3 ms·

I hope some enterprising lawyer starts filing wrongful death civil suits for people who do not follow mask and gathering rules. With sequencing of the virus, p

I hope some enterprising lawyer starts filing wrongful death civil suits for people who do not follow mask and gathering rules. With sequencing of the virus, plus some contact tracing it should be possible to make a preponderance of evidence case for a subset of deaths. That should hopefully provide a stick to get a large number of defectors (in game theory terms) to stop defecting. A political solution would clearly be better, but I'll take what I can get.

RationalThought 6y ago
I do too. Reading the comments here there are plenty who don't care about others enough to take basic precautions, and happily spread lies about the effects of covid-19 or who is vulnerable. I expect there will also be social penalties. The world isn't going to forget the people who chose not to take basic steps to protect each other. It's a violation of the social contract, and that comes with consequences.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
The extreme level of litigiousness and authoritarianism you're advocating is perhaps the worst, inhumane impulse that surfaces during a crisis like this. Imagine, for instance, that we started tracing HIV strains and jailing gay people. And then arguing that having sex isn't really necessary and abstinence is the only way to prevent transmission. The implications of what you're saying is appalling.
- wins32767 6y ago
  I hardly think making people face the consequences of their actions is authoritarian, nor is it worse than the callous disregard for other people's lives that many are demonstrating through their actions. People who refuse to take basic precautions are externalizing the costs of their decisions onto the rest of society. Litigation is one way society deals with that problem. If someone went around having unprotected sex without telling their partners, then I don't see a problem with a civil suit from anyone they infected to make them pay for the damages they inflicted. If I were to distort your view like you did mine, I'd say that you're arguing for the ability to go around punching anyone else in the face because to prevent you from doing so would be starting down a slippery slope that would lead to authoritarianism.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > I hardly think making people face the consequences of their actions is authoritarian "you must face the consequences" is perhaps the most authoritarian thing you could say when arguing in favor of severe penalties.
    - wins32767 6y ago
      Severe penalties like a civil lawsuit? I guess doctors who accidentally kill their patients are living an authoritarian dystopia.

RationalThought 6y ago

I do too. Reading the comments here there are plenty who don't care about others enough to take basic precautions, and happily spread lies about the effects of covid-19 or who is vulnerable. I expect there will also be social penalties. The world isn't going to forget the people who chose not to take basic steps to protect each other. It's a violation of the social contract, and that comes with consequences.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

The extreme level of litigiousness and authoritarianism you're advocating is perhaps the worst, inhumane impulse that surfaces during a crisis like this. Imagine, for instance, that we started tracing HIV strains and jailing gay people. And then arguing that having sex isn't really necessary and abstinence is the only way to prevent transmission. The implications of what you're saying is appalling.

wins32767 6y ago
I hardly think making people face the consequences of their actions is authoritarian, nor is it worse than the callous disregard for other people's lives that many are demonstrating through their actions. People who refuse to take basic precautions are externalizing the costs of their decisions onto the rest of society. Litigation is one way society deals with that problem. If someone went around having unprotected sex without telling their partners, then I don't see a problem with a civil suit from anyone they infected to make them pay for the damages they inflicted. If I were to distort your view like you did mine, I'd say that you're arguing for the ability to go around punching anyone else in the face because to prevent you from doing so would be starting down a slippery slope that would lead to authoritarianism.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > I hardly think making people face the consequences of their actions is authoritarian "you must face the consequences" is perhaps the most authoritarian thing you could say when arguing in favor of severe penalties.
  - wins32767 6y ago
    Severe penalties like a civil lawsuit? I guess doctors who accidentally kill their patients are living an authoritarian dystopia.