If the orders lead to someone committing suicide from desperation and loneliness, should someone be held criminally responsible ?
If someone knows they where around a covid person, gets the sniffles and goes out and infects someone, should they be held criminally responsible? How if they have allergies all the time, still responsible? Made a misdiagnosis and had covid instead of allergies.
Should the neighbors be held criminally responsible for not reporting a possible felony?
Should those who support the lockdown be forced to pay the wages of those who lost their jobs and businesses?
Should the people who enact lockdowns and those who support them be held criminally liable for people who couldn’t receive proper medical care due to covid restrictions?
Should you be put in jail for not wearing a mask? How if if you’re wearing it but not wearing it properly?
Should someone who is listening to loud music in their car, that causes a different driver to look over and thus have an accident be held criminally liable?
Where does it stop? Do you really want to live in that society?
You are taking a simple issue of primary responsibility and stretching it to ridiculous lengths.
If I host a gathering in violation to public health guidelines and someone gets sick from COViD, I am negligent. It’s no different that an guest drowning in an unprotected pool on my property. Infection is a clearly foreseeable occurrence.
A hospice nurse friend who has cared for numerous COViD patients for their last few days posted this. I don’t completely agree, but it’s much closer to reality than not and it’s easier than typing it out.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
KNOWN in the state of California to cause cancer.
This is the same state that doesn't actually KNOW what a 'ghost gun' or even a 'gun' is. So you know...not worried.
http://instagram.com/p/CHuDAgzsF8Y/
___
I know you're being sarcastic, but there can be negligence on the part. Someone who wantonly exposes another to harmful agents without regard for that person's safety can be quite guilty of negligence. Those mesothelioma lawsuits from asbestos exposure when chemical companies clearly knew about the danger is negligence. Here's the tricky part, if Uncle Joe knows he has coronavirus and goes to three family gatherings and gets Great Grandma Kamala sick and she dies - he could be guilty of negligence. Maybe Uncle Joe didn't know, but gets sick a few days later and gets tested. Uh-oh, Uncle Joe has the covids. But he doesn't tell anything and Great Gam-Gam Kamala dies. Could also be negligence on his part. If on the other hand, Uncle Joe, doesn't know? And never gets tested, presents, symptoms, or otherwise? How do you prove negligence?It is negligent to allow anyone access to anything that could cause them to become ill in any way s/.
Which brings us to the common sense portion of our program. There is a pretty damn deadly virus, particularly for the elderly and those of immune-compromised status. When do we most often see the elderly and those who might be compromised if not during holidays? As a result, common sense (which isn't common, but we've covered that) would dictate that maybe you shouldn't wander around this season and potentially expose yourself of others.
It might be inconvenient and unfair, to quote my late father, "Life isn't fair. Suck it up."
___
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
I was gonna make a post about how odds of transmission likely go up in a non-linear fashion when group sizes increase. However, I think it's a waste of my time as people are going to believe what they want to believe, and in any case the politicians have repeatedly shown their hypocrisy in selective enforcement and their own blatant disregard for supposed best practices so they can't really complain about people ignoring their rules.