Been out of the loop for a couple of weeks...

Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago to News
30 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I've been on forced hiatus for the past three weeks because of this ridiculous bug. I was down in bed for eight days and couldn't eat anything for six. (For a week, everything tasted like battery acid. I had to force myself to eat oatmeal and drink orange juice at a bare minimum.) By the time my trifecta of ivermectin, azythromyacin, and some breathing treatment arrived via mail I was already on the upswing. And even though I didn't lose my sense of taste like my wife, I am finding that I am having to re-train it to recognize tasty vittles.

And yes, because inquiring minds want to know, I got it from infected family members who had all been "vaccinated" - just after they accused me of giving it to them. [insert eye roll here]

I was required to submit a positive test to my employer even though I had nearly 500 hours of sick-time banked. But that wasn't what nearly drove me crazy. Instead, it was when I had to get a negative test to go back to work even though the ten-day quarantine period was over. After signing up online and driving the 15 minutes out to the outdoor testing (in a parking lot) for my designated appointment, I was told by an attendant (another ten minutes later) that the website had moved my appointment out another ten days because they would only allow testing every 15 days. So nice of them to tell me all this on the website when I signed up for the same-day appointment. OH, WAIT! THEY DIDN'T!

Morons.

So then I spent the next several hours calling around to find another place that would do the testing but not charge me $150 for the privilege. Finally hit a doc-in-the-box who told me I would have my results in 24-48 hours. Yeah, right. It took four days to get the results back. No apologies for the delays, just "wait one more day" every morning and evening I would call to inquire.

Oh, and then I get back into the office and find that the company has put out a memo with a thinly veiled threat about mandatory vaccinations and referring to a nonexistent Federal mandate. Let's just say that I sent a rather wordy - but respectful - letter back to the HR person telling her that not only was there no Federal mandate, but that the thinly-veiled threats of pending unemployment for those who didn't submit positive vaccine status to HR were not only medically untenable, but a legal minefield due to the ADA, HIPAA, and several other existing statutes - not to mention the recent Federal legal rulings requiring exemptions for any such mandate in both New York State and Federal positions. (I have an existing medical condition which - though not serious - is under that heading of "auto-immune disorders" which all of the known "vaccines" specifically say disqualify you from getting their vaccines. Not that they have any medical liability anyway thanks to our wonderful government dictator-wannabes.)

So to sum up, I spent a week and a half in bed, a couple of days getting back on my feet, and then another week waiting on the medical bureaucracy to tell me I could participate in society again only to get a letter from my employer threatening my continued employment. It's been a roller-coaster. What else have I missed?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    You have been missed!
    I was thinking about the lack of contributions from you that need attacking, or at least reconsidering, and for many- very loud agreement.

    What you have missed, been thru, and why, and what are the causes and solutions, awaits a book.

    One specific thing I will mention, there are effective treatments for this bug.
    Be sure to stock ahead of need.
    This applies for the vaxed and un-vaxed alike.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Hey Bubba, I hate to tell you it ain't over yet. I had the virus? in January and I haven't gotten my appetite back. I am now down 39 pounds. I am not sure I can blame it all on the virus? because I have a couple of other issues but I sure am angry at whoever created this damn mess! N
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Thanks for that heads up. I have noticed a distinct loss of appetite but am hopeful I get it back. I only have a BMI of a little over 6 to begin with (I'm a freakin' 6'4" stick) so it isn't as if I have a lot of wiggle-room there.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Good to have you back again and feeling better. 👍
    The upside is that you now have better COVID immunity than anyone else. (And you still have the right to sue the maker of COVID since you didn't get jabbed.)
    Your tale makes me glad that I already have my expensive ($500) 'alternative' treatment on hand in case I am infected by some vaxxed moron(s).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Yeah. I tried the Frontline Doctors website and - though I eventually got the stuff - it took much longer and was significantly more expensive than I was expecting. They were charging >$200 for 35 pills of ivermectin. The azythromyacin was a mere $20. The breathing treatment stuff was another $250.

      The real bummer? I found out there was an affiliated local doctor from whom I could have gotten all the same stuff same day. Too bad I found out the day after they processed my credit card... :S
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Other friends also had a long wait on their order from an online pharmacy.
        Our government's corrupt 'experts' deserve far worse than a bad flu for their part in this.
        Again, I'm very relieved that you are well. Get those taste buds trained again! ;^)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Holy smokes, Blair! Glad you are feeling better and nice to see you in the Gulch. Sad to hear of the incompetence you've had to put up with, but it seems the whole country is squarely on that road to ruin.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    That sounds awful. I don't know if I've ever been that sick. When you're back to 100%, you could look into other job options and/or working for them on 1099 basis so you can have one fewer bureaucracy to deal with.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I'm hoping its just bluster. Every company is so short-handed right now that they would be crazy to actually carry through on this - especially since its based on a complete lie, ie. there is no existing federal mandate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
        I hope it worked out. Sometimes these things call for a face-saving measure, like agreeing to some trivial restriction that doesn't even matter, e.g. not using the main cafeteria during lunch or something like that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month ago
          Why should there be any restrictions whatsoever? I'm curious to understand why you would permit "trivial restrictions" when the original premise is fundamentally false. That's giving sanction and validity to an invalid proposition. It's absurd.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            Suppose you’re not selling labor but selling a car. You know the car is worth $10k. The buyer says the car is worth $9k and he absolutely will not pay more than $9k. He’s lying on both claims. The car is really worth $10k in the market, and he really wants to buy it. If your goal is prove you’re right and he’s wrong and you won’t abide lies, you should wait until another buyer comes along, maybe tomorrow or maybe in a month or two, who pays the going price. The prospective buyer today wants the car for $10k today, but he’s already said he absolutely won’t pay that. If your goal is to get the car sold, you might offer to throw in new mats of trivial cost and free delivery of the car to a nearby location of his choosing. It gives the buyer a face-saving out where he can say, “oh that’s different. I wouldn’t pay $10k for the car, but with new mats and service, I’ll pay $10k.”

            This is illogical behavior on the buyer’s part. In this face-saving scenario, you’re not being at all dishonest, but you’re also not schooling the buyer on his irrationality. You’re not proving that he was lying when he said we wouldn’t pay more. That’s fine, though, because your goal was to sell the car. Choosing not to show the person whose money you want how illogical he is is not giving sanction and validity to his invalid claims.

            The same is true for selling labor and other transactions. I could see them saying everyone who won’t get vaccinated will be terminated by Nov 30, but they might make a special deal for someone who agrees not to spend more than 15 minutes in the cafeteria. Ideally you’d agree to something trivial, e.g. like the cafeteria restriction if you never spent time in the cafeteria anyway.

            If the irrationality becomes too much, you can find another client, employer, etc. Whether you’re buying/selling a house, a business, or whatever; there’s always another deal. People get into trouble with they think this is their only chance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
              "You know the car is worth $10k. The buyer says the car is worth $9k and he absolutely will not pay more than $9k. ... The car is really worth $10k in the market, and he really wants to buy it."

              The market price is what a buyer can obtain for a sale - not what he thinks he can obtain. In your scenario here, the "market price" is $9000 - not $10,000. The buyer isn't lying. He/she has set a spending limit for themselves. The question should be asked thus: are this buyer and this seller actually in the same market segment.

              I have a perfect example of this very thing. I drive past a large open field every day full of junk cars. It's someone's back yard. [Cue redneck jokes]. The guy had an old '60's pickup out front one day. I was halfway interested in something like it so I asked my uncle to go take a look at it. (He's a retired airline mechanic and can fix anything.) When I talked to my uncle later, it was interesting because the truck wasn't working at all. The engine wasn't the right one and wasn't even bolted to the frame. We looked up what a restored one was selling for in the antique car market and - completely restored - vehicles of that exact model and type were going at auction for about $17,000. Guess what this guy wanted for the rusty frame of this vehicle?

              $9,000.

              For a frame. No working engine, brakes, or electrical. You'd have to gut the cab and put in a new dash and new seats. You'd have to replace the stick as well. Even assuming you could find parts which would work, there was probably $12-15,000 in repairs needed just to get it working - not to mention the $5,000 for a new paint job. And yet this guy refused offers up to $3K.

              Now was this seller lying? Maybe to himself but certainly not to a potential buyer. That's not to say he was being reasonable, but that's very different in my book from outright dissembly.

              "The same is true for selling labor and other transactions."

              Not at all. In a real market (as in the case I outlined above), the seller just never moves the vehicle because there are no buyers willing to spend that amount of money for the product offered.

              The problem with your labor example is that you're forgetting that the government is proposing to put this into place on existing employer-employee (contract) relationships. It isn't something EITHER employer OR employee agreed to - let alone both.

              In legal terms, it's called tortious interference but "government" is immune because we allow them to be. It's one thing to put this in the terms of employment when someone is being hired. It's quite another entirely to attempt for one of the parties to impose their will on the other (either unions or management). And it's yet another entirely for a third party to interfere. You're giving sanction to a third party to meddle in the affairs of others. I deny that sanction entirely. I find nothing in the Constitution which grants the Federal Government the authority to meddle in business at all - let alone at this level. And the circuit courts are agreeing as we've already had rulings from several that the OSHA mandate "raises grave concerns of Constitutionality" and another district court which issued a temporary injunction against Biden's mandate to the military.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                "You're giving sanction to a third party to meddle in the affairs of others."
                It's difficult for me to see that reality because they're trying to make people do something I have always done anyway.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 2 weeks, 5 days ago
                  Whether or not you have accepted someone else's meddling in your life is not an acceptable excuse for anyone else.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                    "Whether or not you have accepted someone else's meddling"
                    I'm not talking about accepting meddling. Rather, I'm saying it can be harder too see the meddling is wrong if they're trying to make you do something you always did anyway, e.g. make you brush your teeth in the morning if that's something you always did anyway.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                      I don't really accept excuses as rational arguments. Those who seek to excuse their own blindness when given the opportunity to take off the blinders void any sympathy they would get from me. I'm more than happy to pursue the education of the ignorant but I refuse to give sanction to the willfully ignorant. If you want to relegate yourself to the life of a serf that choice is yours to make, but don't expect me to agree with it or permit you to drag me with you.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                        I think we're completely talking past each other. Its not about blame, excuses, and sympathy. Those topics aren't even on my radar. I'm talking about the underlying work, not the blaming, sympathizing, back-patting, and excusing people do about the work.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 1 week, 5 days ago
                          If you don't think you are getting your point across the way you had in mind, then clarify. So far what I've heard you say is that you are okay with "trivial restrictions" and I'm not. You're okay with government/third-party meddling. I'm not. You're okay with excuses for bad behavior. I'm not.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                "The buyer isn't lying. "
                In this scenario he really is. He's willing to pay full price, but he lied and said he wasn't.
                It's a moot point, though, because the original analogy is invalid.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                "The problem with your labor example is that you're forgetting that the government is proposing to put this into place on existing employer-employee (contract) relationships."
                Yes, that's true. My analogy is not valid. There was no third party changing the deal after it had been made.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo