The Coronavirus thread

The thing is RX is that the antivaxer isn't killing anyone but another antivaxer so it is not your problem. You on the other hand might be a vaccinated super spreader going on with your life while asymptomatic and sick with Covid. The ones that die from this contact with you will likely be the unvaccinated.

The world is in a very strange place right now and thanks to the fear mongering about Covid everyone is now suspicious and angry at their neighbours.
I don't think Covid is not killing people. But I do think that what we have been doing is not making much of a difference. The governments of the world keep coming up with 'solutions' because their constituents keep screaming do something about Covid'. The MSM sensationalizes the disease and scares the s***t out of the sheep. Don't be a sheep.

Update. The woman in my wife's van that was
vaxxed and got covid that I reported was off
the respirator is back on it again. I'm very
low on the fam update info chain so I'm
always the last to know what's going on.
I believe she had the Astra Zenica vaccine.

Quote: rxwine

I guess the virus isn't killing anyone at all then. So people should just go about their life as you say. I didn't know it wasn't killing anyone. News to me.

There are always things out there "killing people." Take your vax, wear your mask, and only leave home to get groceries once a week.

Or live a normal life and do not act like that DA who wanted to charge people without masks for attempted murder.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: rxwine

Where I am going with this...

It's not to point out we do this kind of thing everyday.

It's to point out, we don't have the inherent right to endanger other's people's health

From that, where do we go? We go to consensus of agreement. Libertarians may say it's an individual choice, but I disagree as soon as it crosses the physical space. You don't have the right to endanger other people's health on your own individual choice. You need some sort of consensus of agreement.

I'm not endangering anything having to do with you by leaving my house; you are endangering yourself by leaving yours. There's no physical space for anyone to cross if you stay at home. Here's what separates us:

Your House--->"Public"--->My House

So, I can't just wantonly go to where you live and engage in behaviors that you consider, 'Risky,' without your permission. Similarly, you can't go to where I live and do that, either. That leaves only, 'Public,' which is a space handled by laws. There are laws that say what I can or cannot do in public. I don't see a law that covers your italicized statement---especially if one doesn't even know one is endangering anything.

Well are rights inalienable or not? Does it have to be a law? I tend to agree it's only rhetoric without real enforcement. Typhoid Mary was innocent until informed what she was doing. People walking around in public in a pandemic aren't innocent of what's going on. IMO. Well, most shouldn't be by now. Or do you think they are? The guy on the plane to Las Vegas, I think, knew what was happening in society.

Before anti-smoking laws, I still considered my right to health greater than your right to smoke. But when I talk about consensus, it goes like this. Guy sits and an asks me if I mind if he smokes. Some people say yes, some no. But that's an example of what I think is the proper consensus in such a situation. Many times people won't have a problem breathing the smoke. Guy still gets to smoke more places than he did before anti-smoking. So, it's not a bad balance.

Quote: rxwine

Well are rights inalienable or not? Does it have to be a law? I tend to agree it's only rhetoric without real enforcement. Typhoid Mary was innocent until informed what she was doing. People walking around in public in a pandemic aren't innocent of what's going on. IMO. Well, most shouldn't be by now. Or do you think they are? The guy on the plane to Las Vegas, I think, knew what was happening in society.

Before anti-smoking laws, I still considered my right to health greater than your right to smoke. But when I talk about consensus, it goes like this. Guy sits and an asks me if I mind if he smokes. Some people say yes, some no. But that's an example of what I think is the proper consensus in such a situation. Many times people won't have a problem breathing the smoke. Guy still gets to smoke more places than he did before anti-smoking. So, it's not a bad balance.

What inalienable right are you referring to? Are you referring to the right to be secure in your person and your property? You can do that by staying at home and nobody has any legal authority (short of a person not paying rent/mortgage and then getting evicted/foreclosed) to go to a person's house and force them to leave.

I think that if you know that a person has recently tested positive for Covid and is out galavanting around regardless, then perhaps you can startto make some sort of case against them for wanton endangerment, or equivalent. That's only for such time as it is still considered a pandemic. You can't really apply it to non-pandemic things because there are employers who will fire someone for so much as calling off.

I honestly don't understand the smoking comparison. The guy who wants to smoke knows he wants to smoke---everybody knows that the guy wants to smoke, so the question is whether or not they mind. If someone doesn't know they have Covid in the first place, then there's no known consensus that can be achieved. The question is, "Are you willing to risk potential exposure to Covid," if the answer is no, then stay home. It's really that simple.

Before the anti-smoking laws it was all free association. Where there was sufficient demand for 100% non-smoking restaurants, there were non-smoking restaurants.

Quote: Mission146

What inalienable right are you referring to? Are you referring to the right to be secure in your person and your property? You can do that by staying at home and nobody has any legal authority (short of a person not paying rent/mortgage and then getting evicted/foreclosed) to go to a person's house and force them to leave.

I think that if you know that a person has recently tested positive for Covid and is out galavanting around regardless, then perhaps you can startto make some sort of case against them for wanton endangerment, or equivalent. That's only for such time as it is still considered a pandemic. You can't really apply it to non-pandemic things because there are employers who will fire someone for so much as calling off.

I honestly don't understand the smoking comparison. The guy who wants to smoke knows he wants to smoke---everybody knows that the guy wants to smoke, so the question is whether or not they mind. If someone doesn't know they have Covid in the first place, then there's no known consensus that can be achieved. The question is, "Are you willing to risk potential exposure to Covid," if the answer is no, then stay home. It's really that simple.

Before the anti-smoking laws it was all free association. Where there was sufficient demand for 100% non-smoking restaurants, there were non-smoking restaurants.

It’s completely logical to act as if you have a disease if you know you can transmit it before you know you have it when there’s a pandemic afoot with it. Being as that is what you know, you can only feign ignorance once you’re aware of it. You’re not innocent.

We’re also going to disagree on what is an inalienable right. So we might as well leave it at that.

Quote: Evenbob

I believe she had the Astra Zenica vaccine.

One of us must be wrong because I didn't think the Astra Zenica vaccine was available in the U.S.

In other inalienable rights or non-rights, what state is there a city where it’s illegal to fart in an elevator?

You can Google the answer.

Other than there, you’re free to exercise the freedom to get in a crowded elevator and let loose the smell of a thousand rotting corpses. Go freedom!

Quote: rxwine

It’s completely logical to act as if you have a disease if you know you can transmit it before you know you have it when there’s a pandemic afoot with it. Being as that is what you know, you can only feign ignorance once you’re aware of it. You’re not innocent.

We’re also going to disagree on what is an inalienable right. So we might as well leave it at that.

If I made NOT transmitting Covid my primary goal without actually knowing that I have Covid to begin with, then my only option would be to never leave the house. Why should I not be the one to leave the house? I'm not the one who's worried about it.

Quote: rxwine

In other inalienable rights or non-rights, what state is there a city where it’s illegal to fart in an elevator?

You can Google the answer.

Other than there, you’re free to exercise the freedom to get in a crowded elevator and let loose the smell of a thousand rotting corpses. Go freedom!

Never intentionally, but I have indeed farted in an elevator before.

Okay, I can think of one occasion where it was intentional...but I knew who would be getting on next.