Supposedly you know your hairdresser.....

[easyas123]

If I'm not mistaken, now in MD one can get a hair cut in a salon w/o the essential employee exemption. Social Distancing precautions and all that being observed....

 

[Colleen27]

Sounds lovely. Where do we get the funds?

Actually from the time this started, they have done that. People could get unemployment if they were off work due to Covid 19.

It’s not always a financial incentive. People with very light symptoms like “a cough” work because they want to have a job not just get paid for that day. I work on days that some of you are saying people should take off because that is how my job gets done, it has nothing to do with my paycheck. I wouldn’t work with fever or a hacking cough. But more allergies type, yes I probably would.

I can't really answer the first question without getting too political, so I'll just say there always seems to be funds aplenty for things our leaders feel are really important. If there isn't money for this, well, that tells me it isn't that important to the people who make the decisions.

And yes, it is only a partial solution. We do need better workplace protections all around so that people aren't fired for being human (getting sick, having sick kids or parents, etc.). But until that day comes, I refuse to jump on the bandwagon of bashing someone who did the things almost all of us are expected to do to keep our jobs - that is, suck it up and go to work even if we aren't feeling well.

There is no need to worry about board rules. Cares Act covers unemployment benefits for those who test positive, are quarantined due to exposure, or live with someone who tests positives or is quarantined due to exposure.

But not people who stay home because they have symptoms but test negative. Which is a problem, when we're talking about wanting people who have any of the dozen or so possible symptoms of the virus to stay home until they can be tested.

 

[3threebabies]

But not people who stay home because they have symptoms but test negative. Which is a problem, when we're talking about wanting people who have any of the dozen or so possible symptoms of the virus to stay home until they can be tested.

I have found no accommodation for unemployment coverage once an individual receives a negative Covid-19 diagnosis. However, an employer, healthcare provider or public official can determine an individual is at risk for exposure. That individual may be eligible for UC based on federal, state and/or local guidelines through the Cares Act. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also provides coverage for many private and public employees as a temporary expansion for FMLA coverage including up to 80 hours paid leave.

The system isn’t perfect, and everyone has different expectations. Each time I delve more into the details of coronavirus legislation, I find more ways in which congress attempted to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people they could. The biggest negative is the legislation itself is so cumbersome—and states’ unemployment systems are so overwhelmed—that I expect many people still don't know they may be eligible. Fault implementation all you wish, but the intent was to help people who need it.

 

[monkeydawn]

I’m wondering about this myself. And did the second hairdresser get it from the first? How so, if they were wearing their masks?

Maybe the people are smarter where you live but here at any given moment Id say at least a quarter of the mask wearing population are wearing masks incorrectly, either on their chins (worst) or below their noses (bad). I'd also wonder about the bathroom. Assuming the masks were worn correctly in public, who is to say they arent taking off the mask for a break in the bathroom. With poor ventilation that could easily be a transmission point.

I have horrible allergies. This time of year I'm constantly coughing and sneezing. Should I stay home every day? I'd be homeless in short order.

Those of you that this describes realize you could be asymptomatic and have allergies, correct? I mention this because on average larger droplets are expelled further when coughing and sneezing than with regular talking and breathing. So you could be infecting people with COVID due to your allergy symptoms. Obviously we are at a point where people arent going to stay home any longer. That is why it is important to not place yourself in indoor situations where you are lingering without purpose, maintaining an at least 6 ft barrier between yourself and other people and wearing a face covering if possible. I'm not even trying to say stay home anymore. But at least we can take precautions, right?

I have bad seasonal allergies and mild year round allergies so I get the inconvenience factor. But unless Ive had a recent negative test I dont think its worth possibly infecting others unnecessarily and will take the precautions that I can to protect others.

Yes, I can generally tell the difference too. But people around me can't. I'd hate to be vilified for daring to work when I'm not contagious at all.

Anyone that is coughing or sneezing unprotected is spewing more whatever into their immediate environment. I will admit to being someone who tries to ID who just coughed and to move away from that person. Even if the cough isnt due to COVID the person could be spreading COVID with the cough.

Because we didn’t feel there was a need to! We were not in close contact with anyone else and we both agreed it was unecesary. Neither of us are obese , elderly , or have any other health problems so our risk are very low.

So you are the only client this person has? And you are not working outside the home atm?

 

[georgina]

You do realize that the whole point of masks is not to protect the wearer, but to prevent the spread of the virus, right? It’s for the greater good.

I find myself liking a lot of your posts today. Not stalking you, I promise!

 

[lilypgirl]

Maybe the people are smarter where you live but here at any given moment Id say at least a quarter of the mask wearing population are wearing masks incorrectly, either on their chins (worst) or below their noses (bad). I'd also wonder about the bathroom. Assuming the masks were worn correctly in public, who is to say they arent taking off the mask for a break in the bathroom. With poor ventilation that could easily be a transmission point.



Those of you that this describes realize you could be asymptomatic and have allergies, correct? I mention this because on average larger droplets are expelled further when coughing and sneezing than with regular talking and breathing. So you could be infecting people with COVID due to your allergy symptoms. Obviously we are at a point where people arent going to stay home any longer. That is why it is important to not place yourself in indoor situations where you are lingering without purpose, maintaining an at least 6 ft barrier between yourself and other people and wearing a face covering if possible. I'm not even trying to say stay home anymore. But at least we can take precautions, right?

I have bad seasonal allergies and mild year round allergies so I get the inconvenience factor. But unless Ive had a recent negative test I dont think its worth possibly infecting others unnecessarily and will take the precautions that I can to protect others.



Anyone that is coughing or sneezing unprotected is spewing more whatever into their immediate environment. I will admit to being someone who tries to ID who just coughed and to move away from that person. Even if the cough isnt due to COVID the person could be spreading COVID with the cough.


So you are the only client this person has? And you are not working outside the home atm?

I am sure I am not and no I don’t work.

 

[lifesavacation]

So has anyone tested positive from the hairdressers? If the first hairdresser worked for 9 days, that’s enough time for people to start showing symptoms.

 

[monkeydawn]

I am sure I am not and no I don’t work.

Then I have to say that I am sorry but she put you at risk.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

But unless Ive had a recent negative test I dont think its worth possibly infecting others unnecessarily and will take the precautions that I can to protect others.

While I don't disagree with your larger point I think this above statement kinda showcases things. A test administered does not protect against future infections. This is why some of the people are being tested every day or nearly every day.

A recent test will mean nothing, a recent test may make you *think* you're in the clear for even just a bit but you're not. So I guess my point is you (general you) as an individual have to decide your own level of caution.

That's why you'll have people making comments about staying home everyday with respects to allergies because in reality that would be what's asked of them. Individuals are just using their own level of caution (for good or for bad) on this aspect.

This is actually why I even hesitate to on Friday to see about getting a test as part of my county's first come first serve testing drive they are holding. I would do it for I guess to know if I had it right then and there but largely it would really be for the County's benefit not mine because a negative test to me doesn't mean my behaviors are any different than before.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

So has anyone tested positive from the hairdressers? If the first hairdresser worked for 9 days, that’s enough time for people to start showing symptoms.

As of Friday, one exposed person who underwent screening tested positive for the virus.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/missouri-hair-salon-exposed-140-230420383.html

 

[monkeydawn]

While I don't disagree with your larger point I think this above statement kinda showcases things. A test administered does not protect against future infections. This is why some of the people are being tested every day or nearly every day.

I realize a test is just accurate for a specific point in time (or maybe not even but weve got to start somewhere). By recent I meant within the last day or two, depending on how long it took to get results. I realize even then isnt foolproof unless it is a rapid test. I should have defined recent though because while I meant a day or two, some people could easily take that to mean a week or even more. "Recent" is a very imprecise term.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I realize a test is just accurate for a specific point in time (or maybe not even but weve got to start somewhere). By recent I meant within the last day or two, depending on how long it took to get results. I realize even then isnt foolproof unless it is a rapid test. I should have defined recent though because while I meant a day or two, some people could easily take that to mean a week or even more. "Recent" is a very imprecise term.

No worries

 

[texaslover]

Ok great. And since I would literally be staying home every day if I missed work every time I had a cough or the sniffles, who's going to pay my rent or bills? I get what you're saying and it's a nice idea, but it's not realistic for most people.

Agree. And it's going to get really tricky in schools. As a teacher I want to get back to normal. I want to be in school with the kids. But if I have to stay home for any sniffle, cough, sore throat, stomach upset, etc. I would quickly run out of sick days. Kids are germ factories and Covid is certainly not the only thing they spread. And no one wants to be a substitute teacher in this environment, we could barely get enough before a pandemic. I don't want to be the focus of a headline that says teacher goes to work with symptoms and possibly infects 678 students. Finger pointing and fear mongering is so dangerous and prevents us from moving forward and through this thing.

 

[Colleen27]

As of Friday, one exposed person who underwent screening tested positive for the virus.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/missouri-hair-salon-exposed-140-230420383.html

Up to two now, but still shaping up to be an interesting, if inadvertent, test of the efficacy of mask-wearing in medium to high risk settings. If 140 confirmed exposures results in just a handful of cases, it will make a strong argument for how well masks work even when everything else goes wrong.

 

[lilypgirl]

Then I have to say that I am sorry but she put you at risk.

I am at risk every time I leave the house. I still choose to go out .

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

I am at risk every time I leave the house. I still choose to go out .

You are at risk every time you are in a car but you still put on a seat belt.
You are at risk every time you cross a street but you still look both ways.
etc

Just because a risk exists doesn't mean you should ignore measures that mitigate the severity of the risk.

edit: Thinking about it more, those aren't perfect examples because they primarily benefit the user instead of public. It would be more akin to turning your headlights on when driving through a parking garage or other measures we take to help reduce the chances of an accident. Regardless, I think the justification of "life is risky" isn't a good one as we take steps everyday to mitigate risk.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You are at risk every time you are in a car but you still put on a seat belt.
You are at risk every time you cross a street but you still look both ways.
etc

Just because a risk exists doesn't mean you should ignore measures that mitigate the severity of the risk.

I would say the person isn't ignoring measures they are actively choosing a different choice; they are aware that such efforts are out there in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of spread should one of more of them have the virus.

I would say the same thing as the seat belt and looking both ways. Generally speaking people are aware of the risks but they choose a different choice. That's not to say we all agree on that choice but I don't think the person is necessarily ignoring such measure exists.

 

[lifesavacation]

As of Friday, one exposed person who underwent screening tested positive for the virus.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/missouri-hair-salon-exposed-140-230420383.html

Good to know the mask wasn’t effective. I was really hoping it was.

 

[okeydokey]

Good to know the mask wasn’t effective. I was really hoping it was.

A mask is not 100% effective and nobody said it was. It is effective in preventing some illness, not all. If a mask was not used the infection rate could very well be much higher, as you know.

 

[lifesavacation]

A mask is not 100% effective and nobody said it was. It is effective in preventing some illness, not all. If a mask was not used the infection rate could very well be much higher, as you know.

I didn’t say anywhere there wouldn’t be more cases without masks. Not sure where you read that.