has to treat, the better. For him, and his family and his patients. I do NOT want him to get sick because of people being idiots at the flipping mall. Or, God forbid, by deliberately trying to get infected. 

I keep him in mind, mostly. And the nurses working with him. 

I truly do not understand what is wrong in people's heads (and I'm not talking about people here, most of whom are behaving responsibily whether they agree with a shut-down or not) that they are not thinking about minimising their risk for the sake of the medical staff they'll put at risk of exposure if they get sick and need treatment!

No, I don't get it either.    It is truly hard to understand.   And now today I just heard that someone who attended a church in California that defied the state's orders and met in-person on Mother's Day got a positive test result for Covid the very next day.  It sounded like they had already taken the test (and went to church)~ they just hadn't gotten the results yet.  So 180 congregants have been exposed as a result, and now they will expose others...  So clearly this person must have had symptoms already if they took the test.

  • Sad 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Are you asking if it should be free of consequences?

People should not drink and drive or be irresponsible. That doesn't change the fact that people will be irresponsible. They will make horrible choices based out of ignorance, malice, or fear, or laziness. They will hurt others. They will put themselves at risk. People do already have the liberty to drink and drive; our system of justice is necessarily punitive after the fact, not so much preventative precisely because of personal liberty.

Can someone decide to drink and drive and kill someone else? Absolutely! Should they? No.

Ok, then we are saying that personal liberty is not the be all end all of. It just isn't rights are balanced with responsibility. So given that, what is the point of saying someone has the liberty to purposely try to catch this, because it is "their body, so their decision"? If you mean they "can" than yeah, duh. People can do lots of dumb or immoral things. If you mean they should be allowed to, either legally or morally, that's a different statement. I assumed people meant the latter. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Are you asking if it should be free of consequences?

People should not drink and drive or be irresponsible. That doesn't change the fact that people will be irresponsible. They will make horrible choices based out of ignorance, malice, or fear, or laziness. They will hurt others. They will put themselves at risk. People do already have the liberty to drink and drive; our system of justice is necessarily punitive after the fact, not so much preventative precisely because of personal liberty.

Can someone decide to drink and drive and kill someone else? Absolutely! Should they? No. I don't know what you mean by personal liberty in that regard, or how you would compare it to someone not masking or deciding to offer hair appointments or laying out on the beach. Rights are always balanced by responsibilities and consequences. We have not, as far as I know, as a society said that one of those consequences should be being left without medical treatment regardless of what landed them in the hospital. We even treat people who get hurt when they try to murder someone else. Jean has said she didn't mean they should go without treatment and I believe her. I don't know where else this conversation goes, tbh.

Going out to Walmart without a mask or even being vocal about not wanting to wear a mask or take other as of yet unproven actions isn't the equivalent of drunk driving. But even if you view it as such, we give drunk drivers medical treatment if they crash their car and kill someone elthe.

In any case, we may find out in 30 days that some of the things we're doing now don't work or were unnecessary, or maybe had the opposite effect we intended. To that end, I'm inclined to give a little grace to the naysayers, whatever they want to naysay in the moment, even if I think they are wrong.  Even the YouTube lady filming herself on the beach pointing out what everyone else was doing wrong in her eyes, lol.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating people be denied medical treatment. But we already know of naysayers who have gotten infected, some even died, and in the process they did put others, including healthcare workers at risk. So it’s not as if we are talking about some hypothetical situation. Of course they were given treatment. The healthcare workers and emergency responders of course did the right thing despite in many cases being failed by their government and their employers to adequately protect them.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I am such a believer in treat all equally when it comes to medical care that I attempted to save the lives of not one, not two, but three invasive cuban tree frogs on Friday when my son was powerwashing. I know I'm supposed to kill them because they are the "bad" frogs that kill the native ones, but I figure, if a MASH unit can and does treat enemy combatants, I can try to save the enemy frog. 

So nothing I'm saying means the medical workers should do something different. I and others are suggesting that the people purposely embracing getting sick should be considering their responsibility to society, not just their own liberty. That's all. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

Are you asking if it should be free of consequences?

People should not drink and drive or be irresponsible. That doesn't change the fact that people will be irresponsible. They will make horrible choices based out of ignorance, malice, or fear, or laziness. They will hurt others. They will put themselves at risk. People do already have the liberty to drink and drive; our system of justice is necessarily punitive after the fact, not so much preventative precisely because of personal liberty.

Can someone decide to drink and drive and kill someone else? Absolutely! Should they? No. I don't know what you mean by personal liberty in that regard, or how you would compare it to someone not masking or deciding to offer hair appointments or laying out on the beach. Rights are always balanced by responsibilities and consequences. We have not, as far as I know, as a society said that one of those consequences should be being left without medical treatment regardless of what landed them in the hospital. We even treat people who get hurt when they try to murder someone else. Jean has said she didn't mean they should go without treatment and I believe her. I don't know where else this conversation goes, tbh.

Going out to Walmart without a mask or even being vocal about not wanting to wear a mask or take other as of yet unproven actions isn't the equivalent of drunk driving. But even if you view it as such, we give drunk drivers medical treatment if they crash their car and kill someone elthe.

In any case, we may find out in 30 days that some of the things we're doing now don't work or were unnecessary, or maybe had the opposite effect we intended. To that end, I'm inclined to give a little grace to the naysayers, whatever they want to naysay in the moment, even if I think they are wrong.  Even the YouTube lady filming herself on the beach pointing out what everyone else was doing wrong in her eyes, lol.

I don’t know how many times I or others have to say that I was making a LOGICAL argument, not advocating no treatment for people with a disease. Logically, if someone stubbornly wants to deny scientific fact then logically when those facts prove to be actually true then the end result would be that they shouldn’t get the treatment based on what they deny.   Logically. And maybe if they thought it through they would realize that they really would seek treatment so their denial of scientific fact is not actually based in reality.   But as CS Lewis said, they don’t teach logic anymore. 
 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mathnerd@sassenach
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/pandemic-isnt-hurting-microsofts-bottom-line-changes-still-worry-satya-nadella/

“But financials aren’t everything to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. He is still concerned about the changes to work that the coronavirus crisis is forcing. Nadella spoke with the staff of the New York Times this week about the challenges he’s navigating as Microsoft’s leader.

“What I miss is when you walk into a physical meeting, you are talking to the person that is next to you, you’re able to connect with them for the two minutes before and after,” he said.

Nadella warned about the consequences of embracing telecommuting permanently:

“What does burnout look like? What does mental health look like? What does that connectivity and the community building look like? One of the things I feel is, hey, maybe we are burning some of the social capital we built up in this phase where we are all working remote. What’s the measure for that?”

Nadella’s concern doesn’t appear to be shared widely throughout the technology industry. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey notified staff this week that they should feel free to work from home indefinitely if they choose. Salesforce and Zillow will give employees the option to telecommute for the rest of the year.“

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frances said:

I don’t think anyone here is advocating people be denied medical treatment. But we already know of naysayers who have gotten infected, some even died, and in the process they did put others, including healthcare workers at risk. So it’s not as if we are talking about some hypothetical situation. Of course they were given treatment. The healthcare workers and emergency responders of course did the right thing despite in many cases being failed by their government and their employers to adequately protect them.

It's not like I don't understand the desperation of all of this. I do. Acutely.

I'm just over here lol'ing at how this conversation went from, "these people shouldn't see a doctor if they really believe what they're saying" to, "It is surely Emse who lacks sympathy for others and we need to explain risk to her."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I don’t know how many times I or others have to say that I was making a LOGICAL argument, not advocating no treatment for people with a disease. Logically, if someone stubbornly wants to deny scientific fact then logically when those facts prove to be actually true then the end result would be that they shouldn’t get the treatment based on what they deny.   Logically. And maybe if they thought it through they would realize that they really would seek treatment so their denial of scientific fact is not actually based in reality.   But as CS Lewis said, they don’t teach logic anymore. 
 

 

did you miss the part of my post where I said:

"Jean has said she didn't mean they should go without treatment and I believe her. I don't know where else this conversation goes, tbh."

You don't have to continue this argument with me. I got your meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

It's not like I don't understand the desperation of all of this. I do. Acutely.

I'm just over here lol'ing at how this conversation went from, "these people shouldn't see a doctor if they really believe what they're saying" to, "It is surely Emse who lacks sympathy for others and we need to explain risk to her."

I don’t think you lack sympathy for others. But there is a pretty big difference between saying if people are being logically consistent they shouldn’t seek treatment and saying people are advocating for treatment to be denied. I simply don’t think anyone was advocating for the latter.

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

19 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

@mathnerd@sassenach
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/pandemic-isnt-hurting-microsofts-bottom-line-changes-still-worry-satya-nadella/

“But financials aren’t everything to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. He is still concerned about the changes to work that the coronavirus crisis is forcing. Nadella spoke with the staff of the New York Times this week about the challenges he’s navigating as Microsoft’s leader.

“What I miss is when you walk into a physical meeting, you are talking to the person that is next to you, you’re able to connect with them for the two minutes before and after,” he said.

Nadella warned about the consequences of embracing telecommuting permanently:

“What does burnout look like? What does mental health look like? What does that connectivity and the community building look like? One of the things I feel is, hey, maybe we are burning some of the social capital we built up in this phase where we are all working remote. What’s the measure for that?”

Nadella’s concern doesn’t appear to be shared widely throughout the technology industry. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey notified staff this week that they should feel free to work from home indefinitely if they choose. Salesforce and Zillow will give employees the option to telecommute for the rest of the year.“

I know it won’t be allowed, but I wish I could continue to work from home indefinitely. I’ve really enjoyed it and feel even more productive. For me, the ability to walk around while on conference calls rather than sitting around a table for two hours more than makes up for not being able to chat and connect before or after group meetings. It’s still easy to connect socially during one on one calls. Plus, I can walk then, too.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Workers compensation does not normally cover getting diseases at work, except in limited circumstances. I believe that healthcare workers would be more likely to get it for that reason than most other workers.

A workplace lawyer (of some kind) was being interviewed on the news the other night.  He was saying that people on cruise ships were most likely to be able to win lawsuits because they were "closed systems".  Anyone who commutes to a job is less likely to be able to prove that the only place that they could have been infected is at work because of course they could have been infected at home or at the grocery store as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frances said:

I don’t think you lack sympathy for others. But there is a pretty big difference between saying if people are being logically consistent they shouldn’t seek treatment and saying people are advocating for treatment to be denied. I simply don’t think anyone was advocating for the latter.

Well, I guess I don't think someone says something like that as just a purely neutral sentiment. I will say I misread the original intent, but it's not without at least a bit of loaded meaning. Which, it doesn't have to be neutral; obviously people can feel how they feel and then express that on the internet. And maybe I have become cynical reading elsewhere because you better believe there are a lot of people out there who absolutely want to see the open up crowd have to eat their words.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Frances said:

I know it won’t be allowed, but I wish I could continue to work from home indefinitely. I’ve really enjoyed it and feel even more productive. For me, the ability to walk around while on conference calls rather than sitting around a table for two hours more than makes up for not being able to chat and connect before or after group meetings. It’s still easy to connect socially during one on one calls. Plus, I can walk then, too.

At my former employment, I was allowed to work from home because I was expected to work from anywhere. However I was also on standby duty after office hours, including weekends and public holidays. Add to that I was working while at the airports while waiting for my business trips flights.  My husband was working at a semiconductor wafer fab then so his office hours was very well defined since he can’t bring work home. My basic pay was low, my bonus was based on performance. My overtime pay if I have to work on weekends was given as bonuses. My husband’s pay was high basic pay, high overtime, very low bonus.
 

My husband would be happy if he can walk around while on conference calls but he has to share Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint slides since he deals with quality control and R&D. So he sits put for 1.5 to 2 hrs each call. 
 

Have you ask your boss/employer if you can switch to work from home. A friend and her husband both switch to working from home more than a decade ago.  My friend is a journalist/subeditor and she is expected to go to office for weekly staff meetings, otherwise she works from home.  Her husband works in tech and he switch to three days at home, two days in office. Both took a pay cut but save on infantcare/childcare costs as well as commute time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

At my former employment, I was allowed to work from home because I was expected to work from anywhere. However I was also on standby duty after office hours, including weekends and public holidays. Add to that I was working while at the airports while waiting for my business trips flights.  My husband was working at a semiconductor wafer fab then so his office hours was very well defined since he can’t bring work home. My basic pay was low, my bonus was based on performance. My overtime pay if I have to work on weekends was given as bonuses. My husband’s pay was high basic pay, high overtime, very low bonus.
 

My husband would be happy if he can walk around while on conference calls but he has to share Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint slides since he deals with quality control and R&D. So he sits put for 1.5 to 2 hrs each call. 
 

Have you ask your boss/employer if you can switch to work from home. A friend and her husband both switch to working from home more than a decade ago.  My friend is a journalist/subeditor and she is expected to go to office for weekly staff meetings, otherwise she works from home.  Her husband works in tech and he switch to three days at home, two days in office. Both took a pay cut but save on infantcare/childcare costs as well as commute time. 

Before this I worked from home part of the time. I just didn’t realize how much I would like doing it all of the time. I’m almost positive it wouldn’t be allowed, but I might ask for more time at home. I do sometimes have to look at things while on conference calls, but have fashioned a standing desk out of a built in bookshelf, so at least I’m not sitting. 
My previous job was like yours where I could work from home, but also was expected to always be available. I even had to take my laptop camping. Bonuses were also a big part of that job. My husband and I are both very fortunate currently to have well paying professional jobs with very regular, set hours and walking commutes. I never work overtime and my husband is extremely well compensated when he occasionally picks up an extra shift. In his previous job in academia he worked insane hours for relatively low pay. And he never had summers off. So I really can’t complain at all about our current situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

My cousin is a firefighter in LA. That fire was at a illegal marijuana grow, in a state where marijuana is legal, in an area with a lot of illegal drugs. Those firefighters knew that going in and would have never said, "Well, they made the choice to grow illegal drugs, so screw them." They go into the career knowing that they will be putting their lives on the line, and they know this will often be done in order to protect people who "make bad decisions" or specifically do things to put those firefighters and others at mortal risk.

Aside from that point though here at least firefighters are trained to do a risk assessment.  They also have a set of priorities that go life, assets, environment in that order.  You don’t risk the life of a team of five people to save assets that aren’t salvageable.  Of course they will do whatever possible to save life.  It doesn’t mean the rural property owners should hoard gas bottles and never mow the grass and not store firewater.  And if they have more properties at risk than they can save they are going to go for the ones where people made an effort to make things work.

similarly we shouldn’t rely on the willingness of health care workers to risk their lives to save our lives if we aren’t willing to make some sacrifices to help them out a bit.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Well, I guess I don't think someone says something like that as just a purely neutral sentiment. I will say I misread the original intent, but it's not without at least a bit of loaded meaning. Which, it doesn't have to be neutral; obviously people can feel how they feel and then express that on the internet. And maybe I have become cynical reading elsewhere because you better believe there are a lot of people out there who absolutely want to see the open up crowd have to eat their words.

I honestly don’t even understand how that would work. If they have to eat their words then they are likely also infecting others who feel differently, including healthcare workers. That’s sort of the the main point of this whole discussion. A person thinking they are making a decision solely for themselves simply isn’t true with the virus.

And for the record, I feel very bad when reading stories of naysayers who die from the virus. But I also worry about who else they infected, especially when they are a person in a position of power or a leader, as was the minister who died.
 

Edited by Frances
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

 

That's not what people are saying, though. Multiple people on this board, on multiple threads, have said that those who want to go about their lives should not be treated if they catch the virus. People can deny all day that they said it or claim it's a misunderstanding, when what was said was very clearly stated, but that's just not ow it works. 

And, yes, fire fighters do risk assessments. What they don't do is say, well that guy started the fire so he's last, that guy is overweight and must have done it to himself, so he's next to last, etc. Deciding which properties to save is entirely different than denying care to someone. 

Also, why was it necessary to throw in that jab about your husband thinking US venting techniques being dangerous? That was not at all related to the conversation and completely unnecessary. 

It wasn’t a jab just a thing that came to mind.  I don’t know exactly what he means.  I’m happy to delete.

i think multiple people have clarified that’s not what they meant but I’m pretty sure nothing I or anyone says will convince you otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for clarity

I don’t think we as a society should withhold medical care from anyone regardless of obesity, smoking, alcohol drug taking.  Or financial status for that matter.  With the exception possibly where a person is violent toward health care workers and can’t be managed safely.

I do think we as a society should do everything possible to protect healthcare workers.  This includes first and foremost providing adequate PPE.  Secondly if that’s impossible due to supply chain failures minimising spread of disease as much as possible.

I don’t think any individual health care worker should be forced to continue working in a situation where they feel unsafe.  
 

I don’t think we as a society should be relying on courage or heroism in our workers or volunteers as a substitute for making every possible effort to provide a safe working environment.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cpf.org/go/cpf/health-and-safety/wildland-firefighter-safety/properly-refusing-risk/
 

this sums up what I was getting at with the firefighter analogy I think 

When to Say No -- How to Refuse Risk Properly

Accepting risk is part of the job of being a firefighter. But no employer has the right to force you to take an unacceptable risk, particularly if there are safe alternatives for completing the assignment.

The guidelines -- published by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group -- spell out the proper way to exercise your right to refuse risk that you believe extends beyond the boundaries of the job. 

NWCG Guidelines -- How to Refuse Risk Properly


Concow_shot-web.jpgEvery individual has the right and obligation to report safety problems and contribute ideas regarding their safety. Supervisors are expected to give these concerns and ideas serious consideration.

When an individual feels an assignment is unsafe they also have the obligation to identify, to the degree possible, safe alternatives for completing that assignment. Turning down an assignment is one possible outcome of managing risk. 

A “turn down” is a situation where an individual has determined they cannot undertake an assignment as given and they are unable to negotiate an alternative solution. The turn down of an assignment must be based on an assessment of risks and the ability of the individual or organization to control those risks. Individuals may turn down an assignment as unsafe when:

  1. There is a violation of safe work practices.
  2. Environmental conditions make the work unsafe.
  3. They lack the necessary qualifications or experience.
  4. Defective equipment is being used.

If a turn down situation presents itself, the process for resolving it in the field is as follows:

  • Individual will directly inform their supervisor that they are turning down the assignment as given. The most appropriate means to document the turn down is using the criteria (The Firefighting Orders, the Watch Out Situations, etc.) outlined in the Risk Management Process.
  • Supervisor will notify the Safety Officer immediately upon being informed of the turn down. If there is no Safety Officer, notification shall go to the appropriate Section Chief or to the Incident Commander. This provides accountability for decisions and initiates communication of safety concerns within the incident organization.
  • If the supervisor asks another resource to perform the assignment, they are responsible to inform the new resource that the assignment has been turned down and the reasons that it was turned down.
  • If an unresolved safety hazard exists or an unsafe act was committed, the individual should also document the turn down by submitting a SAFENET (ground hazard) or SAFECOM (aviation hazard) form in a timely manner. 

These actions do not stop an operation from being carried out. This protocol is integral to the effective management of risk as it provides timely identification of hazards to the chain of command, raises risk awareness for both leaders and subordinates, and promotes accountability.

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2020 at 1:14 AM, Ktgrok said:

I think this will have to be an OSHA thing, where there are certain requirements for safety and the owners can be fined for non compliance. If they are compliant, then they are not negligent and not able to be sued. 

But then there is the workers compensation issue - does that cover diseases?

https://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/academy-journal/2020/02/19/558705.htm
 

I found this.  It looks like for the general population no but possibly for healthcare workers yet.  This doesn’t mention them but I’m wondering if it can be proven that the meat packing plants were higher risk due to factors specific to them they might also fall under this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Aside from that point though here at least firefighters are trained to do a risk assessment.  They also have a set of priorities that go life, assets, environment in that order.  You don’t risk the life of a team of five people to save assets that aren’t salvageable.  Of course they will do whatever possible to save life.  It doesn’t mean the rural property owners should hoard gas bottles and never mow the grass and not store firewater.  And if they have more properties at risk than they can save they are going to go for the ones where people made an effort to make things work.

similarly we shouldn’t rely on the willingness of health care workers to risk their lives to save our lives if we aren’t willing to make some sacrifices to help them out a bit.

Firefighters make the same risk assessments here, too. At least, in my area they do, maybe not in CA. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

Do we expect firefighters to go off and fight a fire without adequate equipment? We do not.

I don't get the firefighter/nurse comparison.

This, this, 10x this!

Apples and oranges to the current situation in health care without adequate PPE.  It's like saying firefighters signed up for a job with risks they should be fine going in to fight the fires in their street clothes.  That is the comparison to be made, and no, no one would expect that.  That is not what they signed up for.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Frances said:

I know it won’t be allowed, but I wish I could continue to work from home indefinitely. I’ve really enjoyed it and feel even more productive. For me, the ability to walk around while on conference calls rather than sitting around a table for two hours more than makes up for not being able to chat and connect before or after group meetings. It’s still easy to connect socially during one on one calls. Plus, I can walk then, too.

Dh has worked from home for a few years and the good thing about everyone doing so now has been they all realize how much more efficient their meetings are now. There have been times he’s in a meeting via phone for over an hour and that same type of meeting now is taking no more than 20-30 minutes. His company has decided to keep working from home for now and said they will have no more than 50% back in the office unless there is a vaccine or effective treatment (and it’s all voluntary going back not forced). They all expect this to lead to more working from home and split schedules because it’s going so well.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...