Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Yeah, pretty much. That makes us sound like assholes because we're not biting into their faux virtue. They make it seem that their issue is greater than yours and then double down with strawman bullshit, "You don't care about people dying? YOU MONSTER!"
Meanwhile, they don't give a single flying fuck about the well being of your family and livelihood.
Man, am I glad to see you’re on our side with this.
Originally Posted by O.city:
Doesn't the PCR test have a bit of a time log? I'd think if they can get it where you get quick results it would work maybe?
It takes approximately 90 minutes for the Thermocycler to complete the amplification and read results, however you can test up to 96 patients in parallel. You could easily test the entire team, coaching staff, managers, and medical personnel with two thermocyclers onsite, in 90 minutes. Allow an extra 30 minutes for pipetting and NAT extraction.
It's not perfect and the coaching staff will have to figure out how to rearrange the schedule so they can be productive while results are coming out.
edit: NFL teams are ideally suited for screening because you are testing the same number of people everyday, and they all provide specimens at exactly the same time for the lab. In a hospital setting, tests trickle into the lab throughout the day, and once you start a thermocycler, it can't be interrupted and must run the entire 90 minutes. This means that lab staff have to make judgement calls on how long to hold a sample before running the test, etc... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Yeah, pretty much. That makes us sound like assholes because we're not biting into their faux virtue. They make it seem that their issue is greater than yours and then double down with strawman bullshit, "You don't care about people dying? YOU MONSTER!"
Meanwhile, they don't give a single flying **** about the well being of your family and livelihood.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
And what is "my position"?
Originally Posted by DaFace:
For the record, I'm not implying that you're a murderous asshole or that you want people to die. I don't think it's inaccurate to say, however, that your tolerance for more people dying is much higher than mine.
Originally Posted by staylor26:
In order to possibly save those people, you have to ruin the lives of a lot more, including children.
This isn’t en either/or thing. People will die either way, and lives will be ruined either way.
Take your “I need a haircut” bs. It’s not about the haircut, it’s about the barber that has 4 kids and supports his family cutting hair. It’s about those kids and there ability to have a somewhat normal life and enjoy their childhood instead of hiding from something that is VERY unlikely to affect them.
What's your evidence for this?
I refuse to be dragged into those holier than thou or protect your grandparents arguments. That's not going to get anywhere. But I do not see any evidence we are anywhere near herd immunity, or the virus has become less contagious. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
That's your bullshit position
I’m done with him. He’s a virtue signaling POS that thinks he’s better than us because he’s a chicken shit incapable of making tough decisions and understanding that they’re tough either way. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
That's your bullshit position
Is it not true that you are willing to accept increased numbers of deaths in order to hasten a return to "normalcy"? I thought you'd made that pretty clear. [Reply]
