First of all, thank you so much for your very civil response. Your personal experience is very relevant here, and I appreciate you sharing it. Training may have been too strong a word, but the article refers to them receiving "instruction." I may be conflating the terms, but I think the sentiment stands.
Still, I think your statement about onions, dead grandmas, and soap operas contributes to my point. Too often, people are ready to write signs off domestic violence off to something else so that it's not their problem.
I feel like we have some common ground here. I feel similarly unqualified to positively identify abuse, as do my colleagues who've felt compelled to report it. Especially because I work with special needs students who are often physically aggressive at home, or who may make statements about self-harm that they don't actually mean. That's why we take the obligation so seriously. We're well aware of the implications that reporting can have on families.
I hate that the accusations made against you had such severe consequences. That absolutely sucks. That's where my personal experience differs from yours. As I mentioned, I haven't had to report any suspected abuse, but I have colleagues who have. In those cases, most turned out to be unwarranted, but were resolved with a few meetings with our equivalent of CPS. There may have been some legal costs incurred, but I can't speak to that with any degree of confidence.
Where I think we differ is on your point about a boxer vs. a kid with a shitty stepdad. Sounds like you deal with typical students who are, for all intents and purposes, adults. I deal with minors, and the few who are of legal age are still vulnerable. We don't have many boxers in our population, so the shitty stepdad situation is more likely. It's still a fine line to walk though.
I appreciate your appreciation! I agree that it's one of your many redeeming characteristics, and it's one of the many reasons I appreciate this forum so much. I get to engage with that perspective, without dealing with the bottom 3% of humanity.
Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think that the current climate might be amplifying that hypervigilance to a degree that I don't always agree with, but I'm happy to chalk that up to our very different personal experiences.
My partner finds herself in LA fairly regularly for work, and one of these days I hope to accompany her. I don't expect the free lifetime membership to SSLA that George earned himself, but if I ever make my way there I'd love to poke my head in and buy you a beer.
Thanks again for the civil discourse!
Peter Robinson interviewed one of the guys involved with that Santa Clara County study, if any one is interested in seeing what one of those involved has to say about it.
YouTube
The government is already tightly controlling the distribution of PPE, to the point where hospital administrators get questioned by DHS when unloading it. "Coordination" isn't going to get much better.
PCR tests are no longer in short supply for clinical practice. There are some proposals for larger-scale blanket testing, but the PCR test is unreliable in asymptomatic populations, so those may not actually be very useful.Also, testing is the much bigger concern at this point, and the US falls below most every other country on this.
If the .gov returns itself to pre-C19 spending, personnel, and legislation levels then all the discussion of the aforementioned will have been preemptive. However I anticipate not only the birth of new bureaucracy but also the expansion of existing. Why is it that the DHS (an agency that didn't exist 20 years ago and was born in response to another "crisis") is at the forefront of the fed response?government oppression
Coronavirus (COVID-19) | Homeland Security
You fucking moron, the sick are the best off in this mess. You are like talking to the floor. You will not understand the following: YouTube
The coordination has been poorly executed and left primarily up to the individual states. This has caused the states to be bidding against each other as well as the federal government. Please explain how the PCR test is unreliable in populations. I haven't heard that before and PCR tests are typically pretty damn reliable. This is a serious inquiry from my end, not saying one way or another. Actually the problem is not the equipment for the test, but rather the reagents that are needed to run the tests.
That is a fabulous video. I’m glad to see there are still those in Britain who remember the Magna Carta.
I looked up his background, he is a medieval historian and former judge. No background in science, medicine, epidemiology or economics. We could each easily go back and forth posting video after video of some dude supporting our opinions. Some may even have cool sounding accents and scholarly appearing silvery hair. Is this productive? You know what they say about assholes and opinions, right? But before we get to that you responded to a post regarding typhoid mary. Do you not see the flaw in the logic when comparing an asymptomatic carrier with covid and saying they are not like typhoid mary? I will even throw you a bone. There is a serious ethical issue surrounding her story that any first year med student knows that you could argue for. However, I would perhaps still argue that we shouldn't put her back in the kitchen. (read the story and you will understand).