all 4 comments

[–]fred_red_beans[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

With a highly inaccurate test, the amount of online surveillance, sure seems like it would be easy pickin's to eliminate dissenters or "enemys of the state", or just people in general and blame it on COVID

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate people who play with their food.

[–]DreaX 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Um straight from the link.

This bill would provide $100 billion in grants to faith-based organization, clinics, medical centers, and other organization which perform testing for COVID–19, tracing of exposure to COVID–19, or services for individuals who are isolating at home. The funding could be used to pay their staff or purchase personal protective equipment to protect their staff.

No provision in this bill would make testing or quarantining mandatory. 

So other than it only going to "faith based " things. Nothings is evil about it.

[–]fred_red_beans[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as nec- essary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes.

IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Cen- ters for Disease Control and Prevention, may award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such con- tacts, through— (1) mobile health units; and (2) as necessary, testing individuals and pro- viding individuals with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.

What happens when someone at their residence refuses to be tested? While asserted outside the bill that it's voluntary, the bill itself does not address that.

What happens when an individual is found to be or is suspected of being infected is unable to quarantine by their standards, such as by only having one bathroom between several individuals?

Again, Ventura County Public Health states if they trace an infected person who lives with multiple people (3 or 4 others) and share a single bathroom that they will not be able to keep that person in that home.

Where do they go?

Upon clarification, Ventura County Public Health states:

“I either misspoke or it was misinterpreted – I’ll take the blame of having misspoke,” Levin said. “Yesterday, at this conference, at the Board of Supervisors, I gave people the impression that if you were isolated, you would be taken out of your home and put into a hotel room or a motel room or sequestered in some other way.”

“If I did do that, I am very sorry," he said. "That is an option. That is possible. If you become infected, you don’t want to stay in your home, you’re afraid that you’ll expose other people, we’ll work with you to find a place to stay. And, it’s likely to be a hotel of a motel. We will desire for you to have your own room in your place of residence and a bathroom that can be dedicated to just you. Now, not everyone is fortunate enough to have more than one bathroom, so we’ll work with you.”

So he's saying if you don't have more than one bathroom they'll "work with you", which I interpret as making sure you can fulfill their quarantine requirements.

What happens if an individual does not consent to comply with those requirements?

Does the state have the right to remove any individual from their home over a virus that has yet to be shown any more deadly than the common flu?