I see those Fellowes HEPA room air purifiers advertised on TV all the time now. I wonder how effective those really are? While I'm a little skeptical, the evidence on the HEPA filters seems pretty good.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
1. Employers are the most likely target (which is why all the delay in opening up the offices). Not much of a deep pocket in suing an individual if there's no insurance coverage and there's no insurance coverage for COVID.
2. At this point, there's a legit argument that if somebody gets sick due to failure to provide a vaccine they've assumed the risk.
3. Infection cases are notoriously hard to prove, even in the HIV context. Unless it's deliberate, causation is really really really tough.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
This is pretty funny considering how little information we can get on how people have contracted COVID and the number of asymptomatic / mildly symptomatic cases there are that *might* have been the source. However, we have a lot of lawyers so I won't be surprised if this is attempted.
This is pretty funny, because it's ridiculous. While I was happy to get the vaccine, if I had a young child, I would seriously consider not having them take the vaccine as the risk to them due to COVID is well-known and extremely low. The vaccine is not without risk and it is likely very low also, but for children, is the unknown and likely low risk for the vaccine better than the known and extremely low risk of COVID?
Yeah, it's hard to make out the case for the vaccine because the EU label is still on it....after that's removed it becomes easier to mandate it and say if you infect someone you are liable, particularly if you are violating a mask ordinance. But proof is really really hard, there's the argument the person who got sick assumed the risk if they aren't vaccinated, and lawyers like to go after deep pockets. It's more of a problem for employers than individuals.
I read the whole context, and it obviously wasn't nonsense at the time it was stated.
An example of a legitimate tort is not why we need tort reform.
HEPA filters located in a room are in the same category as vaccine-reinforced antibodies in your bloodstream. They can only work on the virus that is already present there. If someone comes into your cubicle at work and breathes his infection in your direction, the HEPA filter in the corner won't do you any good.
A HEPA filter installed on the room's ventilation input might make more sense, but that still relies on people not bypassing it by walking the infection in through the door.
If you spit in my soup or lick my hamburger when you're Covid positive then I don't have a problem with a lawsuit. Otherwise were talking about an airborne virus and you have to assume the risk of catching it, particularly if you don't get vaccinated. Life is full of risks, deal with it.
Maybe my crystal ball was just working better than yours at the time.
If you don’t want ridiculous lawsuits over covid, then don’t recommend a covid policy of “hold people responsible for their actions.”
In this country, the way we hold people responsible for their actions is through the courts. So, when you say “hold each person individually responsible”, you are asking to turn public health over to the tort lawyers.
What did your crystal ball have to say?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Are you guys still arguing about "You gave me COVID" lawsuits?
- @Glitterhater <in two months, probably>
- @Glitterhater <in two months, probably>
Bruddah IZ
DA
CooCoo
That's exactly the opposite of what I proposed, but thanks for misquoting me again. Please refer back to my post regarding individual responsibility and accountability.
That it was nonsense. I thought we covered that already?
Bruddah IZ
DA
The pre-vax recovery rate doesn't exactly infer higher risk for corona infected and recovered folks who decline shots. On the contrary, their next exposure to Corona will easily be met with the applicable response in the absence of a vaccine that has nothing to do with Corona.
Here is a fuller context of what was said during a hearing before a Senate Subcommittee --
Redfield said if Americans wore face masks for several weeks, "we would bring this pandemic under control," because there is scientific evidence they work and they are our "best defense."
"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."
Several experts contacted by CBS News agree with that assessment: Since vaccines do not guarantee an immune response, masks may be more effective at preventing COVID-19. The FDA has previously said it would approve a coronavirus vaccine that was at least 50% effective. While that could significantly reduce the number of hospitalizations and deaths, it would not completely eliminate the disease or guarantee protection.
CDC director says face masks may offer more protection against COVID than a vaccine. Here's what other experts say.
Health experts point out that we don't yet know how effective a vaccine will be – but we do know masks help stop the spread.
www.cbsnews.com
And that was last September, after the big summer rush of cases, when the unmasked-in chief was still predicting it would all be over in a few weeks.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Masks have been taking a beating.
First it was the sudden Establishment consensus that outdoor mask mandates had no scientific merit and should be repealed.
Then it was the CDC saying that the vaccinated don't need to wear masks.
Then, from this foundation, big stores like Trader Joe's, Walmart, and Costco all announced that the vaccinated would not be required to wear masks in their stores -- and added that they wouldn't be verifying anyone's vaccination status.
And yet in many places mask wearing is still overwhelmingly prevalent.
The wearers either don't believe their vaccines work, or they suddenly don't trust the CDC, or who knows what.
Or they've simply been so terrorized and propagandized that they can't think clearly.
Or the mask is a symbol of "science" and moral superiority, and they can't give that up.
The other day on Twitter someone asked people: why do you care if people are wearing masks outdoors? They've just been through a mass death event. Let them do what they want.
Well, of course I'll let people do stupid, pointless things if they want.
But here's why I care:
(1) If people did a rain dance after a long drought I wouldn't say, "Can you blame them? It's been a long drought."
(2) Many of the people still wearing masks, especially outdoors, are the very ones who spent the past year lecturing the rest of us about science. When they themselves act in defiance of science, it rightly makes us question what their true motivations had been all along.
(3) Masks don't seem to do anything. The "studies" purporting to show that they do either involve arbitrary dates (and thus exclude huge spikes that would be embarrassing to have to explain away) or are just models, in which the model assumes from the start that masks work.
What we know in reality is that we have chart after chart after chart of countries around the world in which, just before a massive spike, some headline read, "How Country X Defeated the Coronavirus," and the story generally involves masks. After the spike, no journalist revisits the issue and says, "Maybe we were being too simplistic when we attributed country X's success to masks. The Florida panhandle is mostly unmasked, and their health outcomes are no different from those in the rest of the state. Mandates have ended in numerous states, with no ill effects.
(4) Human communication involves more than words (and even words can be hard to make out with masks on). Masks disrupt the full spectrum of human communication, thereby opening the door to suspicion and misunderstanding.
(5) Are we seriously so debased that I actually have to argue in favor of seeing people's faces?
(6) Infants and toddlers need facial expressions for their proper development. We all know about the studies involving infants and a mother who is expressionless as opposed to a mother who is smiling. Infants and toddlers today are growing up in what must seem like a soulless dystopia.
(7) If you're wearing a mask outside in particular, you're either impervious to evidence or you're making some kind of statement, and neither possibility is particularly flattering. Nobody would do such a thing without at least a vague sense that it's scientifically justified. So that means they almost certainly look at my unmasked face and assume scientific ignorance. I don't particularly care for having that assumption made about me.
At first many of us wondered how the politicians would stand down from all these crazy restrictions and requirements. But now an equally compelling question is whether substantial segments of the American public itself will be willing to ditch these things.
I suspect the masks will come off in large numbers once a critical mass is reached. In other words, the remainder will fall quickly because I think many of those people complied in the first place out of a desire to do what was popular. As soon as masks cease to be popular, this group of people will rip them off pretty darn quickly.
First it was the sudden Establishment consensus that outdoor mask mandates had no scientific merit and should be repealed.
Then it was the CDC saying that the vaccinated don't need to wear masks.
Then, from this foundation, big stores like Trader Joe's, Walmart, and Costco all announced that the vaccinated would not be required to wear masks in their stores -- and added that they wouldn't be verifying anyone's vaccination status.
And yet in many places mask wearing is still overwhelmingly prevalent.
The wearers either don't believe their vaccines work, or they suddenly don't trust the CDC, or who knows what.
Or they've simply been so terrorized and propagandized that they can't think clearly.
Or the mask is a symbol of "science" and moral superiority, and they can't give that up.
The other day on Twitter someone asked people: why do you care if people are wearing masks outdoors? They've just been through a mass death event. Let them do what they want.
Well, of course I'll let people do stupid, pointless things if they want.
But here's why I care:
(1) If people did a rain dance after a long drought I wouldn't say, "Can you blame them? It's been a long drought."
(2) Many of the people still wearing masks, especially outdoors, are the very ones who spent the past year lecturing the rest of us about science. When they themselves act in defiance of science, it rightly makes us question what their true motivations had been all along.
(3) Masks don't seem to do anything. The "studies" purporting to show that they do either involve arbitrary dates (and thus exclude huge spikes that would be embarrassing to have to explain away) or are just models, in which the model assumes from the start that masks work.
What we know in reality is that we have chart after chart after chart of countries around the world in which, just before a massive spike, some headline read, "How Country X Defeated the Coronavirus," and the story generally involves masks. After the spike, no journalist revisits the issue and says, "Maybe we were being too simplistic when we attributed country X's success to masks. The Florida panhandle is mostly unmasked, and their health outcomes are no different from those in the rest of the state. Mandates have ended in numerous states, with no ill effects.
(4) Human communication involves more than words (and even words can be hard to make out with masks on). Masks disrupt the full spectrum of human communication, thereby opening the door to suspicion and misunderstanding.
(5) Are we seriously so debased that I actually have to argue in favor of seeing people's faces?
(6) Infants and toddlers need facial expressions for their proper development. We all know about the studies involving infants and a mother who is expressionless as opposed to a mother who is smiling. Infants and toddlers today are growing up in what must seem like a soulless dystopia.
(7) If you're wearing a mask outside in particular, you're either impervious to evidence or you're making some kind of statement, and neither possibility is particularly flattering. Nobody would do such a thing without at least a vague sense that it's scientifically justified. So that means they almost certainly look at my unmasked face and assume scientific ignorance. I don't particularly care for having that assumption made about me.
At first many of us wondered how the politicians would stand down from all these crazy restrictions and requirements. But now an equally compelling question is whether substantial segments of the American public itself will be willing to ditch these things.
I suspect the masks will come off in large numbers once a critical mass is reached. In other words, the remainder will fall quickly because I think many of those people complied in the first place out of a desire to do what was popular. As soon as masks cease to be popular, this group of people will rip them off pretty darn quickly.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Yeah it's fuller of something alright.Here is a fuller context of what was said during a hearing before a Senate Subcommittee --
Redfield said if Americans wore face masks for several weeks, "we would bring this pandemic under control," because there is scientific evidence they work and they are our "best defense."
"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."
Several experts contacted by CBS News agree with that assessment: Since vaccines do not guarantee an immune response, masks may be more effective at preventing COVID-19. The FDA has previously said it would approve a coronavirus vaccine that was at least 50% effective. While that could significantly reduce the number of hospitalizations and deaths, it would not completely eliminate the disease or guarantee protection.
CDC director says face masks may offer more protection against COVID than a vaccine. Here's what other experts say.
Health experts point out that we don't yet know how effective a vaccine will be – but we do know masks help stop the spread.
And that was last September, after the big summer rush of cases, when the unmasked-in chief was still predicting it would all be over in a few weeks.
Read your answer.
You never actually explain how you will hold someone accountable if they hold an event which results in other people dying of covid.
You bring up “personal responsiblility”, but the only person you’re willing to hold responsible is the one who is dead from covid.
A bit of an oversimplification and not exactly the words I would use, but yes, for the most part that's my position. I'd make an exception for intentionally infecting someone, and maybe for gross recklessness. Simply hosting an event or holding class with or without restrictions wouldn't qualify. That's the great thing about choice. You can choose to attend or not. You can choose to stay 6 ft away, etc.