Am I (and are you) a "liberal extremist" or an 'evil progressive"?

I watched his comedy special since the left is having such a freakout about it. I'd never heard of him before that.

I thought he was funny. It's hard to believe that the left is freaking out over such a nonissue.

Would you agree, that in your inaction to get a vaccine and unmasked status, and that you infected someone and that person died as a result of contracting Covid from YOU, that you PERSONALLY are liable for causing that person's death?

For the record, I am vaccinated (and now boosted) and I am fairly conscientious about wearing a mask. So this is a hypothetical. Let's talk about what it means to be "liable for causing" someone's death.

Let's consider some examples of liability

1) I pull out a knife and drive it into the back of an unsuspecting passerby and they die. In this case I am taking an action that I likely to cause grave injury.

2) I get drunk and run over a pedestrian and they die. In this case I am taking an action that is irresponsible and dangerous.

3) I have unprotected sex without knowing I am HIV positive. My partner dies. In this case I am taking an action that has known risk (accepted by both).

4) I serve a double whopper and fries to a clearly obese person. That person dies of heart failure caused by eating fat.

5) I am driving sober, and going the speed limit and following all of the rules. But I am momentarily distracted by a cat running on the side of the road and accidently hit a pedestrian who dies.

In which cases am I "liable for someone's death"? My point is that this a meaningless turn. Any time I get into a car (even perfectly sober) I increase the chance that someone might die.

My best guess is that #1 and #2 are "liable for someone's death". I think for me the line should be drawn when someone both takes an action, and that the result is known to be likely to cause injury. I don't think I would consider the rest of the examples in the same way...

The point is that this is a rather silly exercise in political outrage.

Bartenders become liable for over-serving someone.

HIV infected persons are liable when they knowingly do not disclose their status and do not use preventative measures.

So, answer the question clearly:

Do unvaxxed people bear responsibility for causing death?

This should be max's tagline:

"The point is that this is a rather silly exercise in political outrage."

He just has to add 'liberal extremists' in there somewhere.

I thought it was obvious. The answer is no. An unvaxxed person (who does not know they are infected) is not liable for someone else's death.

If a person who knows they are infected goes out and infects other people, that would cross the line whether they were vaccinated or not.

That is my answer.

+1 I quite agree with you Mame.

I don't believe in blame (only personal responsibility and contributing circumstances), so I can't say that I like the phrase 'liable for' - it is quite messy.

To use a simile to the scenario that is believe to generally have lesser consequences:
- a person is not vaccinated for the latest flu
- they unknowingly have the flu
- they are in a space with another person who contracts the flu from them

Are they liable?
If they knowingly have it and go to a public event, are they liable?

A quick look at statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

In 2016, there were 273 confirmed Flu deaths.
In 2017, there were 1,181 confirmed Flu deaths.
In 2018, there were 148 confirmed Flu deaths.
In 2019, there were 902 confirmed Flu deaths.
In 2020, there were 36 confirmed Flu deaths.

In 2016 there were 87,333 confirmed notifications of influenza.
In 2017 there were 233,453 confirmed notifications of influenza.
In 2018 there were 48,276 confirmed notifications of influenza.
In 2019 there were 313,033 confirmed notifications of influenza.
In 2020 there were 21,266 confirmed notifications of influenza.
In 2021 there have been very few cases, with just 512 notifications and one hospital admissions due to influenza up to 12 Sept 2021.

Here, we can see that the likely cause of all of those flu deaths was:
- lack of social distancing
- coming to work sick
- not wearing a mask

Note: it is strangely hard to find the flu vaccination rate, so can't properly comment on it, but presuming it stays the same, then the very likely reason the statistics changed is becaus of changes in the above.

So the question is, were all those people who spread the flu, liable for the deaths? After all, if through public contact/no mask A spread to B who spread to C who spread to D who spread to E who then died....in a liable world - A, B, C and D are liable for E's death. So there are now potentially hundreds of thousands of people liable for the Australia flu deaths 2016-2020

It's messy.

Now if you said that an unvaccinated person who has coronavirus ends up in a hospital and infects someone who then dies of coronavirus has contributed to the death of that person - I don't think anyone would argue with you. It would simply be fact. Same with persons A-D in the above scenario, their actions (being in close social proximity/not wearing a mask etc) lead to the spread to each person in the chain of infection that eventually contributed to the death of E.

If you then said "I don't think that anyone should contribute to another persons deaths through these circumstances" then discussing it becomes clearer.

I don't necessarily agree with Max's scenarios (which examples seem messy to me), but I do agree that 'liable for' is itself a messy discussion.

I think it's pretty clear they are quite likely socks.

Not all sick people are in the hospital. Sorry, but there just isn't room for them.

What's your point Roger?

If you get rid of all of the obese people in hospital with heart disease then you would have room for everyone else. Is that the point?

Then again, maybe there should be more hospital beds so there would be enough space for everyone. It would be a straightforward solution and you wouldn't have to demonize anyone (which is probably why no one is discussing it).

Being outraged at sick people for being in the hospital is silly.

Do keep in mind that more beds cost more money. A lot more, even if they are empty. It just adds to the daily cost of a hospital stay.

I haven't seen anyone here demonizing anyone or being outraged at sick people. Fed up, yes. Frustrated, yes. Think they're idiots, yes. But demonizing? NO. Outraged? NO.

You're Trump Jr. You feel if you say these lies enough, we'll accept them. But we're a lot smarter than that. I know that I haven't demonized anyone, nor am I outraged. Stop ascribing behaviour and feelings to me. You're as repetitious and predictable as oralloy. "Evil progressives", "extreme liberals", "outrage", now "demonize". You do realize how silly you sound, don't you, max? Thread after thread, post after post. Why don't you just ask us how we feel instead of making **** up?

Max,

The difference that people are pointing out is:
- many/most people going to a hospital are by nature, vulnerable
- Coronavirus patients in a hospital can infect others in the hospital (and those other patients can die of the coronavirus)
- heart disease patients in a hospital can't infect other people in a hospital (and no other patients die for transmission, because there is no transmission)

...and most of those coronavirus patients would not end up in the hospital if they were vaccinated.

So yes, other patients die in hospital; other patients are in hosptial for preventable diseases...but the comparison you are using is flawed for comparing infectious to non-infectious diseases - in the carry over effect to other ill patients in a hospital (which is the other posters point)

Also,

Heart disease patients don't result in:
-health staff contract heart disease (can't say the same for coronavirus)
- health staff having to stay home at the slightest flu like symptom (can't say the same for coronavirus)
- a shortage of health staff because they are off work to prevent further virus spread

Nor due to general populace contagion do heart disease patients result in:
- lockdowns
- masks
- businesses going under
- people losing their jobs
- etc

I've seperated them into two lists because they are inter-related, but not the same issues - but the 'outrage' as you put it, is related to both lists, not just the one.

There are two issues here (ignoring Mame's little tantrum).

1. Transmissibility

2. Whether a sick person is worthy of care without judgement for their life choices.

These are two different issues. I concede the point for transmissibility (although as you pointed out influenza has a moral equivalence).

The argument that someone who is sick due to their inaction isn't deserving of care doesn't hold water. Most heart disease is preventable. Unvaccinated covid patients are in the same category as obese heart patients.

Those two issues exist - but they aren't the only issues.

My view is that such is not the point they are trying to make.

While I don't think that is the point they are making - I would make that point in very specific circumstances - if ICU is full and you are there because of your own choices compared to someone who is not...and a choice had to be made...then (all triage concerns being equal) the person who is there through no choice of their own should receive priority treatment . But that is for a very simple reason - I believe there are consequences for our choices. Plenty of people don't agree with me on that, and that is okay.

Exactly. Nobody is saying or has said that. Those are words that have been put in our mouths. Nobody said they shouldn't get treated. What I said was that they should be triaged along with everyone else, not given 'preferential treatment' because they had Covid.

Trage based on personal merit flies in the face of medical ethics.

Imagine making a judgement between somone suffering of AIDS because of unprotected sex, and a diabetic whose kidneys were failing because they didn't make the necessary dietary changes.

I don't see any system of medical ethics that would deny care based on a judgement of the personal failings of the patient.

I'm pretty sure it does as well, which is why I said plenty of people will disagree with me, and that is okay.

Both are in the same boat of having made choices leading to the outcomes - so the very specific circumstances that I mentioned wouldn't be triggered by your example. I'm sure there are greyer examples that could be given...but the greyer it is the less likely the specific circumstances I mentioned would be triggered.