Please Stay Home

HeavyG

CTMike said:

HeavyG said:

GATraveller said:

CTMike said:

Well after reading that article, I will never buy another Smithfield product. Shameless behavior.

I quit when I found out they were bought. Not sure why I draw the line with my pork products.....but I did. This just solidified my decision. 

Not sure why Chinese ownership is of any relevance. Meat processing/packing plants have always been a hazardous workplace where concern for line employees is minimal. Surely you read the century old Upton Sinclair novel "The Jungle" when you were in junior high.

I’m not boycotting Smithfield because of Chinese ownership, rather because of how they treated their workers in South Dakota.

My point was that there's nothing unique about Smithfield in its treatment of its employees.

Here's some news regarding a Tyson poultry plant where workers are infected/dying - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4-georgia-poultry-workers-dead-coronavirus-company-says-n1186326

It's more than likely more of these situations will be in the news as covid19 continues to spread.

Meat packing plants are ALL focused more on output rather than employee welfare. Lord knows nobody cares about employee welfare if that means they would have to spend an extra 25 cents for a whole chicken.

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1251453232850898944

"It's just the flu."

nolaegghead

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes#

Canugghead

HeavyG said:

CTMike said:

HeavyG said:

GATraveller said:

CTMike said:

Well after reading that article, I will never buy another Smithfield product. Shameless behavior.

I quit when I found out they were bought. Not sure why I draw the line with my pork products.....but I did. This just solidified my decision. 

Not sure why Chinese ownership is of any relevance. Meat processing/packing plants have always been a hazardous workplace where concern for line employees is minimal. Surely you read the century old Upton Sinclair novel "The Jungle" when you were in junior high.

I’m not boycotting Smithfield because of Chinese ownership, rather because of how they treated their workers in South Dakota.

My point was that there's nothing unique about Smithfield in its treatment of its employees.

Here's some news regarding a Tyson poultry plant where workers are infected/dying - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4-georgia-poultry-workers-dead-coronavirus-company-says-n1186326

It's more than likely more of these situations will be in the news as covid19 continues to spread.

Meat packing plants are ALL focused more on output rather than employee welfare. Lord knows nobody cares about employee welfare if that means they would have to spend an extra 25 cents for a whole chicken.

I'm too lazy to Google,  is Tyson Foods owned by China too? I guess the answer is no if cheeto doesn't say "I wonder who owns the company" in today's briefing.

frazzdaddy

nolaegghead said:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes#

It's a full on invasion of the body. 

YukonRon

Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry. The company is the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork after JBS S.A. and annually exports the largest percentage of beef out of the United States. Together with its subsidiaries, it operates major food brands, including Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm, Sara Lee, Ball Park, Wright Brand, Aidells, and State Fair.[3] Tyson Foods ranked No. 80 in the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.[4]

JohnInCarolina

Spaightlabs

JohnInCarolina said:

Fine, but what about BENGHAZI  and HILLARY's EMAILS?

Let's focus on what's important here.

GrateEggspectations

Related to @lkapigian?

GrateEggspectations

REB17

JohnInCarolina said:

A person dies from heart disease every 37 min, or 647,000 last year. That's over 1800 per million or 154 per month. 

HeavyG

REB17 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

A person dies from heart disease every 37 min, or 647,000 last year. That's over 1800 per million or 154 per month. 

The graph is showing a weekly average of about 40 heart disease deaths per million which equates to about 160 per month per million which jibes with your number - unless I'm missing your point.

REB17

HeavyG said:

REB17 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

A person dies from heart disease every 37 min, or 647,000 last year. That's over 1800 per million or 154 per month. 

The graph is showing a weekly average of about 40 heart disease deaths per million which equates to about 160 per month per million which jibes with your number - unless I'm missing your point.

No point. Just trying to understand the comparison. Actually it should have read heart disease deaths every 37 seconds. 

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/KTLA/status/1251259183820795904?s=20

Branch Covidians

YukonRon

@REB17

53,917 per month on heart disease. Numbers are tracking to be about the same and growing, even with the use of preventive measures for Covid19.

18 days there have been over 35,000 deaths in April from Covid 19. Just using avg per day in a linear equation, kind of smokes heart disease in April.

Somewhere around 4K (58,000+) more projected this month than the average heart disease rate, if we just go by average Covid19 deaths per day in April, and not the possible exponential spread which would likely mean more.

Both are dangerous. As to the best of my knowledge, one is treatable. The other is not. One is infectious, the other is not. I think those are the two issues; no treatments and highly contagious, which makes this an apples to oranges comparison.

Those that would do so, perhaps are not thinking about it too deeply. Trust me when I tell you this, when it hits close to home, people start thinking differently.

Maybe people should be thinking why did we wait so long to establish prevetitive measures, which would have had a tremendous impact on controlling the spread of Covid19 saving people's lives and impacting the numbers of infected?

GATraveller

People are starting to cave and move about a lot more around here lately. My kids friends are allowed to get out more freely which makes us look like the bad guys for staying the course. I understand it's hard but mistakes now only negate our prior sacrifice. So frustrating. 
I'm expecting to see another rise in numbers. 

alaskanassasin

@YukonRon The flip side to that is the millions of people that were living paycheck to paycheck, with bills to pay, mouths to feed who are now jobless, many won’t have a job to return to.

  Business owners who are laying off employees, when you own your own business there are literally families other than your own that count on you for income, it is a big responsibility. 

  It is easy to say shut it down everyone stay home when you are gainfully employed, work from home, shelves stocked, family looked after.
  You say everyone’s retirement is gone! Poof! The market will comeback.  Many Jobs will not, many people don’t have food for their children right now.
 I don’t know if it’s possible to avoid the virus altogether, I thought the idea of locking everyone in was to avoid overwhelming our hospitals, ours just furloughed 71 employees.
  

nolaegghead

"See you in Heaven, Grandma!"

JohnInCarolina

alaskanassasin said:

@YukonRon The flip side to that is the millions of people that were living paycheck to paycheck, with bills to pay, mouths to feed who are now jobless, many won’t have a job to return to.

  Business owners who are laying off employees, when you own your own business there are literally families other than your own that count on you for income, it is a big responsibility. 

  It is easy to say shut it down everyone stay home when you are gainfully employed, work from home, shelves stocked, family looked after.
  You say everyone’s retirement is gone! Poof! The market will comeback.  Many Jobs will not, many people don’t have food for their children right now.
 I don’t know if it’s possible to avoid the virus altogether, I thought the idea of locking everyone in was to avoid overwhelming our hospitals, ours just furloughed 71 employees.
  

It's not possible to avoid the virus altogether.

Social distancing is designed to prevent a surge on the critical care facilities in the hospitals.  It appears to be working to some extent in many areas.  Relaxing it may well trigger another surge.

It's a fine line we have to walk right now.  I don't have the answer as to how best to do that.  I'm not sure that anyone does.  But one thing I do know is that widespread testing can help us do it.

YukonRon

alaskanassasin said:

@YukonRon The flip side to that is the millions of people that were living paycheck to paycheck, with bills to pay, mouths to feed who are now jobless, many won’t have a job to return to.

  Business owners who are laying off employees, when you own your own business there are literally families other than your own that count on you for income, it is a big responsibility. 

  It is easy to say shut it down everyone stay home when you are gainfully employed, work from home, shelves stocked, family looked after.
  You say everyone’s retirement is gone! Poof! The market will comeback.  Many Jobs will not, many people don’t have food for their children right now.
 I don’t know if it’s possible to avoid the virus altogether, I thought the idea of locking everyone in was to avoid overwhelming our hospitals, ours just furloughed 71 employees.
  

What flipside?

Had this administration been proactive, and not reactive, perhaps this situation we are in now would have been less severe.

My company has furloughed 2,458 employees globally, of which 473 are in the USA. Most of the remaining employed have volunteered pay cuts (I did) so the minimum were cut, so I absolutely understand.

This could have been a much better outcome had our present administration not done everything it could possibly do wrong, from the outset of this crisis.

It is your call, but right now, in most cases, the only business that will be booming is the funeral business.

The president laid out a plan for reopening the economy, most states already had such a plan in place. The president and the entire republican party has undermined that plan with his petty and deplorable actions trying to shift blame and politicizing this reactionary response of liberate the states. Such a bottom barrel move.

I wonder if his name should be etched in every tombstone from Covid19 in the USA, the same as his signature on the relief checks?

JohnInCarolina

wtf

GATraveller

JohnInCarolina said:

wtf

How did they do producing the product? Do we know? 

RockyTopDW

Would it be possible to quarantine the high risk demographic and let the rest of the country get back to work?  That could possibly satisfy both sides of the argument and not cause further economic hardships.  

ColbyLang

RockyTopDW said:

Would it be possible to quarantine the high risk demographic and let the rest of the country get back to work?  That could possibly satisfy both sides of the argument and not cause further economic hardships.  

Interesting idea. How we gonna determine the threshold of who works and who stays home? I’d imagine they’d argue over that as well  

alaskanassasin

JohnInCarolina said:

wtf 



10 years ago when I lived in NC a New York investment firm called me and said they had just won a contract to mow a freeway corridor somewhere in the NC mountains and needed someone to do it. 

 My point is it happens every day. 

Spaightlabs

alaskanassasin said:

JohnInCarolina said:

wtf 



10 years ago when I lived in NC a New York investment firm called me and said they had just won a contract to mow a freeway corridor somewhere in the NC mountains and needed someone to do it. 

 My point is it happens every day. 

Was it for $55 Mil?  Were you able to charge almost 1000% of the normal price?

JohnInCarolina

RockyTopDW said:

Would it be possible to quarantine the high risk demographic and let the rest of the country get back to work?  That could possibly satisfy both sides of the argument and not cause further economic hardships.  

I believe this is the approach Sweden has tried to follow.

GATraveller

ColbyLang said:

RockyTopDW said:

Would it be possible to quarantine the high risk demographic and let the rest of the country get back to work?  That could possibly satisfy both sides of the argument and not cause further economic hardships.  

Interesting idea. How we gonna determine the threshold of who works and who stays home? I’d imagine they’d argue over that as well  

And I can already hear folks saying "Trump said daddy wasn't at risk and now he's dead"

alaskanassasin

Spaightlabs said:

alaskanassasin said:

JohnInCarolina said:

wtf 



10 years ago when I lived in NC a New York investment firm called me and said they had just won a contract to mow a freeway corridor somewhere in the NC mountains and needed someone to do it. 

 My point is it happens every day. 

Was it for $55 Mil?  Were you able to charge almost 1000% of the normal price?

 
 I was commenting on johns post. That is to say every company bids on jobs first, then after winning said bid they gear up and make it happen.