Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA approves airport coronavirus screenings, paving way for first program to launch in Iowa
In Cedar Rapids, screeners from a local health-care group, Mercy Medical Center, will ask travelers questions about their health and potential exposure to the coronavirus, and also take their temperatures. The first step should take 10 seconds. Anyone who fails the initial screening will be subject to a second review, which Lenss said in a few weeks could include rapid testing. Those who seem sick would be urged not to travel and be referred back to their airline, which would make the final… (www.washingtonpost.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I don't get how the aviation professionals who made and make air travel one of the safest activities you can do, care so little about putting lives in danger from the virus. The NTSB doesn't seem to care either about this SAFETY issue.
I have found that when one can't believe that another is acting in a specific way, it is very probable because they have a lack of understanding of something. "It is always easier to solve a problem when you know nothing."
Perhaps the world is not, in reality, how it is fed to you by your media sources...
Perhaps the world is not, in reality, how it is fed to you by your media sources...
I'll keep it simple for you. Your rights end where my rights begin. I have a right to take any action I choose to avoid being infected by a known pathogen with a mortality rate I (and health-care professionals as well as the majority of my fellow citizens) find unacceptable. That includes NOT flying on airlines that do not test. The drop in their traffic has prompted said airlines to agree to steps to minimize the probability of transmission, including TESTING If you find the tests obtrusive you can, A) lobby for less obtrusive tests B) support the development and deployment of a less intrusive test, or C) stop flying. You do not have the right to ask me to fly with probable pathogen spreaders. I wish you the best of health, but my wishes do not mean much to a virus.
With a small exception, a very reasonable post.
My only criticism is in your opening statement. "your rights end where my rights begin." That would indicate that in a conflict of rights, your rights always take precedence over another's. I don't think you really mean that, but perhaps you do, in which case I would humbly ask that you reconsider. We were all created with equal rights, weren't we?
My only criticism is in your opening statement. "your rights end where my rights begin." That would indicate that in a conflict of rights, your rights always take precedence over another's. I don't think you really mean that, but perhaps you do, in which case I would humbly ask that you reconsider. We were all created with equal rights, weren't we?
No, I do not mean to imply "a conflict of rights" I mean to explicitly highlight their mutual exclusivity. My "rights" are mine and only I decide which of them are the most important to me. Similarly, I assume your rights are yours, and in the huge majority of cases there will be no conflict. IF there is we can figure out a solution by treating one another civilly. Barring that I expect some governmental adjudication based on Law and Facts rooted in reality, not opinions based on industrial-grade misinformation and sociopathic politics.
Thanks for the correction, this was a statement of a much more reasonable position.