wife's fever is back and she's under about 5lbs of blankets. She's holding out on the Ivy for now, at least until tomorrow AM. My sense of smell is off. Not gone, just off. I went to make a salad and opened some ginger vinagrette; smelled like it had turned. A weird acidic metallic kind of odor/sensation that burned my nose. Since it was kind of old I tossed it and grabbed another vinagrette - same exact sensation. Grabbed a creamy cesar dressing instead, but even that had it although to a lesser extent.
I've been using the vapor rub as a scent checker anymore. My mucus/phlegm production has eased up a bit, it'll either get me overnight in my sleep or I may be in the final stage. Just hope I get taste amd smell back eventually. Been well over a year for my aunt and she still hasn't.
Won't be long before Prickster follows suit claiming "IL has been a leader in taking precautions"....
From the ADA cheatsheet: Test C -- Being regarded as having such an impairment This test, as contained in paragraph (4) of the definition, is intended to cover persons who are treated by a public entity as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. It applies when a person is treated as if he or she has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, regardless of whether that person has an impairment. The Americans with Disabilities Act uses the same "regarded as" test set forth in the regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See, e.g., 28 CFR 42.540(k)(2)(iv), which provides: (iv) "Is regarded as having an impairment" means (A) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but that is treated by a recipient as constituting such a limitation; (B) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (C) Has none of the impairments defined in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of this section but is treated by a recipient as having such an impairment. The perception of the covered entity is a key element of this test. A person who perceives himself or herself to have an impairment, but does not have an impairment, and is not treated as if he or she has an impairment, is not protected under this test. A person would be covered under this test if a public entity refused to serve the person because it perceived that the person had an impairment that limited his or her enjoyment of the goods or services being offered. For example, persons with severe burns often encounter discrimination in community activities, resulting in substantial limitation of major life activities. These persons would be covered under this test based on the attitudes of others towards the impairment, even if they did not view themselves as "impaired." The rationale for this third test, as used in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, was articulated by the Supreme Court in Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987). The Court noted that although an individual may have an impairment that does not in fact substantially limit a major life activity, the reaction of others may prove just as disabling. "Such an impairment might not diminish a person's physical or mental capabilities, but could nevertheless substantially limit that person's ability to work as a result of the negative reactions of others to the impairment." Id. at 283. The Court concluded that, by including this test in the Rehabilitation Act's definition, "Congress acknowledged that society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and diseases are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment." Id. at 284. Thus, a person who is denied services or benefits by a public entity because of myths, fears, and stereotypes associated with disabilities would be covered under this third test whether or not the person's physical or mental condition would be considered a disability under the first or second test in the definition. The scientific facts are irrefutable. As someone who has had C19 and has antibodies present in my bloodstream, I am less likely to contract or spread C19 than one who is simply 'fully vaccinated' and has never contracted the disease. Any discrimination of or against me (and anyone with my same perceived condition) due to a lack of synthetic spike proteins in my blood is doing so without scientific basis and at no benefit to public safety. The order is discriminatory on its face.
Unless you are talking about that crap in a can, why spend money on good fish if you cant taste it? If i get this bug and loss taste and smell, im eating oatmeal. Hate that stuff
of course I am talking about that crap in a can. It's got a ton of protein, very low fat, it's filling, and cheap. If you can't taste anything anyway what's the difference? Crap in a can is actually very healthy
one thing I have figured out from this, liquid Nyquil > liquid gels. Like way better. The 2 nights I have taken the green liquid death shots, I have slept hard and uninterrupted for 8+ hours. Since I rarely sleep more than 6 that's a big deal. I was out for almost 10 hours last night. The 2 nights I took the gel caps, I was in and out for a few hours and then my eyes pop open wide awake after less than 5 hours. And it took me 2-3 hours to fall back to sleep.
