Sheetz in Great Mills Closes After Employee Positive for COVID-19

jazz lady

~*~ Rara Avis ~*~
PREMO Member
GREAT MILLS, Md. - An employee at the Sheetz in Great Mills (20760 Old Great Mills Rd, Great Mills, MD 20634) has tested positive for COVID-19. We’re sharing this information and the below statement to alert the local community as we all work together to fight against the spread of this pandemic.

Please find below a statement from Nick Ruffner, PR Manager at Sheetz:

“Sheetz was informed this morning that an employee at our store location on Old Great Mills Road in Great Mills, MD, has tested positive for COVID-19. Our top priority is the health and wellness of our customers and employees. This employee has not worked at this store location since June 17, 2020, and according to our on-going protocols, this store has been conducting daily cleaning, sanitization and disinfecting. However, due to expected low staffing at this store, it will be closed for the time being. We will continue to put the health and well-being of our customers and employees first as this unprecedented health crisis continues.”
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If this virus were really as contagious as our overlords swear it is, everyone in St. Mary's would be dead by now. Or at least testing positive. Think how many people go to that Sheetz every day.
 

Goldenhawk

Well-Known Member
If this virus were really as contagious as our overlords swear it is, everyone in St. Mary's would be dead by now. Or at least testing positive. Think how many people go to that Sheetz every day.
Aren't you in Texas now? Your state is kinda proving that lockdowns and masks actually work - WHEN they're used.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Aren't you in Texas now? Your state is kinda proving that lockdowns and masks actually work - WHEN they're used.
I'm in Oklahoma now and have been for the last 3 weeks or so.

In Texas there have been 2,312 deaths as of right now. Texas has a population of 29 million people.

Wanna go by positive tests? That number is 135,648. And the population is still 29 million people.

Crunch the numbers if you want to for percentage of population.

A quick checkie of where the outbreaks are in Texas gives us Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio as the bulk, with pretty much nothing anywhere else. Those cities were most likely to comply with masks and social distancing, because they really had no choice. Outside the big cities nobody gives a chit about social distancing and masks, and they're not having a virus problem.

So if you look at the data, people who do not wear a mask or social distance are less likely to get the virus.

😄
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I'll tell you something else I can prove:

COVID cases rose in cities where Leftists were protesting and busting up the place and didn't where there were no "protests".
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I'll tell you something else I can prove:

COVID cases rose in cities where Leftists were protesting and busting up the place and didn't where there were no "protests".
Why wouldn't it?

Busy beaches also are petri dishes for it, Myrtle beach has caused a spread to places that had very few cases until beachgoers returned home.
 

Goldenhawk

Well-Known Member
So you deny that there are more cases of COVID in places where masks and social distancing is mandatory? Because I can prove it.
You're drawing a conclusion from a correlation, but it's not a cause. Logical fallacy.

Actually, the latest studies are showing that being in a city LOWERS the risk of infection and death, per capita.
This article specifically points out that the lower rates are due to higher compliance with masks and distancing, because people are more worried.

Of COURSE there are more infections in cities. There are more people. But it doesn't mean there are more infections per 1000 people.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the map on this NPR website:
Halfway down the page is a map titled "Tracking the Spread of the Coronavirus in the US". Switch back and forth between "deaths" and "deaths per 100,000", or "Cases" and "Cases per 100,000". You'll see that the higher rate per capita is NOT in the major city states.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
You are wasting your time, she will only believe it after it affects her personally, even then she will probably blame some leftist for it.

One of the arguements two months ago was the flu kills more every year. Now that covid has surpassed the flu in a few months nobody uses that one.

Also I remember "once summer rolls around it will disappear", well that one isnt true any more either.
 

Goldenhawk

Well-Known Member
I wonder how online discussion would be different if everything we posted evaporated after a week. I suspect that knowing how stuff we say online lives forever means we feel obligated to defend positions we took previously, because anyone can go back and search what we said and point out changes in position. So it leads to people defending the hill they first took, even when all available data shows that position is wrong. We're so scared of looking bad that we can't admit we were wrong or change our stance or viewpoint.

I personally look at thoughtfully changing my positions as a badge of honor. See, I can learn and improve myself. I willingly admit I was wrong, because I'd rather be right henceforth, and be known as someone who can be taught.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I wonder how online discussion would be different if everything we posted evaporated after a week. I suspect that knowing how stuff we say online lives forever means we feel obligated to defend positions we took previously, because anyone can go back and search what we said and point out changes in position. So it leads to people defending the hill they first took, even when all available data shows that position is wrong. We're so scared of looking bad that we can't admit we were wrong or change our stance or viewpoint.

I personally look at thoughtfully changing my positions as a badge of honor. See, I can learn and improve myself. I willingly admit I was wrong, because I'd rather be right henceforth, and be known as someone who can be taught.
People like consistancy. I took over a job once where I found my predessor had calculated something incorrectly for years. The other engineers involved fought for me to keep doing it that way so they could compare the numbers. It was an order of operations mathematical error they had in a spreadsheet.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Also I remember "once summer rolls around it will disappear", well that one isnt true any more either.
How can any of us know what's "true" when they've been lying to us since the beginning? They cooked the books up to get that sweet fed money, now they're cooking the books down to make it seem like they have it under control. Masks work. Masks don't work. Stay inside. Go outside. This thing kills the virus. No it doesn't. Oops, yes it does. Going to church spreads the virus but protesting in the streets with exponentially more people doesn't.

You say people like consistency, and yet millions of Americans are glomming on to the media message du jour, even when it contradicts yesterday's message.

You yourself have seen me change my position with new information. So it's laughable for Goldenhawk to try that old "she just can't admit when she's wrong" nonsense. So far with this virus bullshit I haven't received any information that makes me reconsider. Or I should say, I receive new information every day that is the direct opposite of what they were saying the day before, which is different than what they were saying the day before that.

The numbers are still the same: 1/2 of 1% of Americans have tested positive for COVID. Not died, now, just tested positive. Statistically, that's nobody. And let me drop this statistic again: 6,700 people die in this country every single day for one reason or another. Real US statistics: Every day more than 1,700 people die of heart disease. Every day more than 1,600 people die of cancer. Nobody cares, yet we're supposed to flip out over this virus?

Yet somehow, my refusal to freak out about something so statistically insignificant makes ME the durhard?

And now they're trying to tell me that increased testing has absolutely nothing to do with finding more people who have the virus. Are you ****ing kidding me right now? That's the whole point of testing - to find more people who test positive.

To call anything these people say "truth" is just....I don't even have a word for how absurd that is.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
How can any of us know what's "true" when they've been lying to us since the beginning? They cooked the books up to get that sweet fed money, now they're cooking the books down to make it seem like they have it under control. Masks work. Masks don't work. Stay inside. Go outside. This thing kills the virus. No it doesn't. Oops, yes it does. Going to church spreads the virus but protesting in the streets with exponentially more people doesn't.

You say people like consistency, and yet millions of Americans are glomming on to the media message du jour, even when it contradicts yesterday's message.

You yourself have seen me change my position with new information. So it's laughable for Goldenhawk to try that old "she just can't admit when she's wrong" nonsense. So far with this virus bullshit I haven't received any information that makes me reconsider. Or I should say, I receive new information every day that is the direct opposite of what they were saying the day before, which is different than what they were saying the day before that.

The numbers are still the same: 1/2 of 1% of Americans have tested positive for COVID. Not died, now, just tested positive. Statistically, that's nobody. And let me drop this statistic again: 6,700 people die in this country every single day for one reason or another. Real US statistics: Every day more than 1,700 people die of heart disease. Every day more than 1,600 people die of cancer. Nobody cares, yet we're supposed to flip out over this virus?

Yet somehow, my refusal to freak out about something so statistically insignificant makes ME the durhard?

And now they're trying to tell me that increased testing has absolutely nothing to do with finding more people who have the virus. Are you ****ing kidding me right now? That's the whole point of testing - to find more people who test positive.

To call anything these people say "truth" is just....I don't even have a word for how absurd that is.
Nobody is asking you to freak out, but not ridiculing people that are taking it seriously and following CDC recomendations would be a start.

More testing is key to us getting through this, but all of the increase can't be attributed to increased testing. When testing increases 10 fold and the positive rate is half of what it was a very basic conclusion is that the percentage of people with it increased by a factor of 5. In reality it's probably higher since people with less severe or no symptoms are getting tested more and before people with symptoms were turned away.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Nobody is asking you to freak out, but not ridiculing people that are taking it seriously and following CDC recomendations would be a start.
If you feel ridiculed by me pointing out statistics, that's on you. I give zero chits about your little masks and your scurrying around to avoid human contact. If you feel ridiculed by that, then it's you who needs to reconsider your position, not me.


More testing is key to us getting through this
Why? That's a real question because you're a smart person who thinks about things, so I'm sure you've walked it through. Explain to me how more testing will "help us get through it"?

And another question:

Do you, PeoplesElbow, think that there is absolutely no correlation between testing and finding new cases? That's what the WashPo and other lefty news outlets are saying.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Then why are all the infections and deaths in the cities?

I'd call it playing the ' per capita ' game ....... like quoting more blacks are killed by police than whites ' per capita '


give me the total body counts thanks
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
If you feel ridiculed by me pointing out statistics, that's on you. I give zero chits about your little masks and your scurrying around to avoid human contact. If you feel ridiculed by that, then it's you who needs to reconsider your position, not me.




Why? That's a real question because you're a smart person who thinks about things, so I'm sure you've walked it through. Explain to me how more testing will "help us get through it"?

And another question:

Do you, PeoplesElbow, think that there is absolutely no correlation between testing and finding new cases? That's what the WashPo and other lefty news outlets are saying.
No ridicule is when you talk about bathing in hand sanitizer and avoiding human contact.

I am very cautious because I dont want to bring it home but I do neither of these. I have been going to work and I have been sterilizing things like door knobs etc and you know what in my little work area we have a few possible cases right now.

Testing is key because we can then get carriers of it to stay home and not pass it on.

If you tested positive would you self quarantine or would you give a crap?
 

Goldenhawk

Well-Known Member
Then why are all the infections and deaths in the cities?
There are two ways to look at the COVID-19 case numbers. One is more useful than the other. In any given area, there are:
a) How many cases
b) How many cases "per capita" or per person. It's just simple math: number of cases divided by number of people.

Of those, (b) is more useful, because it has to do with the pure level of risk - what the chances of infection are, mathematically.

There are more cases per person (or per 1000 people, or per 100,000 people, or whatever division you want to make) in small towns than in large cities. Yes, in a city the the raw numbers are higher where there are more people concentrated. But the per-capita numbers are better in a city.

In other words, if you live in a small town, you're more likely to be infected than if you live in a city. And the medical facilities are better, so if you DO get sick, you're more likely to get quality treatment and survive the experience. (This is all explained very well in the article I linked above. Please read it.)

In case this seems like a pointless difference, consider that many people have been saying that you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from COVID. Okay, so they're using the "per capita" argument to make that point. To believe that anything is "more likely", one is getting into the realm of statistical analysis. Once you're talking about statistics, which we should be, using the pure numbers falls away as less useful.

So living in a city you may be surrounded by more cases but your net risk is lower.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
In other words, if you live in a small town, you're more likely to be infected than if you live in a city.

I'm gonna call BS on that, in a large city there are more potential carriers ...

do you want to be in PG County with 18,342 infected or Garret County with 10 or Charles County with 1362
 
Top