6 ms·

> I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to th

> I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. The US is also full of people who literally cannot afford to take sick days, which creates a culture of people going to work sick and toughing it out. Even in middle-class and upper middle-class jobs there's a prevalent fear of having to be seen in the office at all cost to avoid being fired. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of this, with the addition of being extra cruel against people who are not privileged enough to have a cushy job that allows them to work from home.

renewiltord 6y ago
> I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. It isn't much of a leap, honestly. Few societies permit me to drive drunk for instance, even if I genuinely intend to kill no one. And I assure I don't want to kill anyone ever. I'm a lover not a killer.
- tertius 6y ago
  I'd you hit someone with a car, they will likely die. If you expose someone to corona on purpose (i.e. you're so drunk you can't avoid people) they likely won't die. It's not Ebola. And the analogy doesn't fit. How about speeding? That fits a little better.
  - yread 6y ago
    If you drunk drive you likely won't hit anyone. But it is more likely than if you don't.
    - tertius 6y ago
      Agreed. But if you're walking without a mask you are MUCH less likely to kill someone...
      - effingwewt 6y ago
        Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Whereas it's possible you may kill a small number of people while drunk in a car- even if we assume it's a bus you are driving and hit several other buses- eventually your vehicle or yourself will have sustained injuries keeping you or it from harming others further. However you could easily infect who knows how many people since covid is transmissable, and anyone you infected will keep infecting others, every one of which is your fault. Exponential growth. Not only deaths but possible permanent damage to respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems. I agree, do what you want, but I think you should also be liable for the damages you inflict on others. If this means jail time (possibly life if enough are infected and killed), how does that help your 'personal freedom'.
        tertius 6y ago
        > Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Firstly, yes drunk driving is far more dangerous to the public per incident than a Covid infectious positive case. This is glaringly obvious. Secondly, you don't need to be immuno-compromised to be killed by a car. I.e. that's a small section of the population. Digressing: There are many things in society where the risk of injury exists where it probably isn't a good idea to punish the person causing injury. One problem with drunk driving is that it is illegal. It's not just illegal to kill someone while driving drunk. So no injury is even required. Yet, being near others in a grocery store with a cloth mask (that does practically nothing) isn't nearly as dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. So you're making a point about injury where the law starts way before that, risk of injury. But everything has risk. Playing baseball is risky of the off chance of the ball hitting someone in the head. Less risky, but could kill someone, say someone who was skull-compromised like an infant. Do you want to outlaw baseball games? That's an obvious "way on the other side of the spectrum" example. Where do you draw the line? And clearly, drunk driving (driving not even being a right) is MUCH more dangerous than possibly infecting someone with a virus that kills, to be honest, a minority of those infected. There are other viruses for example that is also transmitted in the same way, kills somewhat less frequently though like the flu. Do you propose (like drunk driving) that not wearing a mask in public period should be illegal? Because you never know if you're interacting with someone who is immuno-compromised.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Sure, and that will be reflected in the amount you would have to pay in a free market to insure against the worst case. If it is a very rare event you will have to pay very little. If you're huffing whippets of aerosolized sars-cov-2, your insurance will be higher.
    - tertius 6y ago
      My test says I have dead nucleotides from the RNA of this virus. Do I need to pay up or am I clear? Maybe getting the courts involved is not such a bad idea.
biddit 6y ago
> I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. Intentionally and maliciously is one thing, but there is a level below that, which is well-established: reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic is somewhere within the ballpark of this, and it’s reasonable to enforce and punish it, as we do with other reckless behaviors.
- tertius 6y ago
  Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. Then "we" (or whoever chose masks) learn that 70% of mask wearers still get sick (because either masks don't work or because plebs can't be trusted with them) next we need universal vaccination or else we get fined. And if we don't pay fines, jail... Etc. Etc. Who decides when we are required to wear masks? 'Rule by expert'?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I don't think anyone should force you to do anything. You just pay up when you make someone sick. Pretty easy.
    - pindab0ter 6y ago
      So you can only be “free” when you can afford it.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        That's the nature of freedom when you impose costs on others, you need to be able to make them whole. Sort of intrinsic to the No Harm Principle.
      - davvolun 6y ago
        Right, wrong, or whatever, welcome to America. What, today, is stopping a billionaire from parking nearly anywhere they like and then just paying the fine, over and over? Or, beyond that, the quality of civil or criminal defense you can expect to receive is directly correlated to how much you're willing to pay.

renewiltord 6y ago

> I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. It isn't much of a leap, honestly. Few societies permit me to drive drunk for instance, even if I genuinely intend to kill no one. And I assure I don't want to kill anyone ever. I'm a lover not a killer.

tertius 6y ago
I'd you hit someone with a car, they will likely die. If you expose someone to corona on purpose (i.e. you're so drunk you can't avoid people) they likely won't die. It's not Ebola. And the analogy doesn't fit. How about speeding? That fits a little better.
- yread 6y ago
  If you drunk drive you likely won't hit anyone. But it is more likely than if you don't.
  - tertius 6y ago
    Agreed. But if you're walking without a mask you are MUCH less likely to kill someone...
    - effingwewt 6y ago
      Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Whereas it's possible you may kill a small number of people while drunk in a car- even if we assume it's a bus you are driving and hit several other buses- eventually your vehicle or yourself will have sustained injuries keeping you or it from harming others further. However you could easily infect who knows how many people since covid is transmissable, and anyone you infected will keep infecting others, every one of which is your fault. Exponential growth. Not only deaths but possible permanent damage to respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems. I agree, do what you want, but I think you should also be liable for the damages you inflict on others. If this means jail time (possibly life if enough are infected and killed), how does that help your 'personal freedom'.
      - tertius 6y ago
        > Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Firstly, yes drunk driving is far more dangerous to the public per incident than a Covid infectious positive case. This is glaringly obvious. Secondly, you don't need to be immuno-compromised to be killed by a car. I.e. that's a small section of the population. Digressing: There are many things in society where the risk of injury exists where it probably isn't a good idea to punish the person causing injury. One problem with drunk driving is that it is illegal. It's not just illegal to kill someone while driving drunk. So no injury is even required. Yet, being near others in a grocery store with a cloth mask (that does practically nothing) isn't nearly as dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. So you're making a point about injury where the law starts way before that, risk of injury. But everything has risk. Playing baseball is risky of the off chance of the ball hitting someone in the head. Less risky, but could kill someone, say someone who was skull-compromised like an infant. Do you want to outlaw baseball games? That's an obvious "way on the other side of the spectrum" example. Where do you draw the line? And clearly, drunk driving (driving not even being a right) is MUCH more dangerous than possibly infecting someone with a virus that kills, to be honest, a minority of those infected. There are other viruses for example that is also transmitted in the same way, kills somewhat less frequently though like the flu. Do you propose (like drunk driving) that not wearing a mask in public period should be illegal? Because you never know if you're interacting with someone who is immuno-compromised.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure, and that will be reflected in the amount you would have to pay in a free market to insure against the worst case. If it is a very rare event you will have to pay very little. If you're huffing whippets of aerosolized sars-cov-2, your insurance will be higher.
  - tertius 6y ago
    My test says I have dead nucleotides from the RNA of this virus. Do I need to pay up or am I clear? Maybe getting the courts involved is not such a bad idea.

biddit 6y ago

> I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. Intentionally and maliciously is one thing, but there is a level below that, which is well-established: reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic is somewhere within the ballpark of this, and it’s reasonable to enforce and punish it, as we do with other reckless behaviors.

tertius 6y ago
Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. Then "we" (or whoever chose masks) learn that 70% of mask wearers still get sick (because either masks don't work or because plebs can't be trusted with them) next we need universal vaccination or else we get fined. And if we don't pay fines, jail... Etc. Etc. Who decides when we are required to wear masks? 'Rule by expert'?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I don't think anyone should force you to do anything. You just pay up when you make someone sick. Pretty easy.
  - pindab0ter 6y ago
    So you can only be “free” when you can afford it.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      That's the nature of freedom when you impose costs on others, you need to be able to make them whole. Sort of intrinsic to the No Harm Principle.
    - davvolun 6y ago
      Right, wrong, or whatever, welcome to America. What, today, is stopping a billionaire from parking nearly anywhere they like and then just paying the fine, over and over? Or, beyond that, the quality of civil or criminal defense you can expect to receive is directly correlated to how much you're willing to pay.