Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
yes
there is a non-zero chance that he is exposed while in the bubble, in fact a pretty significant risk (already multiple positive tests in more than one camp) and then a very significant risk that he takes that exposure home
If you had small children with health issues, you would understand. If you don't, I can see not understanding, or being more inclined to casually dismiss that risk.
|
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?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I have stated many times that I respect Hamonic's decision? Full stop.
I disagree with posters who claim players are taking "a very significant risk of taking the virus home" but mostly I disagree with the arrogance and presumption behind stating whether we agree or disagree with another human being's personal decision about these matters.
I believe I have adequate reading comprehension and don't think I am guilty of the mischaracterization of which you are accusing me. But could you help me? Could you have a career goal that is important enough to you that it is worth more than a non zero risk to your health? Or your family's well being? For this argument, I believe that money does not equal career because I don't like the "how much money is enough" path. And regardless of your answer, if someone were willing to accept more risk than you does that equate to "soulless"?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
No one said this. Greater risk is not the same as very significant risk.
And of course you could have a career goal that is important enough to you to be worth more than a non zero risk to your health. Again no one said the opposite. You have a tendency to take opposing arguments and make them absolute so that you can refute them.
|
Well these are the quotes on which I based my post. If I misunderstood the meaning behind the words, then I apologize.
Can we agree on one thing? If one of us were ever in a similar situation, and withdrew from the pursuit of a team goal because of family health reasons, when explaining our rationale to our colleagues it would be wise to keep the whole, "I don't really need the money part" out of it?