Beseeching employers in Canada to make work as remote as possible. If your employee is not, e.g., a healthcare worker, requiring in-person interaction, there is no reason why they should be out there at risk + increasing the risk for essential workers.
cbc.ca/news/canada/wo…
cbc.ca/news/canada/wo…
I wonder, often, at employers who think IT/admin people must be at the office. You can basically look South to see what happens when people treat this virus like it's not serious. Not everyone has access to (1) regular testing and (2) new therapeutics + a top class medical team.
The question at this point is how many deaths and disabilities your employer needs before they decide to make work remote. You already know cases are rising, that means many undetected cases. And you know people with pre-existing conditions have a fair chance of death/disability.
If the answer is 1. That means that your company is just waiting for 1 employee to die/suffer disability before they wake the *** up and realize that they should not be making people who can work remotely come into the office, taking public transit, interacting with others.
I'm confused by, on the one side, the people who think SARS2 is a bioweapon/manmade but for some reason we should all be exposed to it to get herd immunity. VS on the other side, people who think SARS2 is 100% natural and so no one should be exposed. How does this logic work?
If the answer is 1. I'm asking people to point out the colleague who you think should die/become disabled before your workplace realizes it's a bad idea to have people coming into work for unnecessary in-person interactions.
Canada making the mistakes they just watched unfold in real time in the USA.
Next scene:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
