OT: COVID-19 thread #3

[dice]

whether Duterte follows through with his threat or not is, of course, TBD. but he did just say that he will ask the police to be more strict and that the government will have "no qualms in arresting people"

Wanted to follow up on this here. As I told you, nothing happened with Duterte. The media overexaggerates everything as they commonly do. Duterte has kept the Philippines stable with COVID-19 despite it being the most condensed area of the world. His technique of being aggressive with people, implementing curfews and quarantines mostly worked. He may make threats but it's rare for any of these aggressive policies to actually be enforced. The death rate is low and he's done a pretty decent job despite the mass people still not following protocols.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/why-duterte-is-the-worlds-most-popular-leader/

He now is the most popular leader in Asia. I'm not pro or anti Duterte but I had to call this BS out as it's disturbing how media and the internet is polarizing peoples political views these days.

what BS are you referring to?

[Dresden]

Stanford study: Trump campaign rallies led to 30,000 COVID cases, 700 deaths

Researchers at Stanford University believe President Donald Trump's re-election campaign rallies — which are not socially distanced and mask wearing is sporadic — are responsible for 30,000 COVID-19 cases and 700 deaths across the country.

In a paper published Saturday, the four researchers examine infection patterns in 18 separate counties before and after they hosted Trump rallies between June 20 and Sept. 22. The researchers conclude the rallies "ultimately resulted in more than 30,000 incremental confirmed cases of COVID-19" and "likely led to more than 700 deaths."

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Stanford-study-Trump-rallies-deaths-super-spreader-15691006.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight

Someone suggested that Trump should be charged with manslaughter for holding his rallies- "actions with a reckless disregard for human life"

[PlayerUp]

what BS are you referring to?

The negative backlash he constantly gets from media. It's way overblown. Like I said I'm not pro or anti him, his policies don't impact me but generally overall the people in this country stand by him.

[PlayerUp]

Someone suggested that Trump should be charged with manslaughter for holding his rallies- "actions with a reckless disregard for human life"

Well good luck with that. Thousands of people could be charged with some form of manslaughter if they got someone sick from covid-19 ended up killing them.

People know the risks of going to these rallies. I see from the pictures/videos people aren't wearing masks there. They're putting their lives at risk and it's their own fault. The mask maybe a more efficient weapon combating covid-19 than the vaccine itself many researchers say. You would think people would prioritize wearing it.

[PlayerUp]

Back-to-back doughnuts in Victoria, haven't had double figures since October 13 with 10.

Should add New Zealand also did a fantastic job with COVID-19 as well. Less than 2000 cases total.

[Dresden]

Someone suggested that Trump should be charged with manslaughter for holding his rallies- "actions with a reckless disregard for human life"

Well good luck with that. Thousands of people could be charged with some form of manslaughter if they got someone sick from covid-19 ended up killing them.

People know the risks of going to these rallies. I see from the pictures/videos people aren't wearing masks there. They're putting their lives at risk and it's their own fault. The mask maybe a more efficient weapon combating covid-19 than the vaccine itself many researchers say. You would think people would prioritize wearing it.

Trump is holding these rallies knowing full well that people will attend them without social distancing, without wearing masks, and that it's pretty likely a certain number of people will catch Covid because of his rally. And a certain number of those will die. As the study showed- perhaps as many as 700 deaths can be attributed to Trump's rallies. Even if that number is off by a factor of 10, that's still 70 people that would still be alive had Trump listened to the accepted science on Covid, and the recommendations of his own CDC, not to mention those of local officials, and not held those rallies, or at least taken measures to ensure people social distanced, and wore masks. Rather, he's done the opposite, and mocked people who wore masks.

That's a lot different than someone that just happens to spread the disease.

And Trump has done this not just once, like the people who organized the Sturgis biker rally, but he's done this over and over again.

[dougthonus]

Trump is holding these rallies knowing full well that people will attend them without social distancing, without wearing masks, and that it's pretty likely a certain number of people will catch Covid because of his rally. And a certain number of those will die. As the study showed- perhaps as many as 700 deaths can be attributed to Trump's rallies. Even if that number is off by a factor of 10, that's still 70 people that would still be alive had Trump listened to the accepted science on Covid, and the recommendations of his own CDC, not to mention those of local officials, and not held those rallies, or at least taken measures to ensure people social distanced, and wore masks. Rather, he's done the opposite, and mocked people who wore masks.

That's a lot different than someone that just happens to spread the disease.

And Trump has done this not just once, like the people who organized the Sturgis biker rally, but he's done this over and over again.

People are still accountable for their own choices. As long as his rallies aren't breaking any of the city ordinances or laws or unless he was out there telling people "you don't need a mask!" and directly encouraging them, then I think it'd be ridiculous to charge him and incredibly dangerous precedent to set.

[Dresden]

Trump is holding these rallies knowing full well that people will attend them without social distancing, without wearing masks, and that it's pretty likely a certain number of people will catch Covid because of his rally. And a certain number of those will die. As the study showed- perhaps as many as 700 deaths can be attributed to Trump's rallies. Even if that number is off by a factor of 10, that's still 70 people that would still be alive had Trump listened to the accepted science on Covid, and the recommendations of his own CDC, not to mention those of local officials, and not held those rallies, or at least taken measures to ensure people social distanced, and wore masks. Rather, he's done the opposite, and mocked people who wore masks.

That's a lot different than someone that just happens to spread the disease.

And Trump has done this not just once, like the people who organized the Sturgis biker rally, but he's done this over and over again.

People are still accountable for their own choices. As long as his rallies aren't breaking any of the city ordinances or laws or unless he was out there telling people "you don't need a mask!" and directly encouraging them, then I think it'd be ridiculous to charge him and incredibly dangerous precedent to set.

It seems like everyone is accountable but Trump.

[Dresden]

From legal dictionary.net:

Elements of Negligent Homicide

In all criminally negligent homicide examples, the prosecution must show that the crime included the following elements:

1) The defendant was aware of the risks associated with the actions that led to the other person’s death.
2) The defendant acted, or failed to act appropriately in a dangerous situation, and that action or inaction caused the victim’s death.
3) There is a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death.


Trump was well aware of the risks of holding a large rally in the midst of a pandemic, and has discouraged mask wearing, mocking those who do.

He failed to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus during his events, such as enforcing social distancing or requiring masks to be worn (or even encouraging it).

Research has shown that many people have died as a result- perhaps as many as 700. This last point is probably the hardest to prove in a court of law.

[dougthonus]

It seems like everyone is accountable but Trump.

There are plenty of things Trump should be accountable for. He shouldn't be accountable for the individual choices of people attending a rally though. No more than a gun store owner should be accountable if someone commits a crime with a gun legally purchased.

[dougthonus]

From legal dictionary.net:

Elements of Negligent Homicide

In all criminally negligent homicide examples, the prosecution must show that the crime included the following elements:

1) The defendant was aware of the risks associated with the actions that led to the other person’s death.
2) The defendant acted, or failed to act appropriately in a dangerous situation, and that action or inaction caused the victim’s death.
3) There is a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death.


Trump was well aware of the risks of holding a large rally in the midst of a pandemic, and has discouraged mask wearing, mocking those who do.

He failed to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus during his events, such as enforcing social distancing or requiring masks to be worn (or even encouraging it).

Research has shown that many people have died as a result- perhaps as many as 700. This last point is probably the hardest to prove in a court of law.

If his rallies were not in violation of the ordinances of the places they occurred in, then I think you're going to have a hard time proving #2, and I think it'd be impossible to prove #3.

Maybe we should hold all restaurants that have allowed indoor dining to this same standard. How many people do you think extra of died because we allowed this?

[dice]

From legal dictionary.net:

Elements of Negligent Homicide

In all criminally negligent homicide examples, the prosecution must show that the crime included the following elements:

1) The defendant was aware of the risks associated with the actions that led to the other person’s death.
2) The defendant acted, or failed to act appropriately in a dangerous situation, and that action or inaction caused the victim’s death.
3) There is a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death.


Trump was well aware of the risks of holding a large rally in the midst of a pandemic, and has discouraged mask wearing, mocking those who do.

He failed to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus during his events, such as enforcing social distancing or requiring masks to be worn (or even encouraging it).

Research has shown that many people have died as a result- perhaps as many as 700. This last point is probably the hardest to prove in a court of law.

If his rallies were not in violation of the ordinances of the places they occurred in, then I think you're going to have a hard time proving #2, and I think it'd be impossible to prove #3.

Maybe we should hold all restaurants that have allowed indoor dining to this same standard. How many people do you think extra of died because we allowed this?

he is morally responsible, not legally. plenty of legal reckonings coming his way once he's no longer president

[Dresden]

From legal dictionary.net:

Elements of Negligent Homicide

In all criminally negligent homicide examples, the prosecution must show that the crime included the following elements:

1) The defendant was aware of the risks associated with the actions that led to the other person’s death.
2) The defendant acted, or failed to act appropriately in a dangerous situation, and that action or inaction caused the victim’s death.
3) There is a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death.


Trump was well aware of the risks of holding a large rally in the midst of a pandemic, and has discouraged mask wearing, mocking those who do.

He failed to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus during his events, such as enforcing social distancing or requiring masks to be worn (or even encouraging it).

Research has shown that many people have died as a result- perhaps as many as 700. This last point is probably the hardest to prove in a court of law.

If his rallies were not in violation of the ordinances of the places they occurred in, then I think you're going to have a hard time proving #2, and I think it'd be impossible to prove #3.

Maybe we should hold all restaurants that have allowed indoor dining to this same standard. How many people do you think extra of died because we allowed this?

They have been in violation of local ordinances. Las Vegas had a rule prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people, which Trump ignored.

Restaurants don't have hundreds, sometimes thousands of people crowding together. And what if studies showed that 700 people have died from one particular restaurant not following CDC and local protocols for Covid safety? And most restaurants do try to keep people social distanced.

It would be hard to prove that a particular death was caused by attending a rally. But if you have 700 cases to go over, I think you could make a pretty good case that with a lot of these people, it would be pretty likely that they caught it at his rally. It would be circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody.

[dougthonus]

From legal dictionary.net:

Elements of Negligent Homicide

In all criminally negligent homicide examples, the prosecution must show that the crime included the following elements:

1) The defendant was aware of the risks associated with the actions that led to the other person’s death.
2) The defendant acted, or failed to act appropriately in a dangerous situation, and that action or inaction caused the victim’s death.
3) There is a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s death.


Trump was well aware of the risks of holding a large rally in the midst of a pandemic, and has discouraged mask wearing, mocking those who do.

He failed to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus during his events, such as enforcing social distancing or requiring masks to be worn (or even encouraging it).

Research has shown that many people have died as a result- perhaps as many as 700. This last point is probably the hardest to prove in a court of law.

If his rallies were not in violation of the ordinances of the places they occurred in, then I think you're going to have a hard time proving #2, and I think it'd be impossible to prove #3.

Maybe we should hold all restaurants that have allowed indoor dining to this same standard. How many people do you think extra of died because we allowed this?

They have been in violation of local ordinances. Las Vegas had a rule prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people, which Trump ignored.

Restaurants don't have hundreds, sometimes thousands of people crowding together. And what if studies showed that 700 people have died from one particular restaurant not following CDC and local protocols for Covid safety? And most restaurants do try to keep people social distanced.

It would be hard to prove that a particular death was caused by attending a rally. But if you have 700 cases to go over, I think you could make a pretty good case that with a lot of these people, it would be pretty likely that they caught it at his rally. It would be circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody.

Whatever restaurants try to do, and i don't think it is much in most cases except the absolute minimum required, going to restaurants has been shown to be one of the highest risk thing people are doing. I would guess our willingness to allow indoor dining or count the sealed tents as outdoor dining are responsible for more spread and deaths than trumps rallies.

[Dresden]

If his rallies were not in violation of the ordinances of the places they occurred in, then I think you're going to have a hard time proving #2, and I think it'd be impossible to prove #3.

Maybe we should hold all restaurants that have allowed indoor dining to this same standard. How many people do you think extra of died because we allowed this?

They have been in violation of local ordinances. Las Vegas had a rule prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people, which Trump ignored.

Restaurants don't have hundreds, sometimes thousands of people crowding together. And what if studies showed that 700 people have died from one particular restaurant not following CDC and local protocols for Covid safety? And most restaurants do try to keep people social distanced.

It would be hard to prove that a particular death was caused by attending a rally. But if you have 700 cases to go over, I think you could make a pretty good case that with a lot of these people, it would be pretty likely that they caught it at his rally. It would be circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody.

Whatever restaurants try to do, and i don't think it is much in most cases except the absolute minimum required, going to restaurants has been shown to be one of the highest risk thing people are doing. I would guess our willingness to allow indoor dining or count the sealed tents as outdoor dining are responsible for more spread and deaths than trumps rallies.

I would agree that dining has caused more deaths than Trump rallies. You could, however, make the argument that what Trump is doing is more dangerous and more reckless, since I would guess that there is a higher probability of either catching Covid or dying going to a Trump rally than you do going out to eat.

The other argument against Trump, which is a moral argument and not a legal one, is that restaurant owners are opening in order to keep from losing their business and their livelihood. Trump is holding rallies for no other reason than to hold onto his political power, and he is endangering (and in fact, killing) the very people he has pledged to try to protect.

[Dez]

3 days 3 zeroes!

LET'S F***ING GO!

[ImSlower]

Almost every locally-owned bar or restaurant in my area are disobeying early close or no-indoor-dining restrictions Illinois re-imposed on them. I still consider my former industry to be about the most dangerous activity one can choose (ie, socializing in a bar). Last week turned down what would've been a dream bar gig as of a year ago. Pretty bummed out over it all. I'm quite adept at being a complete hermit, but it's still weighing heavily on me.

[dice]

Almost every locally-owned bar or restaurant in my area are disobeying early close or no-indoor-dining restrictions Illinois re-imposed on them. I still consider my former industry to be about the most dangerous activity one can choose (ie, socializing in a bar). Last week turned down what would've been a dream bar gig as of a year ago. Pretty bummed out over it all. I'm quite adept at being a complete hermit, but it's still weighing heavily on me.

hang in there, man

[Chi town]

With it looking like Biden will win it will be very interesting to see how he handles COVID. Here is SF it probably wont' change anything for us considering we have had the most restrictions for the longest time in the country. Watching Biden use his executive power instead of giving it back to the states will be fascinating as well.

Market will tank for a while and then following the economy will be interesting. What Trump will do in his remaining time will be crazy to watch to I'm sure. What will he do for his legacy? Will he try to set Biden up to fail? How will he handle his public loss for the next 3 months? I sure hope all he does is fight the loss and does nothing for the country.

[Dez]

6 days and 6 doughnuts.