Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For me, it’s the same objection to people refusing to vaccinate their kids, drink drive, set fire to the bottom flat in my building etc.

You want to take risks? Absolutely fine with me. Not a problem. Your body, your choice, your legacy.

But, when your actions come with an impact others around you? That’s where some form of line has to be drawn. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.

That’s the very basis of Law, is it not? And when the Law is broken, there are repercussions for the harming party.

Yes, but those things are crimes and put people at immediate, provable risk (mostly. Obviously not vaccinating your kids is not a crime, and nor should it be) but this is completely different. You can't accuse people of a 'supposed' crime with no proof, simply for being in a crowd. Spreading the virus is not a crime (and again, nor should it be except maybe in certain malicious circumstances)

You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/kentucky-sees-highest-spike-in-coronavirus-cases-after-protests/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=facebook_app&fbclid=IwAR0OBVw5KVL4rcws5BK5X_KLsaIP8-yxjYgxpUGQGIZdyC3Hln8nOjpi9eI

Facepalm is about right reaction for this. People gathered together, corona cases spiked up. Hardly surprising turn of events.

In biology we call this "natural selection".

Too bad they are draining resources and causing deaths to people who were smart. Maybe there should be change in law where if you take part of that kind of acts you forfeit all your rights for medical health care if you get sick from the thing you are warned against. Not just forfeit but becomes illegal to treat you. You take unneccessary risk, bear the responsibility. Then it's risk/reward for you and damage you cause to others with your stupidity is reduced at least a bit(though you still could cause innocents to die because of your stupidity)

What is your objection to any form of liberty? I'm not justifying the actions of the people in the article, but you the way you talk is incredibly disturbing.

It sounds like anger at people for doing really stupid things that endanger them (no objection there) and others (who get no say here), like being bound together by a rope and one person randomly jumping off a cliff because it's their right and not caring how this affects everybody else.

Those people have increasing the infection rate which in turn will most probably strain medical services and cause even more deaths. Just for some messes up posturing about freedom. And on top of that it might lead to this whole corona thing lasting even longer and thus being counterproductive to their actual goals. It's idiocy squared and an example where one's freedom can significantly affect others but those people don't give a feth because it's about their idea of "freedom" and not about actual real issues and consequences.

They act like toddlers who have no idea that their actions have consequences. Maybe they need to learn from this and hey, the USA likes a retributive justice system. It would be only fair. Reap what you sow and all that :/

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Where does this stop though? When a drink driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

Exactly. This insistence on trying to make criminals out of everyone simply because of some preconceived threat that you've projected onto them is a very worrying mindset that seems to be prevalent among lots of people.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
[You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.

If their injuries were infectious and would affect others then I'd say yes, give their victims priority.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For me, it’s the same objection to people refusing to vaccinate their kids, drink drive, set fire to the bottom flat in my building etc.

You want to take risks? Absolutely fine with me. Not a problem. Your body, your choice, your legacy.

But, when your actions come with an impact others around you? That’s where some form of line has to be drawn. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.

That’s the very basis of Law, is it not? And when the Law is broken, there are repercussions for the harming party.

Yes, but those things are crimes and put people at immediate, provable risk (mostly. Obviously not vaccinating your kids is not a crime, and nor should it be) but this is completely different. You can't accuse people of a 'supposed' crime with no proof, simply for being in a crowd. Spreading the virus is not a crime (and again, nor should it be except maybe in certain malicious circumstances)

You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.

Oddly enough on the EXTREEEEEEEEEME WOOOOOO RADICAL! Sports? Most travel insurance policies don’t cover them, or injuries relating to them.

On the vaccine thing, I strongly disagree with you, but that’s a whole other thread, and possibly not one for Dakka, so we’ll have to leave that there

Given we know the vectors of the virus, and steps to reduce the risk really aren’t even remotely draconian (social distancing, good basic hygiene, try not to move yourself from a to b unnecessary) these gatherings are wilfully reckless.

That both sides of the political spectrum are going for cheap shots over it is a different problem - and no more justifiable.

So freedom isn't a real issue or a consequence?

I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.

There is no way of proving that they are increasing the spread of the virus. It could be that none of them have it.

No, it wouldn't be fair.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
[You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.

If their injuries were infectious and would affect others then I'd say yes, give their victims priority.

It's a good thing medical practice works on a triage basis and not on your lines then isn't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oddly enough on the EXTREEEEEEEEEME WOOOOOO RADICAL! Sports? Most travel insurance policies don’t cover them, or injuries relating to them.

I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.

You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.

The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.

Honestly, it is one thing to protest it's a whole other doing this recklessly , especially when social distancing guidelines have proven to be effective.

Also the idea behind is Intent, if i go to These Protests with light symptoms knowingly then yes i should be Held acountable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:

I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.

You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.

The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"

Tbf we also have the opposite Off people claiming to be for freedom of speech but also supposedly have a right to not be offended.

In General i feel common sense Standards have slipped...

To be honest dude, I think your main, apparent disconnect here is understanding what lockdowns are trying to achieve.

I mean, I don’t like not being able to go to the pub, or the gaming club, or not seeing my colleagues (close knit team, all of whom are ace)

But? This Is The Way. We suck it up collectively in the short term. This reduces overall infections, and can, in theory, keep whole areas virus free.

In turn, that means hospitals (private and NHS) aren’t facing a full strain. That alone saves lives - and not just from those with the Virus. I mean, if the beds are full, and someone has a heart attack? What happens then? What if someone is run over? Breaks a leg? Or as happened with me circa 1994, gets their through a window and is losing blood really fast?

Right now, it’s not great. I’d love to be able to spend my new found free time doing something, anything other than sitting around at home.

With fewer people out and about, and nobody getting hammered and running afoul of a weekend, it also helps to reduce avoidable trips to hospitals. It’s limitation, for now. And in time, this could see it eradicated - just need to starve it of new hosts.

And don’t forget, we’ve at least two labs moving straight to human trials with a vaccine. One is in Oxford University. Whether it’ll work? Well, I don’t bloody know. I’m not a Doctor. But hopefully those working on it have a strong enough knowledge of existing Flu Vaccines to be able to reliably tweak it.

We the populace just need to grin and bear it. Stiff upper lip, old boy. Good old British Stoicism. For a few weeks, maybe months.

But the logic is sound. The evidence is there. The benefits are tangible and measurable.

 ScarletRose wrote:

I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.

You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.

The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"

No, knowingly killing a bunch of people and yourself is not freedom, it's a crime. I can't really say it any other way. It's an irrelevant example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


At no point have I ever really disagreed with anything you've said here. I understand the principles, and am doing my best to follow. What I object to is the unnecessary infringement on liberties, and, in this case, people's absurd desire to criminalise people simply because they disagree with their actions. It's almost like they can't see what a dangerous precedent that can potentially set.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.

You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.

The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"

No, knowingly killing a bunch of people and yourself is not freedom, it's a crime. I can't really say it any other way. It's an irrelevant example.

Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.

Because we run the risk of arguing with each other even though we’re on the same wavelength, by all means punish them for their reckless illegal behaviour, but don’t deny them lifesaving medical care, like one...poster...was wanting.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.

Of course, no one is suggesting that. The point in the original post was the suggestion of withholding medical treatment based on someone's actions.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.

Because we run the risk of arguing with each other even though we’re on the same wavelength, by all means punish them for their reckless illegal behaviour, but don’t deny them lifesaving medical care, like one...poster...was wanting.

Aye that would not just be potential killing reckless behaviour that 'd be killing.
And the last thing any responsible state should do is that

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Where does this stop though? When a drunk driver crashes their car, we cart them off to hospital. We don’t let them bleed out in the wreckage because ‘feth ‘em, they should have known better!’

I get the anger at the protesters stupidity, I really do, but wanting a law passed that would condemn them to death if they contracted the virus is, frankly, petty, among other things.

We cart them off to the hospital...then put them on trial and/or suspend their licenses. We don’t pretend that they had the right to endanger lives and suffer no consequences for it.

Again, this is something we see reflected in Insurance policies.

It’s easy to lose sight of in the U.K., because we’ve the absolutely sterling NHS to scoop us up and patch us up. But, try finding any private insurance policy that’ll cough up for treatment following such stupidity?

Even Car Insurance won’t pay out if you were drink driving - because it’s an additional, predictable risk.

So in the US, and other countries without a NHS equivalent? Medical bills, car repair bills and any ensuing civil liability, and as we say in Scotland, ‘yer bums oot the windae’.

 ScarletRose wrote:


Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.

No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.

It is though. I don’t get why you’re not getting this? To the point I’m really, genuinely starting to think your Poeing us?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:


Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.

No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.

Again deflection. I mean the entire thread has really shown what a farce "absolute freedum" ideology is when it comes to facing real world problems.

It's just a shame the plague spreaders are going to end up hurting more than themselves, and that some people don't find that objectionable.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:


Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.

No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.

Knowingly acting in a manner which can spread a virus at a time when there's a pandemic is at the very least knowingly furthering the potential spread of the virus. You only need one person in the gathering to have it and then the entire gathering is potentially infected. They then take that home with them - infecting anyone they interact with along the way including at home. If they are further ignoring any safeguards then work, schools, shops etc.. are all additionally put at risk.

When the disease is known to be fatal then one can make the argument that knowingly ignoring safeguards and safepractice during a pandemic and actively engaging in activities which can further its spread is potentially exposing more people (who otherwise might not be exposed) to a potentially fatal condition.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is though. I don’t get why you’re not getting this? To the point I’m really, genuinely starting to think your Poeing us?

How? By that logic, if I drive past a car, which then takes an action that kills someone, I should be at fault.

You're basically saying that everyone is infected, which just isn't the case. This is the problem. The media have duped everyone into believing that if anyone goes outside they are spreading this virus.

Now, of course some people have it and might potentially spread it unknowingly, but that isn't and cannot be a crime, with something that can be asymptomatic (otherwise I'd have cases against at least 2 of my former lovers)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:


Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.

No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.

Knowingly acting in a manner which can spread a virus at a time when there's a pandemic is at the very least knowingly furthering the potential spread of the virus. You only need one person in the gathering to have it and then the entire gathering is potentially infected. They then take that home with them - infecting anyone they interact with along the way including at home. If they are further ignoring any safeguards then work, schools, shops etc.. are all additionally put at risk.

When the disease is known to be fatal then one can make the argument that knowingly ignoring safeguards and safepractice during a pandemic and actively engaging in activities which can further its spread is potentially exposing more people (who otherwise might not be exposed) to a potentially fatal condition.

The key word there is potentially. If I carry a knife in my bag, I could potentially murder someone with it. But if I don't, then there is no crime.

I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.

I agree with queenannesrevenge. The guy tied to another guy with a rope jumping off of a cliff is a bad example.

What we have here is a new restriction, that some people consider overly restrictive, and other people consider ignoring dangerous.

So I think it would be fair to say it's similar to a person who decides it is their right to drive through a particular intersection near their home whenever they want, even though a traffic light was installed. So they will run the red light because they think they know better than the city planners, and the other drivers. It may be harmless, or it may result in them T-boning a family.

Although risky to an unknown degree to yourself and others, it is not equivalent to jumping off of a cliff while tied to someone. Running red lights because you think you are more special than those sheep who follow traffic laws is plenty bad enough.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is though. I don’t get why you’re not getting this? To the point I’m really, genuinely starting to think your Poeing us?

How? By that logic, if I drive past a car, which then takes an action that kills someone, I should be at fault.

You're basically saying that everyone is infected, which just isn't the case. This is the problem. The media have duped everyone into believing that if anyone goes outside they are spreading this virus.

Now, of course some people have it and might potentially spread it unknowingly, but that isn't and cannot be a crime, with something that can be asymptomatic (otherwise I'd have cases against at least 2 of my former lovers)

Got It In One.

That’s called proximate cause. Essentially, if my actions can be traced, directly, to the negligence of another driver? The fault and liability is not mine.

Example. You’re doing 40 in a 40 zone. Pootling along, minding your own business. Idiot Me pulls out of a junction, directly across your path (so, turning right in the U.K., left in the US). Your reaction is to swerve to avoid me. Unfortunately, you lose control, and your car goes through a wall or a hedge, and squishes someone in their garden.

There? Had it not been for my negligence, you simply wouldn’t have squished that person. That’s proximate cause. Provided you’ve a witness (passengers only count in Scotland) and my reg? You’re golden my dude.

That’s a pretty basic consideration in the insurance world.

As for “everyone thinks they’re spreading it”, you’re rather over egging the pudding. This is about ensuring those that do have it spread it to as few people as possible (ideally zero, naturally).

Look into the science behind it. This is not a conspiracy. This is not an overreaction or knee jerk. This is the simplest, most direct action that can be taken without a vaccine.

I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.

Oh they do in the U.K.

There are some sick minded people out there who know they have something unpleasant (up to and including HIV/AIDS) and choose to spread it. And yeah, successful prosecutions for just that.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.

Knowingly yes, but you need proof that the person knowingly and maliciously spread it, which is pretty much impossible in these circumstances, or with any disease that can be asymptomatic.

Simply saying that people in a crowd are spreading a virus, is completely unfounded, unless there's someone with a proven positive test wandering around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.

It's too late by then.. The laws have been passed and precedents are set. Granted, there are sunset clauses, but given the government's performance with this bill, and previous historical examples, I think we have good grounds to predict that they will not simply be wiped away.

They RISK spreading the virus. And from there, society RISKS the virus spreading ever further.

Look at the infection information. Just, take a look at it. Digest it. See the risk. Understand why these gatherings are frankly bloody stupid.

[