COVID Developments and News

[Ultramaroon]

Goddammit

[Dadhawk]

Stats for the past week here (small hospital system, about 350 beds in 4 hospitals):

119 Covid Patients hospitalized. 2 are vaccinated.
18 of these are on ventilators. 0 are vaccinated.
20 Covid related deaths. 1 was vaccinated.
Since 2/1/2021 there have been 135 Covid deaths, 9 were vaccinated.

At our two larger hospitals (representing 80% of our beds) we are at over 150% of occupancy.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by spike021

Not sure what kind of evidence there would be. They said they knew it was covid. Does that mean they had a positive test? is there still a record of that somewhere? if not it's just hearsay probably..

That is the problem there. Proving that she had covid and knew about it is the problem.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

Goddammit

I have learned that nothing good in life comes from anger and that...word.

There is just no answer for people like that.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t think there is grounds for manslaughter. That is hard to prove definitively, but circumstantially, it doesn’t look good for that lady. She definitely could be reported for violating a quarantine mandate.

Really, why not? Homicide is a crime. Unborn victims act says unborn children are valid victims of such crime. Manslaughter is a homicide. You don't need intent to kill, you just need the show callous disregard for life. Of course there is likely to be a lack of evidence to prove it if the woman kept the information to herself.

All the conditions are allegedly met assuming the story is true by my understanding.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by wbradley

I have learned that nothing good in life comes from anger and that...word.

There is just no answer for people like that.

Sincere and humble thanks. I feel the course correction wash over me. So hard sometimes.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Really, why not? Homicide is a crime. Unborn victims act says unborn children are valid victims of such crime. Manslaughter is a homicide. You don't need intent to kill, you just need the show callous disregard for life. Of course there is likely to be a lack of evidence to prove it if the woman kept the information to herself.

All the conditions are allegedly met assuming the story is true by my understanding.

First - I am not a lawyer. I did teach them for 30 years and wrote pretty extensively on various related issues, but all things considered, the following is probably worth exactly what it cost you.

There are a couple of possible avenues to deal with situations like this. On the criminal side, homicide, its definitions, and penalties are state level decisions. In a situation like the above, the victim should contact their local prosecutor's office and demand they do something. Maybe their legal system can address it, maybe it can't. Prosecutors also have substantial discretion in filing charges. If the DA declines to file charges, there is not a whole lot a victim can do. They can raise hell and hope public pressure can be brought to bear on he DA. That may work - it may not.

The other route is the civil side. For a supervisor to show up at work knowing they are infected would probably be defined as "grossly negligent." The statement she made about "everyone needs to get it," implies that she see herself as an active agent pursuing that goal. That makes the action willful, and all the more egregious. The woman who experienced the disease and loss appears to have suffered substantial damages. So, it sounds like she has a cause of action to file a civil suit.

There are a few problems with that approach. First is the law in her state. Second, she will need to find a lawyer who will take the case. Unless the victim is well off enough to pay the attorney's fees the lawyer will need to be willing to take the case either pro bono or on a contingent fee basis. Unless there is the potential for a sizeable judgement against the defendant, the contingent fee approach will be a hard sell. I can in no way guess what the probability of any of that is. And finally the plaintiff must prove their case and convince the jury (or judge) to return enough damages to hurt the defendant. Another problem with the civil route is all it can offer the injured party is money damages. For many, the idea of taking money as compensation for a terrible personal loss is unthinkable. But, it is all the system can do.

Finally, there is the resort to interpersonal violence. I would never condone that avenue, but I can understand its attraction.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Really, why not? Homicide is a crime. Unborn victims act says unborn children are valid victims of such crime. Manslaughter is a homicide. You don't need intent to kill, you just need the show callous disregard for life. Of course there is likely to be a lack of evidence to prove it if the woman kept the information to herself.

All the conditions are allegedly met assuming the story is true by my understanding.

The opinion of the doctor or interpreting pathologist would probably not hold up in court. Clots could be from any number of things that aren’t related to COVID, so I don’t know if they could prove COVID was the cause. If she was sick and on bed rest for a week, and if she was laying wrong then she could have caused a still birth herself. At least, that is what the defense would say. It would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that COVID caused the still birth, and with 100% certainty that she got COVID from her boss.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...-pregnant.html

I’m aware of STD cases that won, but not COVID. Again, hard to prove. This happened at work too, and there seems to be a lot of states that have set up protections that may protect the business and the employees from litigation. I think a competent lawyer would be able to easily create doubt, even in this seemingly obvious example.

https://kgdfloridalaw.com/can-you-su...u-coronavirus/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pew...rrived%3famp=1

[Ultramaroon]

I will never serve on a jury because there's enough public information about me to show that I clearly understand the difference between reasonable and any. That's the sad truth about the U.S. justice system.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think a competent lawyer would be able to easily create doubt, even in this seemingly obvious example.

That's where a civil case might be more successful. Reasonable doubt doesn't come in technically, it's judged by the preponderance of the evidence.

In that case, the jury can overlook a piece of evidence that qualified as reasonable doubt, and consider that there were 15 other pieces of evidence pointing at the defendant.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That's where a civil case might be more successful. Reasonable doubt doesn't come in technically, it's judged by the preponderance of the evidence.

In that case, the jury can overlook a piece of evidence that qualified as reasonable doubt, and consider that there were 15 other pieces of evidence pointing at the defendant.

It would be interesting to see how both a criminal and a civil case here would play out. One thing people are often unaware of is the idea of "jury nullification." For those who haven't heard of it, it's a fancy way of saying that once they retire to the deliberation room a jury can do anything - it - wants. It doesn't matter what the law says, the jury is a power unto itself. Now verdicts can be appealed and, in some cases dismissed by the judge, or a judge may render a "verdict not withstanding." But Juries can legally do all manner of unusual things.

As we saw in the famous "McDonalds Coffee Case" (Liebeck v. McDonalds) and Pennzoil v. Texaco, a pissed off jury can make life quite uncomfortable for an arrogant defendant and make a good plaintiff's lawyer V E R Y wealthy.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

As we saw in the famous "McDonalds Coffee Case" (Liebeck v. McDonalds) and Pennzoil v. Texaco, a pissed off jury can make life quite uncomfortable for an arrogant defendant and make a good plaintiff's lawyer V E R Y wealthy.

Judges can "instruct" juries all they want but once the door closes in that deliberation room, it's on.

[weederr33]

JFC I avoid this thread for a few days due to being distracted with one more relevant to me, and then I see a post about a stillborn child. O_o

I will openly admit when I see posts like that, especially with the emojis I get suspicious as I would just make it more dry and to the point. But that's me. Regardless, if that is a real situation, it's a pretty fucked up one. Beyond the immediate desire to find a new employer asap, I'm not sure what else to do.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That's where a civil case might be more successful. Reasonable doubt doesn't come in technically, it's judged by the preponderance of the evidence.

In that case, the jury can overlook a piece of evidence that qualified as reasonable doubt, and consider that there were 15 other pieces of evidence pointing at the defendant.

Well, again, there isn’t just one thing here. If I was a lawyer I would argue that the defense couldn’t prove without RNA testing that the victims got COVID from the defendant, that clots may not have come from COVID or caused a stillbirth, but were a result of the stillbirth, that the defendant could have caused the stillbirth with her bedrest and sleeping position, and that the evidence against my client was circumstantial at best.