Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This is why I think that the legal community needs to create a robust and relentless plan to sue anti-vaxxers who get other people sick and killed.  There is a reasonable step you can take to avoid catching and carrying a virus that can hurt or kill me and my family.  You unreasonably refused to take that action, causing harm to me and my family.  You should be liable for damages.

Kind of like if you got behind the wheel of a car citing your freedom to drive around with your eyes closed.  Nope, it was unreasonable for you to refuse to open your eyes.  You're on the hook.

Start making these fucksticks go bankrupt with judgments against them, and shit might change.

Also, criminally negligent homicide charges (so, criminal action) would apply as well.

Waste of time to sue people individually in most cases.  Probably more so for those idiots.  Insurance isn't covering that shit.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Johnny Sack

[Brisketexan 105158]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Waste of time to sue people individually in most cases.  Probably more so for those idiots.  Insurance isn't covering that shit.

It isn't about recovering money.  It's about creating a personal negative outcome for the idiots.  Good luck moving forward with your life with a $1 million judgment against you.

And, don't write off the fact that plenty of anti-vaxxers are actually pretty well-off -- there may well be assets to collect on.  But the real point here is creating consequences for them. 

Of course, I'm a bigger fan of some criminally negligent homicide cases.  If you send your precious little virus bomb out, where he infects someone vulnerable and they die, you might as well have fired a gun into a crowd.

[SydneyCarton 48110]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Waste of time to sue people individually in most cases.  Probably more so for those idiots.  Insurance isn't covering that shit.

I'd love to fuck anti vaxxers, but I don't see how you prosecute. In a legal system build on reasonable doubt, how to you prove one person specifically and actually infected another and they got sick and/or died. You have to prove it. What if I don't want a vaccination, but I'm living a life of isolation on 500 acres of land and have my groceries delivered. Are we suing people for not getting vaccinations? It feels like suing a drunk driver who made it safely home, had no accidents, wasn't pulled over and blew a .3, etc. I mean, if that's the new normal, just make them mandatory and deport those that don't comply. Which I'm not necessarily against, per se, but lets get fucking real here. 

[SydneyCarton 48110]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

It isn't about recovering money.  It's about creating a personal negative outcome for the idiots.  Good luck moving forward with your life with a $1 million judgment against you.

And, don't write off the fact that plenty of anti-vaxxers are actually pretty well-off -- there may well be assets to collect on.  But the real point here is creating consequences for them. 

Of course, I'm a bigger fan of some criminally negligent homicide cases.  If you send your precious little virus bomb out, where he infects someone vulnerable and they die, you might as well have fired a gun into a crowd.

See my post just below yours. I'm genuinely curious how, to my non legal trained mind, you go about changing the very foundation of our legal system to prosecute anti vax people if it's no longer based on reasonable doubt, or how you go about proving someone specifically transmitted a virus to someone else. Maybe this is a different thread.

[closetojumping 62747]

45 minutes ago, Loco said:

They (large tech companies) do have a shocking amount of data on you (every cellphone/Smartphone user) including location history/time, bio metrics, etc....  You have already agreed that the data is their data, not your data and that it may be shared or sold without your consent or knowledge.  So basically it's not up to you, it hasn't been for a long time.  It's basically a PR decision for them if selling/using data for this purpose is worth it  considering the risk to revenue streams from public outcry or potential legislation/regulation. 

Would it make you feel better if they sold it to the government?  Because they are selling it to everyone else.

Why did you quote my post when you’re not even vaguely discussing the same thing? No shit the tech companies have a bunch of info on all of us. No shit the government does. I don’t want them freely exchanging everything they know about us with each other. Your other points comprise a good post made on all of the bulletin boards around the country 20 years ago. “They sell all of your information!!!” No kidding?

[dcar00 14274]

23 minutes ago, akhornfan said:

I didn’t see anyone mention it, but IHME revised again this morning. Added 1,000 or so to total deaths, but moved peak deaths to yesterday. Hopefully that’s true. 

they are seeing the numbers everyone else is....

they keep talking about this being a model for only the first wave.  what is the definition of the first wave?

It wouldn't shock me to see them "adjusting" the model to show some "changes".

I'm sure this model has some basis in reality but people need to remember this model stuff can sometimes be bullshit witchcraft also.  I've seen it in business many times.  organizations/companies/research institutes showing up and to the right for 5-6 years, then a 2000 happens and 2001 models show slight bumps down 3-4 years out because everyone who has been in business remembers when the shit hit the fan.  It makes your model look "smart".

I wonder if they have someone in their model discussions who is a truly independent 3rd party.

[jimmyjazz 45978]

38 minutes ago, akhornfan said:

I didn’t see anyone mention it, but IHME revised again this morning. Added 1,000 or so to total deaths, but moved peak deaths to yesterday. Hopefully that’s true. 

These projections will continue to meander somewhat, but the general trend is very encouraging.  Let's hope it holds.

[Bozo_Casanova 26492]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

Are there any theories or discussions on a way forward for the US to create a more resilient economy?

While the magnitude of this disruption is unprecedented I am sure, it seems we have shifted our workforce too far into the volatile service industries which has exacerbated the disruption of a shutdown, in combination with our lack of federal planning of course.

Sure, we could raise interest rates  and stop applying tax stimulus during expansions so that people would not be punished for saving. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Redmen62 126]

Double post

Edited April 10, 2020 by Redmen62

[Redmen62 126]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It isn't about recovering money.  It's about creating a personal negative outcome for the idiots.  Good luck moving forward with your life with a $1 million judgment against you.

And, don't write off the fact that plenty of anti-vaxxers are actually pretty well-off -- there may well be assets to collect on.  But the real point here is creating consequences for them. 

Of course, I'm a bigger fan of some criminally negligent homicide cases.  If you send your precious little virus bomb out, where he infects someone vulnerable and they die, you might as well have fired a gun into a crowd.

Yeah, I've prosecuted (in Canada #1) numerous "risk-of-HIV-transmission" cases, which have some similarities, and I would see anti-vax homicide prosecutions as being extremely difficult. You'd basically need some social media posting or something that proved the person was aware of the risk to others and engaged in the risky activity anyway. There's also some similarity to prosecuting drug dealers whose product is laced with fentanyl and ends up killing users. All these scenarios run into some problems with mens rea and the evidence that we typically have to prove it.

[dcar00 14274]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

See my post just below yours. I'm genuinely curious how, to my non legal trained mind, you go about changing the very foundation of our legal system to prosecute anti vax people if it's no longer based on reasonable doubt, or how you go about proving someone specifically transmitted a virus to someone else. Maybe this is a different thread.

you can't. its yelling at clouds.  you'd never be able to prove person A gave it to person B.  get your vax, vax your kids and hope for the best.  you do have to show vaccinations for college and such which puts some pressure.  we could conscript every kid over 18 into the army for a year.  we could force a parent who has dependents to provide a document  with their taxes.  anything forcing someone to go to a doctor to get a vax is very unlikely.

my opinion is that it is a small portion of the population that are anit vax.  Its stupid not to get vaccinations but you can't fix stupid...well you can but it usually ends very badly.

[Brisketexan 105158]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you can't. its yelling at clouds.  you'd never be able to prove person A gave it to person B.  get your vax, vax your kids and hope for the best.  you do have to show vaccinations for college and such which puts some pressure.  we could conscript every kid over 18 into the army for a year.  we could force a parent who has dependents to provide a document  with their taxes.  anything forcing someone to go to a doctor to get a vax is very unlikely.

my opinion is that it is a small portion of the population that are anit vax.  Its stupid not to get vaccinations but you can't fix stupid...well you can but it usually ends very badly.

Oh, you still have to prove your case, no question -- it's not just a general "you didn't get vaccinated, and I got sick, so you caused it."  It would require proof of contact, in an environment when transmission isn't so widespread.  And genetic tracking of the particular strain would bolster the proof.  This will only work in select cases, generally after a vaccine is in widespread use, and transmission is low.

You can absolutely prove that person A transmitted an illness to person B -- it's done all the time.  It's next to impossible to do NOW with COVID, because it's so widespread.  But direct transmission from A to B is proven regularly with respect to other communicable diseases.

And if we're going to go deeper down the policy road, I have no problem with various institutions and businesses banning anyone who is not vaccinated.  I don't want Anti-Vaxx Typhoid Mary showing up at business and getting people sick.  You want to work here?  Show your vaccination proof.

[purplepride95 6890]

Louisiana Police Department Apologizes For Using Siren From ‘The Purge’ To Signal Curfew

 

https://theshaderoom.com/louisiana-police-department-apologizes-for-using-siren-from-the-purge-to-signal-curfew/

[Txzen 498]

Compassionate use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19 : New England Journal of Medicine, April 10

Details : 

• 53 patients with severe complications, international cohort
• 34/53 (64%) were on mechanical ventilation
• Treatment resulted in an improvement in oxygen support class for 68% or patients over a median of 18 days following the first dose
• More than half were extubated
• 47% were discharged following treatment
• Clinical improvement less frequent among patients on severe ventilation versus noninvasive ventilation, and among patients at least 70 years of age

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[dcar00 14274]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, you still have to prove your case, no question -- it's not just a general "you didn't get vaccinated, and I got sick, so you caused it."  It would require proof of contact, in an environment when transmission isn't so widespread.  And genetic tracking of the particular strain would bolster the proof.  This will only work in select cases, generally after a vaccine is in widespread use, and transmission is low.

You can absolutely prove that person A transmitted an illness to person B -- it's done all the time.  It's next to impossible to do NOW with COVID, because it's so widespread.  But direct transmission from A to B is proven regularly with respect to other communicable diseases.

And if we're going to go deeper down the policy road, I have no problem with various institutions and businesses banning anyone who is not vaccinated.  I don't want Anti-Vaxx Typhoid Mary showing up at business and getting people sick.  You want to work here?  Show your vaccination proof.

in a court of law?  do you have any examples?

what diseases that there are vaccinations for would you suggest?

[South Austin 52520]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

in a court of law?  do you have any examples?

Haley v. United States.  Haley 7, United Sates nothing.  You see, it can be done!

[dcar00 14274]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Haley v. United States.  Haley 7, United Sates nothing.  You see, it can be done!

"somebody is gonna have to go back and git a shitload o' dimes!"

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

using worldometers, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

 

is the US struggling to get patients to recovery and wtf is with the wild outliers in UK and Germany?

recovery to death ratio

World 3.67

US 1.49

Spain 3.49

Italy 1.62

France 1.89

Germany 20.1

UK .02

The numbers are just shit?

I think US's is much higher, only about 10 states seem to be reporting recoveries every day(without looking)

[Trey3216 15347]

3 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

I just don’t see it contracting that much.  Yes, restaurants, entertainment, and many industries that require large numbers of people gathered together either as employees or customers are temporarily screwed.  But 40% would mean the average person isn’t even engaging in their most fundamental spending (mortgage, car payments, groceries, utilities).  My guess is 30% down for Q2, with stimulus helping make most of that back gradually over the next 12 months.  
 

We will be in recession until a vaccine is ready, but I think unemployment will be single digits by Q4.

60-70% of America didn’t have more than $1000 in their bank accounts, how do you think being forced to not work is going to go re:mortgage/car payments/etc.   the only thing people care about at that point is groceries.  Utilities aren’t even cutting off if they’re not paid right now 

[Trey3216 15347]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

Are there any theories or discussions on a way forward for the US to create a more resilient economy?

While the magnitude of this disruption is unprecedented I am sure, it seems we have shifted our workforce too far into the volatile service industries which has exacerbated the disruption of a shutdown, in combination with our lack of federal planning of course.

Federal stockpiling for these type of Black Swan events helps create other baby Black Swan events.  Sometimes the baby throws up when it gets burped. 

[utee94 15833]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

60-70% of America didn’t have more than $1000 in their bank accounts, how do you think being forced to not work is going to go re:mortgage/car payments/etc.   the only thing people care about at that point is groceries.  Utilities aren’t even cutting off if they’re not paid right now 

And when people can't buy groceries, they take them.

I'm not saying we're going to get close to Thunderdome, but...

...I got my V8 gassed up and ready just in case...

 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

41 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

they are seeing the numbers everyone else is....

they keep talking about this being a model for only the first wave.  what is the definition of the first wave?

It wouldn't shock me to see them "adjusting" the model to show some "changes".

I'm sure this model has some basis in reality but people need to remember this model stuff can sometimes be bullshit witchcraft also.  I've seen it in business many times.  organizations/companies/research institutes showing up and to the right for 5-6 years, then a 2000 happens and 2001 models show slight bumps down 3-4 years out because everyone who has been in business remembers when the shit hit the fan.  It makes your model look "smart".

I wonder if they have someone in their model discussions who is a truly independent 3rd party.

its a fun model but gives itself a ton of wiggle room. their graphs give ranges . Minnesotas death range at peak is between 2-48, lol. America: 500-5,583.

[workswithseed 2112]

25 minutes ago, purplepride95 said:

Louisiana Police Department Apologizes For Using Siren From ‘The Purge’ To Signal Curfew

 

https://theshaderoom.com/louisiana-police-department-apologizes-for-using-siren-from-the-purge-to-signal-curfew/

 

[Buzzrock 14922]

60-70% of America didn’t have more than $1000 in their bank accounts, how do you think being forced to not work is going to go re:mortgage/car payments/etc.   the only thing people care about at that point is groceries.  Utilities aren’t even cutting off if they’re not paid right now 

Economist on the radio here yesterday said people will be getting $900 a week. That’s more than a lot of them were making already, and so some won’t come back to work at all until the stimulus runs out.

Sorry if already covered, thread is moving fast.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

A lot of people will not be meeting payment obligations. Most of this country cannot cover a $1,000 emergency. Tens of millions will be looking at much worse than that.




You got a source on that? I'm in multifamily and what I've seen says about 75 percent of residents made some payment, and keep in mind that number is normally not 100 percent. It's more like 80-85 percent.

Still, that's a noticeable drop and most in the sector do expect that number to trend down.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-fallout-onethird-of-americans-missed-rent-payments-in-april-135654889.html

https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/nmhc-rent-payment-tracker/

[Brisketexan 105158]

18 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

in a court of law?  do you have any examples?

what diseases that there are vaccinations for would you suggest?

While I like to think that I am an innovator and original thinker, it's not like this hasn't been hashed out before.

Quote

The Doe case was cited in 2006 by the California Supreme Court in deciding the liability of a husband who was sued by his wife for infecting her with HIV. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177. The John B. court found liability for negligent transmission of HIV extends to situations where the actor, under the totality of circumstances, had reason to know of the infection. John B. quoted a case from North Carolina finding that: “For over a century, liability has been imposed on individuals who have transmitted communicable diseases that have harmed others.” Berner v. Caldwell (Ala.1989) 543 So.2d 686, 688.

The California Supreme Court in John B. also quoted a case from North Carolina finding that “it is a well-settled proposition of law that a person is liable if he negligently exposes another to a contagious or infectious disease.” Crowell v. Crowell (1920) 105 S.E. 206, 208. John B. further cited American Jurisprudence that: “The general principle is established that a person who negligently exposes another to an infectious or contagious disease, which such other thereby contracts, is liable in damages.” 39 Am.Jur.2d (1999) Health, § 99, p. 549.

I think that there's an angle that remains to be fully litigated as to intentional refusal to vaccinate, KNOWING that it creates a heightened risk that 1) you will acquire the communicable disease and 2) you will transmit it to someone else.

Think of it this way -- You work in a factory where poisonous powder is present.  It's hard to see, it's difficult to tell if you got any on you or not.  Odds are that you won't get any on you, but it is a known possibility.  Protocol is that you wear an outer bunny suit while working to keep the powder off of you and importantly, you are to remove the suit and leave it at the facility to avoid carrying the poison out into the public.  But you don't wear the suit today.  You don't take that step to prevent a KNOWN risk of you carrying the poison out with you.  And it turns out, today, it got all over you.  You leave work, go to the bar, where we meet for drinks, I pat you on the back, get poison on my hand, use that hand to eat some peanuts with my beer, and die that night.

You knew there was a risk.  You acted in reckless disregard of that risk.

The risk happened.

Due to your reckless disregard of that risk, a third party was harmed.

You should have worn the fucking bunny suit.  You chose not to, and as a result, I'm dead.

[dcar00 14274]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

While I like to think that I am an innovator and original thinker, it's not like this hasn't been hashed out before.

I think that there's an angle that remains to be fully litigated as to intentional refusal to vaccinate, KNOWING that it creates a heightened risk that 1) you will acquire the communicable disease and 2) you will transmit it to someone else.

Think of it this way -- You work in a factory where poisonous powder is present.  It's hard to see, it's difficult to tell if you got any on you or not.  Odds are that you won't get any on you, but it is a known possibility.  Protocol is that you wear an outer bunny suit while working to keep the powder off of you and importantly, you are to remove the suit and leave it at the facility to avoid carrying the poison out into the public.  But you don't wear the suit today.  You don't take that step to prevent a KNOWN risk of you carrying the poison out with you.  And it turns out, today, it got all over you.  You leave work, go to the bar, where we meet for drinks, I pat you on the back, get poison on my hand, use that hand to eat some peanuts with my beer, and die that night.

You knew there was a risk.  You acted in reckless disregard of that risk.

The risk happened.

Due to your reckless disregard of that risk, a third party was harmed.

You should have worn the fucking bunny suit.  You chose not to, and as a result, I'm dead.

I'm talking about random person to random person for a disease that has a vacccine.  Is there a vaccine for HIV? seriously, I'm not saying it can't be done.  what are the highly communicable diseases that we have vaccines for?  

[Trey3216 15347]

11 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Economist on the radio here yesterday said people will be getting $900 a week. That’s more than a lot of them were making already, and so some won’t come back to work at all until the stimulus runs out.

Sorry if already covered, thread is moving fast.

 

Yeah, that hasn’t specifically been discussed, but is a stark reality.  We’ll come out of this with an horrific Labor Force Participation rate.  I posted some ideas several weeks ago in the Oil Barons thread that could be useful to put a ton of people to work outside of the service economy.   We have to invest in our own country and workers, which will ultimately Lead to some serious inflation, but that too will pass.   

[dcar00 14274]

9 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm talking about random person to random person for a disease that has a vacccine.  Is there a vaccine for HIV? seriously, I'm not saying it can't be done.  what are the highly communicable diseases that we have vaccines for?  

OK I found the recommended vaccines.  If you get your vaccination what is the likelyhood of getting these from someone?  My kids have all had vaccines and had none of these except flu.  which raises a question, could you sue someone for giving you the flu?

Chickenpox (varicella) vaccine
Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP)
Hepatitis A vaccine (HepA)
Hepatitis B vaccine (HepB)
Hib vaccine
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine
Influenza vaccine
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR)
Meningococcal vaccines
Pneumococcal vaccine (PCV)
Polio vaccine (IPV)
Rotavirus vaccine

[TwiceHorn 31498]

Just an observation. 

I live in "central" f/k/a "north" Dallas.  Traffic around here has been significantly curtailed, even on Central/75, Preston, Northwest Highway, etc.  Like 10% of normal, maybe 25.

Today I drove up to Princeton, east of McKinney, to ride a mountain bike trail.  The further north you got on Central (toward and into Collin County), the worse traffic got, to the point it was fairly indistinguishable from a normal day (well, I should check that, I don't know what Collin County traffic is like on a normal day, cuz I don't go up there very often).  Suffice it to say it was discouragingly heavy.

[Dahobbs 17625]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

See my post just below yours. I'm genuinely curious how, to my non legal trained mind, you go about changing the very foundation of our legal system to prosecute anti vax people if it's no longer based on reasonable doubt, or how you go about proving someone specifically transmitted a virus to someone else. Maybe this is a different thread.

Brisket isn't talking about criminal prosecution, he is talking about a civil liability case. The standard there isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is preponderance of the evidence, which just means more like than not (e.g., >50% probability). The elements are different too. You wouldn't necessarily need to prove that someone intentionally transmitted the virus, just that acted unreasonably in not getting a vaccine and as a result another person got infected. 

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, you still have to prove your case, no question -- it's not just a general "you didn't get vaccinated, and I got sick, so you caused it."  It would require proof of contact, in an environment when transmission isn't so widespread.  And genetic tracking of the particular strain would bolster the proof.  This will only work in select cases, generally after a vaccine is in widespread use, and transmission is low.

You can absolutely prove that person A transmitted an illness to person B -- it's done all the time.  It's next to impossible to do NOW with COVID, because it's so widespread.  But direct transmission from A to B is proven regularly with respect to other communicable diseases.

And if we're going to go deeper down the policy road, I have no problem with various institutions and businesses banning anyone who is not vaccinated.  I don't want Anti-Vaxx Typhoid Mary showing up at business and getting people sick.  You want to work here?  Show your vaccination proof.

This.

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

While I like to think that I am an innovator and original thinker, it's not like this hasn't been hashed out before.

I think that there's an angle that remains to be fully litigated as to intentional refusal to vaccinate, KNOWING that it creates a heightened risk that 1) you will acquire the communicable disease and 2) you will transmit it to someone else.

Think of it this way -- You work in a factory where poisonous powder is present.  It's hard to see, it's difficult to tell if you got any on you or not.  Odds are that you won't get any on you, but it is a known possibility.  Protocol is that you wear an outer bunny suit while working to keep the powder off of you and importantly, you are to remove the suit and leave it at the facility to avoid carrying the poison out into the public.  But you don't wear the suit today.  You don't take that step to prevent a KNOWN risk of you carrying the poison out with you.  And it turns out, today, it got all over you.  You leave work, go to the bar, where we meet for drinks, I pat you on the back, get poison on my hand, use that hand to eat some peanuts with my beer, and die that night.

You knew there was a risk.  You acted in reckless disregard of that risk.

The risk happened.

Due to your reckless disregard of that risk, a third party was harmed.

You should have worn the fucking bunny suit.  You chose not to, and as a result, I'm dead.

And this. Frankly, this doesn't seem that much different than toxic exposure cases (e.g., asbestos) from a proof standpoint. You really just need evidence that the person was in contact with the non-vaccinated individual during a time the non-vaccinated individual was contagious. Sure, you might have to deal with the argument that person could have gotten the illness from someone else, but that is an issue dealt with all the time in toxic exposure cases. It doesn't seem an impossible hurdle at all. Hell, modern technology actually brings some interesting evidentiary avenues like using mapping of the viral genome to determine whether it is likely the two infections were directly related. 

20 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm talking about random person to random person for a disease that has a vacccine.  Is there a vaccine for HIV? seriously, I'm not saying it can't be done.  what are the highly communicable diseases that we have vaccines for?  

The flu? Polio? Smallpox? I'm pretty sure almost every vaccine we have is for a highly communicable diseases. That is pretty much the reason we develop vaccines. 

 

[Buzzrock 14922]

Just an observation. 
I live in "central" f/k/a "north" Dallas.  Traffic around here has been significantly curtailed, even on Central/75, Preston, Northwest Highway, etc.  Like 10% of normal, maybe 25.
Today I drove up to Princeton, east of McKinney, to ride a mountain bike trail.  The further north you got on Central (toward and into Collin County), the worse traffic got, to the point it was fairly indistinguishable from a normal day (well, I should check that, I don't know what Collin County traffic is like on a normal day, cuz I don't go up there very often).  Suffice it to say it was discouragingly heavy.

Like most of Vic’s ladies.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

4 hours ago, Message Board User said:

You make an excellent point that was also articulated by Jonah Goldberg this morning - for the economy to return to "normal," people are going to need to see evidence that large gatherings are safe and that will take time.

 

I saw a story early today that reported most polled will not go to a game until there is a vaccine. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

21 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

OK I found the recommended vaccines.  If you get your vaccination what is the likelyhood of getting these from someone?  My kids have all had vaccines and had none of these except flu.  which raises a question, could you sue someone for giving you the flu?

Chickenpox (varicella) vaccine
Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP)
Hepatitis A vaccine (HepA)
Hepatitis B vaccine (HepB)
Hib vaccine
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine
Influenza vaccine
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR)
Meningococcal vaccines
Pneumococcal vaccine (PCV)
Polio vaccine (IPV)
Rotavirus vaccine

Vaccines vary in effectiveness. For instance, I believe the chickenpox vaccine is 95% effective. The flu vaccine is a bit unique because of the flu's ability to rapidly mutate. 

And, I'm sure you could sue someone for negligently giving you the flu. But, the amount of damages would usually be minimal (its the flu). Minimal enough that would not be worth the effort to go and try and prove (by preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt mind you) that (1) the person did something [e.g., didn't get the flu vaccine, went out in public knowing they were sick) that a reasonable person would not do and (2) as a result you got sick and suffered damages. 

[dcar00 14274]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Brisket isn't talking about criminal prosecution, he is talking about a civil liability case. The standard there isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is preponderance of the evidence, which just means more like than not (e.g., >50% probability). The elements are different too. You wouldn't necessarily need to prove that someone intentionally transmitted the virus, just that acted unreasonably in not getting a vaccine and as a result another person got infected. 

This.

And this. Frankly, this doesn't seem that much different than toxic exposure cases (e.g., asbestos) from a proof standpoint. You really just need evidence that the person was in contact with the non-vaccinated individual during a time the non-vaccinated individual was contagious. Sure, you might have to deal with the argument that person could have gotten the illness from someone else, but that is an issue dealt with all the time in toxic exposure cases. It doesn't seem an impossible hurdle at all. Hell, modern technology actually brings some interesting evidentiary avenues like using mapping of the viral genome to determine whether it is likely the two infections were directly related. 

The flu? Polio? Smallpox? I'm pretty sure almost every vaccine we have is for a highly communicable diseases. That is pretty much the reason we develop vaccines. 

 

toxic exposure is usually having exposure over longer periods of time.  you walk into a house that has asbestos exposed and then 5 years later you get cancer. you are going to sue them?

so we are going to start suing people for giving someone the flu?

the case BT gave an example for was HIV between husband and wife.  that a bit different than I walk into an office for a meeting shake hands with someone and then a couple days later come down with the flu.

[Poe It Up 126]

Yeah, that’s exactly what our overly litigious society needs, more lawsuits. You think the ambulance chasers are bad now, fuck me. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

You got a source on that? I'm in multifamily and what I've seen says about 75 percent of residents made some payment, and keep in mind that number is normally not 100 percent. It's more like 80-85 percent.

Still, that's a noticeable drop and most in the sector do expect that number to trend down.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-a-third-of-u-s-renters-didnt-pay-april-rent-11586340000

[dcar00 14274]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Vaccines vary in effectiveness. For instance, I believe the chickenpox vaccine is 95% effective. The flu vaccine is a bit unique because of the flu's ability to rapidly mutate. 

And, I'm sure you could sue someone for negligently giving you the flu. But, the amount of damages would usually be minimal (its the flu). Minimal enough that would not be worth the effort to go and try and prove (by preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt mind you) that (1) the person did something [e.g., didn't get the flu vaccine, went out in public knowing they were sick) that a reasonable person would not do and (2) as a result you got sick and suffered damages. 

agree with the varying effectiveness. also, some really have to be transmitted through bodily fluids and not just touching, a cough, breathing on someone.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105158]

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Yeah, that’s exactly what our overly litigious society needs, more lawsuits. You think the ambulance chasers are bad now, fuck me. 

What we REALLY need are people being irresponsible  and shifting the cost of their irresponsibility onto someone else.  That's a FANTASTIC idea.  When I end up with a $100k hospital bill because you refused to take a simple step that would have kept you from getting me sick, it definitely makes sense that I should be on the hook for that, and not you. 

[dcar00 14274]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What we REALLY need are people being irresponsible  and shifting the cost of their irresponsibility onto someone else.  That's a FANTASTIC idea.  When I end up with a $100k hospital bill because you refused to take a simple step that would have kept you from getting me sick, it definitely makes sense that I should be on the hook for that, and not you. 

so far you referenced an HIV case between husband and wife.  how are you going to prove someone specifically gave you hep A?  I suppose you cold be a hermit.

Edit: this is the yelling at clouds I reference earlier.

Edited April 10, 2020 by dcar00

[pacman 7359]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What we REALLY need are people being irresponsible  and shifting the cost of their irresponsibility onto someone else.  That's a FANTASTIC idea.  When I end up with a $100k hospital bill because you refused to take a simple step that would have kept you from getting me sick, it definitely makes sense that I should be on the hook for that, and not you. 

And, then when need a society that enables their irresponsible behavior or, in too big to fail, rewards them for it.

[Brisketexan 105158]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

so far you referenced an HIV case between husband and wife.  how are you going to prove someone specifically gave you hep A?  I suppose you cold be a hermit.

Edit: this is the yelling at clouds I reference earlier.

No, you're choosing not to listen.

I go to work.  I come down with a communicable disease that 1) is not widespread (say, pertussis) and 2) has a vaccine.  I then find out that soon after I came down with pertussis (even though I am vaccinated), co-worker Bob came down with it, because he was NOT vaccinated.  I subpoena labs from Bob, we match up the strain genetically to mine.  It is a near certainty that I got pertussis from Bob.  And the more-likely-than-not reason that Bob was able to transmit it to me is because he did not do what a reasonable person would do -- get vaccinated.

No, it can't be done for a disease that is widespread, and could have been caught anywhere.  It's only going to be a viable claim if it's a disease that you aren't likely to get being out in the population at large, AND you connect it (likely through genetics) to the actual pathogen carried by the defendant.  So, perhaps a couple of years from now, when we THINK we have COVID eliminated, and someone turns up getting sick because some moron didn't get vaccinated, we'll see this litigation.

[The Dog 44063]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, you're choosing not to listen.

I go to work.  I come down with a communicable disease that 1) is not widespread (say, pertussis) and 2) has a vaccine.  I then find out that soon after I came down with pertussis (even though I am vaccinated), co-worker Bob came down with it, because he was NOT vaccinated.  I subpoena labs from Bob, we match up the strain genetically to mine.  It is a near certainty that I got pertussis from Bob.  And the more-likely-than-not reason that Bob was able to transmit it to me is because he did not do what a reasonable person would do -- get vaccinated.

No, it can't be done for a disease that is widespread, and could have been caught anywhere.  It's only going to be a viable claim if it's a disease that you aren't likely to get being out in the population at large, AND you connect it (likely through genetics) to the actual pathogen carried by the defendant.  So, perhaps a couple of years from now, when we THINK we have COVID eliminated, and someone turns up getting sick because some moron didn't get vaccinated, we'll see this litigation.

Sorry I think I speak for most that this sounds like a really bad idea. I get what you are trying to accomplish and appreciate it but it's got the potential to open a can of worms that I'd prefer stay shut. 

Just mho.

[Bevo 13579]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And this. Frankly, this doesn't seem that much different than toxic exposure cases (e.g., asbestos) from a proof standpoint. You really just need evidence that the person was in contact with the non-vaccinated individual during a time the non-vaccinated individual was contagious. Sure, you might have to deal with the argument that person could have gotten the illness from someone else, but that is an issue dealt with all the time in toxic exposure cases. It doesn't seem an impossible hurdle at all. Hell, modern technology actually brings some interesting evidentiary avenues like using mapping of the viral genome to determine whether it is likely the two infections were directly related. 

Except by the time you could force someone to get tested for the virus, they would no longer have the virus in their system.

[Trey3216 15347]

I’ll just start suing everyone I know that spent $200k on food and alcohol at restaurants from their 20’s-40’s for making America obese and causing my insurance premiums to be so high.  

Edited April 10, 2020 by Trey3216

[aggie08 21505]

1 hour ago, purplepride95 said:

Louisiana Police Department Apologizes For Using Siren From ‘The Purge’ To Signal Curfew

 

https://theshaderoom.com/louisiana-police-department-apologizes-for-using-siren-from-the-purge-to-signal-curfew/

People need a sense of humor. That's pretty fucking funny.

[Brisketexan 105158]

14 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Sorry I think I speak for most that this sounds like a really bad idea. I get what you are trying to accomplish and appreciate it but it's got the potential to open a can of worms that I'd prefer stay shut. 

Just mho.

Cool.  I guess we'll just happily go along with innocent people paying the price -- up to and including death -- for other people's purposeful irresponsibility, and do zero to hold them accountable.  That's a GREAT path.

"Personal responsibility" my ass.  The great "tort reform" crowd is effectively 100% against people being responsible for their actions.   I can refuse to get vaccinated for an easily preventable disease, carry it with me all around town, kill a dozen people, and face no - ZERO - consequences.  That seems like a BRILLIANT policy, and I can't see how it would lead to bad outcomes at all.

If anyone wonders how this country is and will remain utterly fucked, it's the "hey, I only have to worry about me, FUCK YOU" creed that might as well be fucking engraved in stone at every public building in America.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Brisketexan

[The Dog 44063]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  I guess we'll just happily go along with innocent people paying the price -- up to and including death -- for other people's purposeful irresponsibility, and do zero to hold them accountable.  That's a GREAT path.

"Personal responsibility" my ass.  The great "tort reform" crowd is effectively 100% against people being responsible for their actions.   I can refuse to get vaccinated for an easily preventable disease, carry it with me all around town, kill a dozen people, and face no - ZERO - consequences.  That seems like a BRILLIANT policy, and I can't see how it would lead to bad outcomes at all.

What the fuck does this have to do with tort reform Walter?

Take a break dude.

[dcar00 14274]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, you're choosing not to listen.

I go to work.  I come down with a communicable disease that 1) is not widespread (say, pertussis) and 2) has a vaccine.  I then find out that soon after I came down with pertussis (even though I am vaccinated), co-worker Bob came down with it, because he was NOT vaccinated.  I subpoena labs from Bob, we match up the strain genetically to mine.  It is a near certainty that I got pertussis from Bob.  And the more-likely-than-not reason that Bob was able to transmit it to me is because he did not do what a reasonable person would do -- get vaccinated.

No, it can't be done for a disease that is widespread, and could have been caught anywhere.  It's only going to be a viable claim if it's a disease that you aren't likely to get being out in the population at large, AND you connect it (likely through genetics) to the actual pathogen carried by the defendant.  So, perhaps a couple of years from now, when we THINK we have COVID eliminated, and someone turns up getting sick because some moron didn't get vaccinated, we'll see this litigation.

 I didn't mean you were a hermit.  meant you as in someone is a hermit so it is very obvious how they could have gotten something from one person.  OK so which on the list of recommended vaccines fit your description of not widespread?  how do you prove you didn't get it from somewhere else?  how is pertussis or other not widespread vax'd communicable disease contracted normally. could you get it from a bathroom area, plate of food.   how old is Bob.  how accurate are his records?  was he a minor when the vaccination should have happened or do you get a pertussis vax every year? every 5 years?

I'm not anti vax whatsoever but there is no way you are going to sue people for it if they are acting normal(example of Bob not acting normal, Bob knows he has hep A and never got a vax, catches me after work in the parking lot, takes a shit in his hand and rubs my face in it, I get hep A).  doctors and govt should continue to be firm and educate people as much as possible that vaccinations are good for society as a whole and more importantly for their children.

 

[Brisketexan 105158]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

 I didn't mean you were a hermit.  meant you as in someone is a hermit so it is very obvious how they could have gotten something from one person.  OK so which on the list of recommended vaccines fit your description of not widespread?  how do you prove you didn't get it from somewhere else?  how is pertussis or other not widespread vax'd communicable disease contracted normally. could you get it from a bathroom area, plate of food.   how old is Bob.  how accurate are his records?  was he a minor when the vaccination should have happened or do you get a pertussis vax every year? every 5 years?

I'm not anti vax whatsoever but there is no way you are going to sue people for it if they are acting normal(example of Bob not acting normal, Bob knows he has hep A and never got a vax, catches me after work in the parking lot, takes a shit in his hand and rubs my face in it, I get hep A).  doctors and govt should continue to be firm and educate people as much as possible that vaccinations are good for society as a whole and more importantly for their children.

 

As for proof -- the facts of each case will matter. Epidemiologists literally trace outbreaks through contact tracing to a pretty high level of certainty (greater than "more likely than not").  Again, it will depend on the facts of a specific case.

On top of that, we should bar unvaccinated people from a shitload of activities.  Workplaces should absolutely be able to exclude unvaccinated persons from hiring unless the person has a valid medical exception, etc.

We have chosen a path of anyone can do whatever the fuck they want, at great cost to others, and we just socialize the costs.  Turns out that sometimes, those costs are really, really fucking high.  But fuck it, that's the path we've chosen.  We are morons.  We deserve all that we get, and more.