From: State of the Pandemic

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Hawkeye
Elder
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:37 pm

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Hawkeye »

Who cares whether Germans can sue each other? And why do you keep pretending that death is the only bad effect of the virus when the evidence to the contrary is crystal clear? Of course the virus has a high survival rate if you don’t count the people that it kills.
You're a good one to ask Res Ipsa. Could I successfully sue you for battery if I can contact trace and prove that you caused me to get the flu or a cold when you weren't wearing a mask?
The best part about this is waiting four years to see how all the crazy apocalyptic predictions made by the fear mongering idiots in Right Wing media turned out to be painfully wrong...Gasoline would hit $10/gallon. Hyperinflation would ensue.
Veritas
Gunnar
God
Posts: 1853
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Gunnar »

Hawkeye wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:56 am
Who cares whether Germans can sue each other? And why do you keep pretending that death is the only bad effect of the virus when the evidence to the contrary is crystal clear? Of course the virus has a high survival rate if you don’t count the people that it kills.
You're a good one to ask Res Ipsa. Could I successfully sue you for battery if I can contact trace and prove that you caused me to get the flu or a cold when you weren't wearing a mask?
Regardless of what the law says, would you at least agree that wearing a mask when around others in order to minimize the chance of spreading disease when you know you are sick with a respiratory illness like covid, flu or whatever, is just a matter of consideration for others, and that refusal to do so is, at the very least, rude and inconsiderate?
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 6685
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Res Ipsa »

Hawkeye wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:56 am
Who cares whether Germans can sue each other? And why do you keep pretending that death is the only bad effect of the virus when the evidence to the contrary is crystal clear? Of course the virus has a high survival rate if you don’t count the people that it kills.
You're a good one to ask Res Ipsa. Could I successfully sue you for battery if I can contact trace and prove that you caused me to get the flu or a cold when you weren't wearing a mask?
I’m not aware of any precedent for that. If there is, it would be in the transmission of HIV or some STD like Herpes. I’ll take a look.

ETA: Here a law review article on civil liability for the sexual transmission of herpes. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi ... ability%22

As the article describes, there is quite a bit of precedent that finds civil liability in damages based on transmission of a disease, going as far back as smallpox and tuberculosis. The theory can be based on intentional conduct (battery, attempted murder), recklessness or negligence. Negligence is unintended harm caused by careless conduct (more formally, failure to do what a reasonable person would do under the same set of facts.)

So take HIV, which is the easiest case. If I test positive for HIV and transmit HIV to a sexual partner, I can be liable in damages unless I disclosed my HIV status and the partner consented to the sexual activity. (In many states, failure to disclose is a crime even if the disease wasn’t transmitted — exposure to the disease is a crime.

Now take COVID, suppose I test positive for COVID but go unmasked to a restaurant, say nothing about my COVID status, and infect the other three people at my table, one of whom dies and another who sustains permanent heart damage. I would very likely to be liable for damages for the wrongful death of the one individual and the heart damage done to the other. It would be up to the jury, but the question would be whether the ordinary, reasonable person would have gone to a restaurant knowing he had COVID, failed to wear a mask while not wearing/drinking, and failed to warn others at his table that he had just tested positive for COVID. And, given they types of things juries award damages for, I think there is a very high chance that a jury would award damages.

Although we don’t consciously think about in our day to day lives, we absolutely have legal duties that require us to act in particular ways to avoid harming others. And if we violate those duties and cause harm to someone else, the coercive power of the state will take away your stuff and give it to the person you harmed.

Because the general rule is do what an ordinary, reasonable person would do, as determined after the fact by a jury, the legal duty ends up changing over time. I had a long conversation with my friend in Germany about the concept of sick leave. He asked me what “sick days” were for employees. His employer didn’t have a sick leave policy with X number of days a year. Employees are expected to stay home if they are sick, in part to avoid infecting other employees. He asked me “Why would any employers want people to come to work sick?”

In the U.S., we give people incentive to come to work with cold or flu, as employees save their sick days for more serious illness or have exhausted their paid sick days for the year. So, in the U.S. an ordinary, reasonable person would come to work with minor illness. But, if my friend’s employer is typical of employers in Germany, you might be liable for damages if you came to work sick and infected a co-worker.

So, COVID presents all kinds of opportunities for civil liability. As a health care Provider, your standard of care is higher - what a reasonable health care provider in your situation would do. Suggesting that a masked patient remove their mask because it is more convenient to you sounds like a dumb risk from a legal standpoint, but it’s your livelihood and stuff, not mine.
he/him
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be this much fun


– Talking Heads, Heaven
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Binger »

Gunnar wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:54 am
Hawkeye wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:56 am


You're a good one to ask Res Ipsa. Could I successfully sue you for battery if I can contact trace and prove that you caused me to get the flu or a cold when you weren't wearing a mask?
Regardless of what the law says, would you at least agree that wearing a mask when around others in order to minimize the chance of spreading disease when you know you are sick with a respiratory illness like covid, flu or whatever, is just a matter of consideration for others, and that refusal to do so is, at the very least, rude and inconsiderate?
Swing.... and miss. Not leaving your bedroom is an even better consideration of others. Wrapping oneself in plastic and breathing through a paper straw directly into a sewer would be another thoughtful consideration of others.

While you think a mask that does not work is a gesture of consideration, which it may be, that does not make you entitled to that consideration. The issue is mask mandates, particularly for children and proprietors, when it is known that the masks do not work and when it is known and obvious that there are some negative consequences of masking for long durations of time.
Vēritās
2nd Quorum of 70
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:51 am

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Vēritās »

I think the more appropriate charge would be negligent manslaughter in the event someone dies because of someone else knowingly transmitting a deadly virus.

Death due to COVID-19 parties could lead to manslaughter charges: experts
People who break health rules by holding parties that lead to death from COVID-19 should heed the warning from a British Columbia judge about facing a manslaughter charge, legal experts say.

Prof. Lisa Dufraimont of York University's Osgoode Hall law school said manslaughter charges stem from an unlawful act that causes death and a foreseeable activity that could cause bodily harm.

"And if in fact it does cause someone's death, as the judge said, then that could amount to manslaughter," Dufraimont said in an interview Thursday.

"The judge is right about that."
Knowingly Exposing Others to Communicable Diseases
Suppose that A, who has HIV and knows it, has unprotected sex with B, who doesn’t have HIV. A doesn’t warn B. Has A committed a crime?

Yes. At a minimum, A has failed to abide by communicable disease control measures. Under G.S. 130A-144(f), “[a]ll persons” are required to comply with control measures. The control measures for the most common serious communicable diseases are listed in 10A NCAC 41A.0201 et seq. (The Administrative Code is available online here.) The control measures for HIV, which appear in 10A NCAC 41A.0202, require infected individuals both to warn their sexual partners of their status and to use condoms during sex. Failure to comply with control measures is a misdemeanor, sentenced outside of structured sentencing. G.S. 130A-25(a)-(b). Note that sexual contact other than “intercourse” isn’t mentioned in the Code, nor is some non-sexual behavior that might involve some risk of transmission.

But has A has committed a more serious offense? Apparently, “[21] states currently have statutes [specifically] criminalizing behavior that risks the transmission of HIV or AIDS.”
I suspect those laws regarding the spread of HIV were made back in the 80's when it was believed to be strictly a homosexual disease.

Negligence, Battery and STDs
Causing harm to another, in a careless or reckless manner, is negligence. To be liable for negligence, a person must have a duty and must breach that duty in some way, which in turn must cause damage to the person or property of another. In general, we all have a duty to act in a non-negligent manner. In the case of STDs, this means that infected individuals have a duty not to spread the disease, or conceal it from others.
It seems to me that there is plenty precedent for this, just not for COVID. So would the idiots intentionally coughing on people be guilt of a chargeable offense? I would hope so.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
Hawkeye
Elder
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:37 pm

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Hawkeye »

Gunnar wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:54 am
Hawkeye wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:56 am


You're a good one to ask Res Ipsa. Could I successfully sue you for battery if I can contact trace and prove that you caused me to get the flu or a cold when you weren't wearing a mask?
Regardless of what the law says, would you at least agree that wearing a mask when around others in order to minimize the chance of spreading disease when you know you are sick with a respiratory illness like covid, flu or whatever, is just a matter of consideration for others, and that refusal to do so is, at the very least, rude and inconsiderate?
Sure if I knew I was sick. It just looks like we're headed to masks forever.
The best part about this is waiting four years to see how all the crazy apocalyptic predictions made by the fear mongering idiots in Right Wing media turned out to be painfully wrong...Gasoline would hit $10/gallon. Hyperinflation would ensue.
Veritas
Vēritās
2nd Quorum of 70
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:51 am

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Vēritās »

Hawkeye wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:36 pm
Gunnar wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:54 am

Regardless of what the law says, would you at least agree that wearing a mask when around others in order to minimize the chance of spreading disease when you know you are sick with a respiratory illness like covid, flu or whatever, is just a matter of consideration for others, and that refusal to do so is, at the very least, rude and inconsiderate?
Sure if I knew I was sick. It just looks like we're headed to masks forever.
If Trump were President and he was enforcing them you'd be all for it.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
Gunnar
God
Posts: 1853
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Gunnar »

Speaking of Trump, Hawkeye, are you ready to acknowledge the irrefutable fact of how badly he handled the pandemic compared to almost every other national leader?

By the way, I like your screenname "Hawkeye" better than I like "ajax18." It seems more fitting, considering your occupation.
Last edited by Gunnar on Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 1853
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Gunnar »

Vēritās wrote:
Sat Jul 23, 2022 10:11 pm
If Trump were President and he was enforcing them you'd be all for it.
Good point. I think he'd deny anyone was ever even killed by Covid-19, if Trump said so. He apparently still can't even bring himself to admit that Trump was lying about the election being stolen from him. Or, perhaps even worse yet, he probably doesn't even care if that is a lie, if it would result in Trump being restored to power.

How about that, Hawkeye? If you knew for a fact that Trump's claim of the election being stolen was a lie, would you approve of promulgating that lie, if it resulted in Trump being restored to power?
Last edited by Gunnar on Sun Jul 24, 2022 12:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 1853
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: From: State of the Pandemic

Post by Gunnar »

Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus.
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

Do masks protect the people wearing them or the people around them?

“I think there’s enough evidence to say that the best benefit is for people who have COVID-19 to protect them from giving COVID-19 to other people, but you’re still going to get a benefit from wearing a mask if you don’t have COVID-19,” said Chin-Hong.

Masks may be more effective as a “source control” because they can prevent larger expelled droplets from evaporating into smaller droplets that can travel farther.

Another factor to remember, noted Rutherford, is that you could still catch the virus through the membranes in your eyes, a risk that masking does not eliminate.

How many people need to wear masks to reduce community transmission?

“What you want is 100 percent of people to wear masks, but you’ll settle for 80 percent,” said Rutherford. In one simulation, researchers predicted that 80 percent of the population wearing masks would do more to reduce COVID-19 spread than a strict lockdown.

The latest forecast from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that 33,000 deaths could be avoided by October 1 if 95 percent of people wore masks in public.

Even if you live in a community where few people wear masks, you would still reduce your own chances of catching the virus by wearing one, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford.

Does the type of mask matter?

Studies have compared various mask materials, but for the general public, the most important consideration may be comfort. The best mask is one you can wear comfortably and consistently, said Chin-Hong. N95 respirators are only necessary in medical situations such as intubation. Surgical masks are generally more protective than cloth masks, and some people find them lighter and more comfortable to wear.

The bottom line is that any mask that covers the nose and mouth will be of benefit.

“The concept is risk reduction rather than absolute prevention,” said Chin-Hong. “You don’t throw up your hands if you think a mask is not 100 percent effective. That’s silly. Nobody’s taking a cholesterol medicine because they’re going to prevent a heart attack 100 percent of the time, but you’re reducing your risk substantially.”

However, both Rutherford and Chin-Hong cautioned against N95 masks with valves (commonly used in construction to prevent the inhalation of dust) because they do not protect those around you. These one-way valves close when the wearer breathes in, but open when the wearer breathes out, allowing unfiltered air and droplets to escape. Chin-Hong said that anyone wearing a valved mask would need to wear a surgical or cloth mask over it. "Alternatively, just wear a non-valved mask," he said.

San Francisco has specified that masks with valves do not comply with the city's face covering order.

If we’re practicing social distancing, do we still need to wear masks?

A mnemonic that Chin-Hong likes is the “Three W’s to ward off COVID-19:” wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance.

“But of the three, the most important thing is wearing a mask,” he said. Compared to wearing a mask, cleaning your iPhone or wiping down your groceries are “just distractors.” There’s little evidence that fomites (contaminated surfaces) are a major source of transmission, whereas there is a lot of evidence of transmission through inhaled droplets, said Chin-Hong.

“You should always wear masks and socially distance,” said Rutherford. “I would be hesitant to try to parse it apart. But, yes, I think mask wearing is more important.”
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Post Reply