utah gop leader does a trump, claims 'negative results' then goes mask-free

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sitive-twice/ar-AASWj5p?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Adams opened the Senate session mask-free on Tuesday morning with an announcement that he had tested positive twice since the day before, then the GOP lawmaker immediately took it back and claimed that “I tested negative twice.” Adams didn’t wear a mask during the Senate session that day.

It wasn’t until after the Salt Lake Tribune asked about Adams’ test results and filed a records request that the Senate staff admitted the lawmaker had actually tested positive twice on Tuesday morning.

Senate Chief of Staff Mark Thomas claimed to the Tribune that Adams had tested negative on Monday, then positive on Tuesday, then he took a second test that day and mistakenly thought it came out negative. Adams didn’t know it was actually positive until later, according to Thomas, and the senator really believed at the time of his announcement that he’d had two negative tests.

 

[Wrong Element]

Failing to understand why someone would take another test after getting a positive test. The cover story makes no sense, but of course appearing in public (let alone wandering around without a mask) under these circumstances is itself stupid, so what's more stupid on top on that?

 

[butters]

Failing to understand why someone would take another test after getting a positive test. The cover story makes no sense, but of course appearing in public (let alone wandering around without a mask) under these circumstances is itself stupid, so what's more stupid on top on that?

i'm thinking these government guys receive fairly regular testing, but after a positive test (the first) he should have automatically annexed himself. Taking the second will be to see if the first positive was a false one, a possibility.
Even so, he should NOT have attended that meeting in person but should have done it virtually. With 2 conflicting test results (which he didn't get that Tuesday but 2 confirming he was positive), a third would have been appropriate... or self-isolation until a more complete pcr test could establish his status. The rapid tests are also being reported as not so accurate in testing for omicron, so a negative test could, potentially, fail to disclose one's transmissibility of the virus to others.

And, yeah, the 'confusion' cover story is just nonsense; his opening statement showed the truth will out, one way or another.

his behaviour, imo, constitutes a willful neglect towards the wellbeing of others. But then so does gorsuch's on the SCOTUS bench.