How long ago was this? It’s basically everywhere now. I can’t imagine anyone in healthcare being surprised. Everyone’s freaking out about rapidly filling ICU units.
How long ago was this? It’s basically everywhere now. I can’t imagine anyone in healthcare being surprised. Everyone’s freaking out about rapidly filling ICU units.
Mrs. Trudeau is Canada's "First Lady". She was recently in Great Britain on a speaking engagement, and had flue like symptoms. The Prime Minister, her husband, is currently in isolation as well.
Mrs. Trudeau is Canada's "First Lady". She was recently in Great Britain on a speaking engagement, and had flue like symptoms. The Prime Minister, her husband, is currently in isolation as well.
So is it just a given that he has it then? And the government doesn't want to 'officialize' it? Or is it the other way and we're assuming he doesn't have it because he's asymptomatic? The...
So is it just a given that he has it then? And the government doesn't want to 'officialize' it? Or is it the other way and we're assuming he doesn't have it because he's asymptomatic? The reasoning here doesn't make sense to me. How is it not a priority to know if the PRIME MINISTER is or isn't infected?
It's not that the government doesn't want to officialize it, it's that testing someone who is asymptomatic is not going to be beneficial to that person, regardless of their station, if they are...
It's not that the government doesn't want to officialize it, it's that testing someone who is asymptomatic is not going to be beneficial to that person, regardless of their station, if they are already self-isolating.
If he tests positive or negative, it's not going to have an effect on his behaviour, or on the behaviour of people around him. It's a wasted test, one that could be used for someone who has more risk factors. It's especially wasteful when the person in question is young and does not meet any of the real risk factors; he is fit, healthy, under 50, can work remotely, and has ready access to health care if he needs it.
I think this is one of those cases where there's actually no way for him to "win" with everyone; if he doesn't get tested, some people think it's the government hiding something, or that he's being irresponsible. If he does get tested, and it's positive, then his behaviour will not change even slightly from what it is now, and the test has been wasted. If he does get a test, and it's negative, then people are going to be on him for wasting a test that could have gone to someone who needed it more, for using his power and influence for self interest, and for not physically comforting his wife when she was ill.
In this case, the most responsible thing is to just not get a test, assume he will eventually get it, and carry on.
How long ago was this? It’s basically everywhere now. I can’t imagine anyone in healthcare being surprised. Everyone’s freaking out about rapidly filling ICU units.
That is incredible. Like, criminally negligent. . .
Mrs. Trudeau is Canada's "First Lady". She was recently in Great Britain on a speaking engagement, and had flue like symptoms. The Prime Minister, her husband, is currently in isolation as well.
Why wouldn't they test him? I would assume it's very possible and even likely he has it at this point.
It would be wasteful to test him at this point. He's already in isolation, and he doesn't have any symptoms.
So is it just a given that he has it then? And the government doesn't want to 'officialize' it? Or is it the other way and we're assuming he doesn't have it because he's asymptomatic? The reasoning here doesn't make sense to me. How is it not a priority to know if the PRIME MINISTER is or isn't infected?
It's not that the government doesn't want to officialize it, it's that testing someone who is asymptomatic is not going to be beneficial to that person, regardless of their station, if they are already self-isolating.
If he tests positive or negative, it's not going to have an effect on his behaviour, or on the behaviour of people around him. It's a wasted test, one that could be used for someone who has more risk factors. It's especially wasteful when the person in question is young and does not meet any of the real risk factors; he is fit, healthy, under 50, can work remotely, and has ready access to health care if he needs it.
I think this is one of those cases where there's actually no way for him to "win" with everyone; if he doesn't get tested, some people think it's the government hiding something, or that he's being irresponsible. If he does get tested, and it's positive, then his behaviour will not change even slightly from what it is now, and the test has been wasted. If he does get a test, and it's negative, then people are going to be on him for wasting a test that could have gone to someone who needed it more, for using his power and influence for self interest, and for not physically comforting his wife when she was ill.
In this case, the most responsible thing is to just not get a test, assume he will eventually get it, and carry on.