Crib Sheet.

[Renauda]

@jolly

The same symptomatic congregant infected 12 other individuals. I suggest that it is reasonable that the congregant should be charged with endangerment and involuntary manslaughter. The health rules were pretty clear at the time; if you show any symptoms, do not go to work, stay home, isolate and notify the health authorities by telephone regarding testing.

[Horace]

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

I suggest that it is reasonable that the congregant should be charged with endangerment and involuntary manslaughter

You want to impose your own personal sense of safety on others by force. Shocking.

[Copper]

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

The same symptomatic congregant infected 12 other individuals.

That's the opinion of the people who hate the congregation.

We will, of course, never know who infected whom.

[Renauda]

You know Copper, you're probably right. Still I would also add that opinion to the paid nursing staff who were tracing active cases at the time.

But then what do paid professional health care workers know about infectious diseases, eh?

[Renauda]

@horace said in Crib Sheet.:

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

I suggest that it is reasonable that the congregant should be charged with endangerment and involuntary manslaughter

You want to impose your own personal sense of safety on others by force. Shocking.

Well I think that deeming the congregant a Dangerous Offender is a bit over the top. Now that would be shocking. Endangerment and involuntary manslaughter by themselves seem quite reasonable despite the likelihood that he or she will offend again.

[Copper]

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

But then what do paid professional health care workers know about infectious diseases, eh?

Some of them know quite a bit.

None of them know who infected whom.

[Horace]

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

@horace said in Crib Sheet.:

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

I suggest that it is reasonable that the congregant should be charged with endangerment and involuntary manslaughter

You want to impose your own personal sense of safety on others by force. Shocking.

Well I think that deeming the congregant a Dangerous Offender is a bit over the top. Now that would be shocking. Endangerment and involuntary manslaughter by themselves seem quite reasonable despite the likelihood that he or she will offend again.

What should be the punishments, meted out by force, of endangerment and involuntary manslaughter? Please attempt to define and categorize both, with like crimes of similar social danger.

[Jolly]

@renauda said in Crib Sheet.:

You know Copper, you're probably right. Still I would also add that opinion to the paid nursing staff who were tracing active cases at the time.

But then what do paid professional health care workers know about infectious diseases, eh?

I am a professional healthcare worker, and I stand by my original statement.

Should a congregant exhibit some judicious behavior about who he is in proximity of? Yep, I'll give you that one.

If I was somebody who knew the congregant had been attending services, I would take that in consideration, as to whether I went around him/her or not.

But I would not enact draconion measures for a virus that you cannot and will not keep bottled up.

[Renauda]

@horace said in Crib Sheet.:

What should be the punishments, meted out by force, of endangerment and involuntary manslaughter?

Listening to your endless stream of faux intellectualizing about leftist pop culture and how it influences the left vs right struggle in present day America.

[Renauda]

@jolly said in Crib Sheet.:

Should a congregant exhibit some judicious behavior about who he is in proximity of? Yep, I'll give you that one.

Thank you, I am glad we have found common ground. But I expected as much since I regard you as man of integrity and applaud you as a dedicated health care worker doing your very best under difficult circumstances.