So your logic is potentially fine with an employee, with an underlying medical condition, being recalled back to work for “staffing” and sitting close to co-workers, but not for a trainee to do the same who could also improve “staffing?” The risk is far greater to those with underlying conditions than a trainee, with no underlying medical conditions. Why doesn’t the RFS actually follow infectious disease doctor recommendations? Maybe because facilities/districts don’t want to reduce their operational capacity and/or pay overtime. If you’re working TRIPs, you have four people within the CDC exposure range PLUS potentially a supervisor PLUS potentially TMU. So that’s SIX people, but a SEVENTH is considered overkill? If anything, the employees, with underlying medical conditions, should be at home and the facility should either reduce their operational capacity and keep trainees at home or keep their operational capacity and allow people to train, especially those already back in the building.I really really really don't understand how fucking dense people can be.
There are two separate factors in whether you get the disease, and how severe it is if you get it (at least re: transmission, obviously your immune system and maybe blood type and who knows what else play a role). Those factors are: PROXIMITY to an infectious person, and DURATION near that infectious person.
Having you back working a position next to someone is an increased risk compared to having you sitting at home. Having you, in addition, next to someone for training is another increased risk compared to sitting in the break room (or at home).
If the choice is between working next to someone or training next to someone, obviously those are the same. But if the choice is bringing someone back to work, or bringing someone back to work and also train, those are different.