3 ms·

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'

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.

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.