"Disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has tested positive for the coronavirus, report says"
First class prisoners? [businessinsider.com]
He must be in critical condition in a hospital, right? How did he get tested? I REALLY WONDER. In my state only inpatients and healthcare workers are being tested. I can repost the quote direct from governors mouth. Why this disparity in treatment? Who authorized the test? Why? Was the entire ward tested? If not, why was he singled out? On what grounds? Does this bring up ethical concerns?
New York drive thru testing website says "The drive-through sites are prioritizing sampling for individuals that are part of the highest risk population." I wonder how highest risk population is defined? That definition can leave A LOT of people OUT, including children and young adults. Considering death rates are only 2.7% for the age range of what this case subject prisoner it is, is this a responsible use of limited resources? What if an 80 year old was denied testing because of this test, or their young family member was denied a test and then unknowingly caused their death by passing it on? For certain, testing is limited.
Also, possibly prison should be divided by age at this time to limit risks to elderly.
These are all very good questions you are asking and I admit I have no answers. At my workplace a driver from another of our stores said last week that he was surprised that they had not ordered all of us to be tested. They who? Our employer is not ordering anyone to be tested. Was he tested and by whom? We are currently in very weird times.
While I'm no fan of Harvy Weinstein this makes me terrified for the very large number of people in our society locked up in crowded conditions without proper healthcare or any means to protect or self isolate like the raet of us.
Yes I am sure larger society will be, is, just lost.
I am more worried about t he workers that manage those populations. Guards, Nurses etc. What happens when they get sick or decide to call in sick to save their lives?
Do we then release the sick inmate population into the general population to spread the disease?
Yesterday on the news an American nurse who is working in Italy noted of the 600 beds in the hospital, 100 of them were for the heath care workers.
I have a friend that is an RN.
As soon as I am done cooking and eating breakfast I will be firing up the sewing machine to make her face masks so she can wear a different one for every patient because there is NO protective gear available for nurses in her department. All masks etc. have been rationed for medical personal working with those in the hospitals with patients that have tested positive. Depending on where you are, currently it takes from 2 to 7 days to get the lab results back.
I volunteered to make her masks a few days back but she told me not to bother because they are not very effective. Last night (on the phone I keep a safe social distance from her) she changed her mind and would like some masks. Rather sure workers in the prison system do not have access to adequate protective gear when/(small if) the population becomes infected.
@NoMagicCookie Our jails and prisons are notoriously overcrowded with mentally I'll, poor and discriminated against people many of who shouldn't be there at all. The ones who are there deservedly are mostly not on death sentences. Basic humane treatment and not being forcefully exposed to an epidemic is not beyond their rights.
Employees have a choice. While I don't want anyone getting sick but in general I don't loose alot of love for people willingly involved in that system in this country.
I understand the risk to healthcare workers. I am a nursing assistant in a nursing home. I'm grateful I am working while most people aren't. I'm not extremely worried about me or my kids because thankfully we are relatively healthy and would probably survive it. I am terrified about the possibility of bringing something into the facility.
@MsAl I hope you stay healthy. In Italy, entire families including young and healthy have been killed by this virus.
He is in prison a possible hotbed for the virus . He has a depleted immune system. VERY vulnerable. I agree he should be away from society but I wage that his accusers are feeling very uncomfortable at the moment.
Probably are. Probably are.
I find no reason "his accusers" / (those who he victimized) would feel any more "uncomfortable at then the moment" then anyone else in the population.
Yesterday the mayer of a large city (on television) noted they (didn't catch is source as I was channel surfing) expect 40% to 80% will get this disease.
Rather sure people are more concerned about their own health and the health of their friends then a person that made their lives horrible.
I am a teacher and know many who were sexually abused. (not by me). For some, this really messes them up and greatly changes their lives for the much worse.
@NoMagicCookie I totally agree about the massive damage of sexual abuse .
The virus does not pick out those with abuse history as perpetrator but does pick out those with low resistance and weakened immunity system. He does not deserve "death by Virus" but rather along term in prison to think out why he did this abuse.
@Mcflewster You seem to have missed one of my points.
If the majority of people will get the virus, how would he being in a 1st rate incarceration centre dictate his becoming sick as opposed to being magically immune if he were not in that facility?
I really doubt he has it. He paid the prison off.
This is his way of getting out of the general Population.
We don't know for certain at this point. But I wonder if it will be inquired into.
What is all this madness about whom is getting tested? Everyone traveling at the time and those whom came in contact with the infected should be tested first. Simple right?
That is what I would have thought. Experts are predicting hospitals will not be able to accommodate all the sick. Business closed, schools closed. Nothing of this level has ever been seen before.
That doesn't quite fit at the moment, since the virus is out in the wild now in America. That's what community spread means. Doing contact tracing becomes essentially impossible after it reaches community spread levels.
@bingst But how did we go from contact tracing to out in the wild? This virus could continue further mutating and become DEADLIER.
@Flowerwall It happens when a contact is missed... or too much delayed. Just think of all the contacts a contagious person can make over the course of just a week. Especially consider places where there are a lot of strangers, like grocery stores and restaurants. If the person can't account for each possible contact, then it's out in the community... in the wild.
@bingst My point was to address the 2nd question asked. I think that is the base of these post. This same questions has been posted about a few people that also should have been tested first. No matter how we 'feel' about anything. Going forward should not be about fear, no area had it until traveling people or products contaminated others. This simply means, containment is still the number one action to take. Tracking is number two. Right?
Those with resources have privilege. Disparities will continue until our health care system, indeed our entire political system, is reformed. How is it that US Senators and NBA athletes may be tested while so many wait?
Under our current system, the fox guards the hen house. Our elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make laws and rules that effectively isolate them from the rest of society. Why do we allow this? Congress determines their own salaries, their health plans, their exorbitant privileges and retirements, without any oversight by the people (other than their election). How is this even possible in a democracy? How can those who are elected determine, without referendum, and on their own, what their constituents should pay them?
Honestly with what I am witnessing with elected officials I keep wondering when we bring up the "T" word.
@Flowerwall "T word?"
@p-nullifidian What "T" word fits the situation? Also, if you have any thing to respond to this I would appreciate it - at what point does mismanagement of a crisis become something else? What would we do in a hypothetical scenario if we elected someone who was CONSCIOUSLY not supporting the well being of the nation, or their state, etc.? What would be done? How would the people relieve the person like firing someone from a job?
@p-nullifidian In the UK there exists a process known as "recall an MP". I think it's similar to firing. Does the US need a similar provision?
@Flowerwall Like Trump intentionally holding off doing anything substantive about coronavirus as long as he could in the hopes that it would result in postponing the general election and supposedly allow him to stay in office beyond his term? And continuing to do as little as he can so that eventually he declares martial law, further potentially allowing his continued tenure beyond his term?
@Flowerwall, @p-nullifidian I'm guessing tyranny.
@bingst Trump's line "You're fired!"
I just sent a message out. And at this hour!
@Flowerwall "Does the US need a similar provision?"
Perhaps we do. Our process of impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment (which has never been tried) would seem to be the only paths. A national referendum would likely require a new Amendment to the Constitution. Barring that, the November election is what are left with, at this point.
@p-nullifidian [vox.com] Describes process of removing President using the 25th. It requires action on part of VP and majority of sitting cabinet members. How do the American people express their will at this point? I wonder if a majority of voters would support this course of action.
he is old and I noticed when he went to trial he got more feeble with every passing day but was fine while grabbing probing and having his way
I know trump and his band of thieves is waiting to hurt the most and make money from their suffering
all prisoners and guards and staff should be tested if one person is infected
"all prisoners and guards and staff should be tested if one person is infected"
So we are to prioritize prisoners over law abiding citizens? Did you read all of what I wrote? "The drive-through sites are prioritizing sampling for individuals that are part of the highest risk population." Meaning infected law abiding citizens are being turned away. How many tests would that require? And how frequently would you test?
Mayor of NY had acknowledged extreme shortages stating "“I can’t be blunt enough: If the president doesn’t act, people will die who could have lived otherwise — senior citizens, folks who are members of families,” the mayor said." So it appears dire. How do we prioritize testing in this scenario? How do we prioritize medical resources?
@Flowerwall i did read what you said and its horrible what is happening the president and the congress had advanced briefings and test kits should have been readily available
I see that you think law abiding has more rights than criminals how would sessions get kick backs if a bunch of prisoners died they can't distance themselves anymore than they already are
we could also discuss the diff between law abiding and criminal ive seen more honesty in criminals than in those law abiding .... all lives matter
and in two or three cycles this too will create that herd immunity
the fact that our leadership is inadequate is horrific im friggin 72 and my asshole sick63 yr brother goes out every friggin day hanging out shopping wishing he could go to the gym and hang at local restaurants just trying to bring disease home to the rest of us and next week he plans to sit in a dr office in a huge big city grrrrrr
so yes I read your comment and it is wrong that Harvey gets preferential treatment on that I agree
@whiskywoman We need ethics! Citizens need to start pushing ethics in government. Our Founding Fathers were very big on this concept even though in retrospect they were not perfect people.
There is no solid evidence of "herd" immunity from this virus. And even if there was and what point does mismanagement of a crisis become something else? What would we do in a hypothetical scenario if we elected someone who was CONSCIOUSLY not supporting the well being of the nation, or their state, etc.? What would be done? How would the people relieve the person like firing someone from a job?
As I perused through, I expected the title to read, "...tested positive for AIDS."
For some reason I had forgotten about covid and it was a bit anticlimactic that he did not, indeed, have AIDS.
@Flowerwall Not at all. Just sharing my thoughts.
@Flowerwall I stopped reading at coronavirus. I don't know much about Weinstein.