As the occasional lurker when something major happens (like OMG), concur. It’s almost like some people not being here helps. Sorry not sorry if that crosses a line.
3 Likes
Not sure if it got posted, but NY reinstating it’s mask mandate as of Monday.
Forward-looking risks wont’ work with anti-vaxxers, because if they were capable of correctly weighing future risks they wouldn’t be anti-vaxxers in the first place.
1 Like
Are you forgetting the hospital ship?
IME the venn diagram of “I will not live in fear” chuds and people who literally think they will be shot if they cross the Chicago city limits is a circle
17 Likes
same people literally think Portland was literally erased from the map, entirely burned to the ground, by BLM
I mean we’ll probably still be taking fucking boosters by then.
1 Like
Sort of interested to see how they handle the liability piece. I’m not really interested in using vax status to deny health insurance, I think that takes us down a bad road. Holding unvaxxed liable for not taking precautions more viable to me, but can we sequence well enough to show liability?
Super small sample (43 cases) but CDC says 79% we’re vaccinated. Good news it is mild (hopefully not just lagging)
Former WSOP winner and noted virologist Joe Cada has some thoughts on the rates of unvaccinated in the hospital.
https://twitter.com/joecada99/status/1469657867280072712?s=21
(Pretty sure this dumb fuck missed the WSOP this year because he’s a fReE tHiNkEr)
Do these brilliant minds have an explanation for 90% of deaths being vaccinated people or is it just standard “I am very smart and thus distrust medical information” argle bargle?
EDIT: Did a tiny bit of digging through the replies
https://twitter.com/JoeCada99/status/1469699983238705154
How is that statistically feasible?
What a dumbass.
1 Like
Track and trace for public health purposes is a little different than track and trace for liability purposes.
For criminal liability, if the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, then it’s nearly impossible most of the time. You’re going to always be able to say “Well, they could have gotten it from someone else”.
For civil liability, if the standard is more likely than not, then whatever tracking and tracing they’re doing could help determine the liability.
“beyond a reasonable doubt” is a fiction of the american lawbrain which basically means reasonable is in the eye of the beholding judge. hopefully vietnam didn’t get infected with that doctrine during the american invasion.
what percentage of the population is at a hospital at any given time, like half or something?
1 Like
This motherfucker won a giant poker tournament.
What the fuck
1 Like
Yeah, I don’t know what their legal system uses.
As far as the US is concerned, I think if you’re talking about a pandemic with a very contagious virus, then “Maybe they caught it from someone else” is going to be a reasonable doubt to any judge (or really any rational person) in the vast majority of cases.
I’m sure we can imagine edge cases you could really pin it down to a specific contact, but that’s just not going to be possible much of the time.
Just fine people who don’t get vaxxed. Trying to work out who got what from who introduces all kinds of moral luck problems.
1 Like
It’s very easy to manipulate data either way. Do you find it alarming that they’re not willing to release all their data on the vaccine? Or do you believe that 99 percent of icu patients are unvaccinated. Let people believe what they want and make their own choices.
Like this is toddler-level reasoning. You can’t even argue with it.
I’m fine actively asserting that people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own choices. It’s not hard to argue with these people if you refuse to agree with them on such axiomatic concepts.