Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
What do you mean "what's the process"?... you either need the money, or you don't, I'm not the one deciding. The situation was if you didn't need the money.
And yeah, honestly, anything above 0% and I'm not working if I don't need the money, the contract is going to be up anyway, and the people I work for are giving me the choice. Because, thing is, it could be a 0.05% increased risk of catching it and spreading it... it could also be a 15% increase, or 50% increase. It's not like there's any data the NHL can trot out that shows the exact risk level, you just know it's higher than average or, at very least, out of your control.
Are you suggesting you'd go to work, even if you didn't need the money and were told you didn't have to, despite an increased risk for your family catching a deadly disease? What percentage risk increase of that happening would you find acceptable?
|
I don't know what "need the money means"? Do my kids need to go to college? Do my kids need to play sports? Do my parents need me to help pay for some of their living expenses so they can enjoy retirement? Do I need a computer or home internet so I can post on CP?
You sure make it sound black and white. And for many, work is important beyond the financial rewards.
We live with risk everyday and it never stays constant. Are doctors, paramedics, policemen, food workers all staying home now? Should they?
No one tells anybody they have to go to work. Does an NHL player subject his family to increased health risk by going off to play in a tournament? I'm sure it's above zero. Of course so is letting your kids learn to drive or a great many other things.
Perhaps some data would be helpful. Is there any data to estimate the likelihood of a false negative test, layered with some quarantine protocol, still resulting in a person being infectious?
We all have different views of risk I guess. I just have a hard time seeing how the money fits in to it. I don't care how much money they make.