[W:233] Virtually all hospitalized Covid patients have one thing in common

[ClaraD]

When you present one, we can debate it. Your personal opinions about me dissing someone for posting 9 links are your opinion.

all you have are opinions...none of them are based on facts, and you are just mad and stamping your feet, because you know you are 100% wrong. Science, evidently, is not your friend.

 

[Paradoxical]

all you have are opinions...none of them are based on facts, and you are just mad and stamping your feet, because you know you are 100% wrong. Science, evidently, is not your friend.

9 links IS the point.

 

[Quag]

all you have are opinions...none of them are based on facts, and you are just mad and stamping your feet, because you know you are 100% wrong. Science, evidently, is not your friend.

Bolded is the point he does know. He just wants a reaction. best to ignore him

 

[jdog]

This:

If you are vaccinated and become symptomatic you will get tested and self quarantine.
The vaccinated have done what they can.
The unvaccinated remain a menace.

This viewpoint shows a basic misunderstanding of immunology. The fact is that the vaccine is selective, where natural immunity is not. The fact that the vaccine is selective means that mutant strains of the virus escape the vaccine, while it kills the strains it was designed to kill. The mutant strains then go on to reproduce and transmit.
This requires the vaccine manufactures to need to change the vaccine to address the newer strains, but this strategy is doomed to failure because the virus can mutate faster than new vaccines can be produced. The vaccine manufactures are always trying to catch up to the virus which is mutating faster than they can address.
The only way to avoid this scenario, is to stop mass vaccination, and treat the virus with antivirals and allow people natural immunity to do the rest. The vaccine companies already know this and are in the process of developing anti virals much like Ivermectin to replace the vaccine program.

 

[Ethel2]

This viewpoint shows a basic misunderstanding of immunology. The fact is that the vaccine is selective, where natural immunity is not. The fact that the vaccine is selective means that mutant strains of the virus escape the vaccine, while it kills the strains it was designed to kill. The mutant strains then go on to reproduce and transmit.
This requires the vaccine manufactures to need to change the vaccine to address the newer strains, but this strategy is doomed to failure because the virus can mutate faster than new vaccines can be produced. The vaccine manufactures are always trying to catch up to the virus which is mutating faster than they can address.
The only way to avoid this scenario, is to stop mass vaccination, and treat the virus with antivirals and allow people natural immunity to do the rest. The vaccine companies already know this and are in the process of developing anti virals much like Ivermectin to replace the vaccine program.

This post is too full of bs for me to address every single lie.
I understand immunology just fine. It’s taught in medical school and reinforced while we are in our daily practice.
The vaccines are doing their job so far at keeping people out of the hospital. There is sufficient similarity in all the different variants so far so that the immune response, while slightly less robust, is taking care of business.
Work is being done to develop effective antiviral drugs but at this point the only one proven to be effective is remdesivir-and it’s not that good.
You should try to get your facts straight before you post nonsense here because your posts will be exposed every time.

 

[jdog]

This post is too full of bs for me to address every single lie.
I understand immunology just fine. It’s taught in medical school and reinforced while we are in our daily practice.
The vaccines are doing their job so far at keeping people out of the hospital. There is sufficient similarity in all the different variants so far so that the immune response, while slightly less robust, is taking care of business.
Work is being done to develop effective antiviral drugs but at this point the only one proven to be effective is remdesivir-and it’s not that good.
You should try to get your facts straight before you post nonsense here because your posts will be exposed every time.

I am afraid it is your post which is nonsense. You are obviously not a doctor. You cannot address the points I made, becuase you cannot refute them, if you could you would. The vaccines are obviously not keeping people out of the hospital, because the countries with the highest vaccination rates, are the same countries experiencing the huge spikes in cases. The facts are the facts, and cannot be ignored. The vaccine manufactures now admit that the vaccines are ineffective against the newer strains of the virus which are being pushed by the elimination of the targeted Alpha strain. The statistics can be manipulated to mislead people, but the fact that the vaccines are not working is self evident.

 

[Ethel2]

I am afraid it is your post which is nonsense. You are obviously not a doctor. You cannot address the points I made, becuase you cannot refute them, if you could you would. The vaccines are obviously not keeping people out of the hospital, because the countries with the highest vaccination rates, are the same countries experiencing the huge spikes in cases. The facts are the facts, and cannot be ignored. The vaccine manufactures now admit that the vaccines are ineffective against the newer strains of the virus which are being pushed by the elimination of the targeted Alpha strain. The statistics can be manipulated to mislead people, but the fact that the vaccines are not working is self evident.

Fact: the mRNA vaccines are over 90% effective in keeping people out of the hospital. Your proposal to stop vaccinating people is idiotic. I am not going to address your every lie because I am getting tired of debunking every piece of nonsense written here.
I will offer you a side bet if you don’t believe I am a doctor. If I can prove that I am licensed doctor (off line) then you agree to donate $100 to the charity of my choice. If I can’t prove it then I agree to donate $100 to your favorite charity.
Deal?

 

[Visbek]

The vaccines are obviously not keeping people out of the hospital, because the countries with the highest vaccination rates, are the same countries experiencing the huge spikes in cases.

Nope, nope, wrong.

No nation is vaccinated enough to reach herd immunity. The overwhelming majority of hospitalizations and deaths are patients who are unvaccinated.

The spikes aren't happening in the vaccinated populations. Delta is simply rampaging among the unvaccinated, and there's still a lot of unvaccinated people in the world.

The vaccine manufactures now admit that the vaccines are ineffective against the newer strains of the virus....

Nope, that's bullshit. The vaccines are still highly effective. A recent study confirmed that the current vaccines are effective against Delta:

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness barely affected by Delta variant, research suggests

Has the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant reduced vaccine effectiveness? If you ask Ian Foster of Argonne National Laboratory and colleagues, the answer is not really. New research published in the preprint medRxiv* server suggests vaccines approved in the United States are stable and well-performing.

www.news-medical.net

The only current exception is the Pfizer vaccine, which may lose effectiveness in people with weakened immune systems. Preliminary research indicates a booster fixes that. It may also be possible that we're simply administering the second shot too soon.

As to the rest of your nonsense? As Ethel2 pointed out, Alpha and Delta are similar enough that the current vaccines are still highly effective against Delta.

Further, it actually doesn't take long to adapt the vaccine for variants. The vaccine was deliberately developed as a "generic" coronavirus vaccine, that just needs a few tweaks to more specifically target a specific coronavirus or strain. Pfizer and Moderna are already testing vaccines updated for Delta. They might be available in just a few months.

Your subsequent suggestion to stop vaccinating is, to put it mildly, insane. We don't have any antivirals for COVID yet, and they are more than a year away. That means millions will die in the interim, waiting for a drug that doesn't prevent the spread of COVID.

And no, Ivermectin is not effective against COVID. That is utterly moronic.

I really have to ask, what is so wrong with you that you hate vaccines, but are willing to let millions die, while waiting for other drugs that will be just as new as the COVID vaccines?

 

[jdog]

Fact: the mRNA vaccines are over 90% effective in keeping people out of the hospital. Your proposal to stop vaccinating people is idiotic.
I will offer you a side bet if you don’t believe I am a doctor. If I can prove that I am licensed doctor (off line) then you agree to donate $100 to the charity of my choice. If I can’t prove it then I agree to donate $100 to your favorite charity.
Deal?

If you are actually a licensed practicing doctor, I have sympathy for your patients. Your fact is not a fact. Studies in Israel, and Ireland show that 50%-60% of current admissions are fully vaccinated. The fact that they reached high levels of vaccination at an earlier date than the US indicates that a similar outcome is possible here.
If you truly are medically trained then you know that a vaccine cannot prevent either primary infection, or transmission and can only boost immune response after the fact. Studies have also determined that mild or asymptomatic cases carry as much rhino virus and potential to shed those virus as those more seriously infected. This means a vaccinated person who is mildly or asystematically infected and believes themselves to be "immune" is more likely to go out in public and spread the virus in the belief that the vaccine prevents contagion.
I would also appreciate if you can explain this. They are now claiming that 75% of the US population is now fully vaccinated. Another 13.5% of the US population has already had the virus and according to studies done in Europe and Israel have antibodies 13 to 26 times more effective than the vaccine. Now add to that the fact that in the last 18 mos. it is very likely that if this virus is anywhere near as contagious as they claim, that we all have been exposed at one point or another, and that there are many people who have had mild or asystimatic cases which were uncounted in our statistics. So if we are having a surge of hospitalizations, where exactly are these cases coming from? Are you seriously going to try to make the point that people who have been able to avoid infection for a year and a half who are un vaccinated are suddenly now becoming infected in these great numbers even though at best they could only make up less than 10% of the overall population? Really?
The fact is the vaccines are selective, and do a poor job against mutant strains. That is where these surges in cases are coming from. If you are truly a doctor, then I do not have to tell you the financial incentives the medical industry has to alter the data and statistics. I also do not have to tell you the growing revolt growing inside the industry from people who are tired of the lies and deceptions. People are dying every day because of the financial decisions being made by the people running the health care industry. There is no debate that early treatment is crucial in saving lives, and yet early treatment is being suppressed. Why?

 

[Ethel2]

If you are actually a licensed practicing doctor, I have sympathy for your patients. Your fact is not a fact. Studies in Israel, and Ireland show that 50%-60% of current admissions are fully vaccinated. The fact that they reached high levels of vaccination at an earlier date than the US indicates that a similar outcome is possible here.
If you truly are medically trained then you know that a vaccine cannot prevent either primary infection, or transmission and can only boost immune response after the fact. Studies have also determined that mild or asymptomatic cases carry as much rhino virus and potential to shed those virus as those more seriously infected. This means a vaccinated person who is mildly or asystematically infected and believes themselves to be "immune" is more likely to go out in public and spread the virus in the belief that the vaccine prevents contagion.
I would also appreciate if you can explain this. They are now claiming that 75% of the US population is now fully vaccinated. Another 13.5% of the US population has already had the virus and according to studies done in Europe and Israel have antibodies 13 to 26 times more effective than the vaccine. Now add to that the fact that in the last 18 mos. it is very likely that if this virus is anywhere near as contagious as they claim, that we all have been exposed at one point or another, and that there are many people who have had mild or asystimatic cases which were uncounted in our statistics. So if we are having a surge of hospitalizations, where exactly are these cases coming from? Are you seriously going to try to make the point that people who have been able to avoid infection for a year and a half who are un vaccinated are suddenly now becoming infected in these great numbers even though at best they could only make up less than 10% of the overall population? Really?
The fact is the vaccines are selective, and do a poor job against mutant strains. That is where these surges in cases are coming from. If you are truly a doctor, then I do not have to tell you the financial incentives the medical industry has to alter the data and statistics. I also do not have to tell you the growing revolt growing inside the industry from people who are tired of the lies and deceptions. People are dying every day because of the financial decisions being made by the people running the health care industry. There is no debate that early treatment is crucial in saving lives, and yet early treatment is being suppressed. Why?

I take it that means you are declining my offer of a small wager. Figures.
You wrote a book full of idiotic lies.
*The percentage of US people who are vaccinated is about 56%, not 75%. In fact only 65% have received one shot. It will likely take 90% to achieve herd immunity.

US Coronavirus vaccine tracker

Each state has a different plan — and different challenges — in distributing vaccines. Learn more about who is getting vaccinated by parsing the data by age, sex and race.

usafacts.org

*I haven't checked the Israeli data to see who is actually getting infected but they aren't as highly vaccinated as you think. Only 61% are fully vaccinated, far below what is needed for herd immunity. Furthermore, they started so early on that the vaccines began to wane. They are now giving boosters so they should be fine in a month or two.

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

*You have no idea how many actual cases there are here. No one does. Feel free to guess though as long as you admit its a guess.

*The vaccines are doing a great job keeping people out of the hospital against the mutant strains, though, as in Israel, protection is waning as it does for most immunizations. Ever get a tetanus booster shot? Why do you think they are necessary? Unvaccinated people are 29x more likely to end up in the hospital. Explain that.

CDC study shows unvaccinated people are 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid

The new CDC study also found that unvaccinated people were nearly five times more likely to be infected with Covid than vaccinated people.

www.cnbc.com

I don't wing it here. Everything I pass off as fact can be supported, unlike your posts. When you write a book of lies like you did it makes your posts look silly.

 

[bluesmoke]

And the if nobody was killed the driver isn't charged with homicide.

You don't get to convict people of crimes they may commit in the future. Minority report is a fictitious story. We have the right to be treated as being innocent is the absence of a crime and a conviction in a court of law.

We have laws that restrict driving, such as traffic lights, stop signs and speed limit, to best ensure our safety and health from unsafe driving. We also have laws that allow such restrictions as are being mandated which can include the requirement of various vax. An unvaxxed person knows or should know they are the ones most likely to infect others. Just as with those who defy driving restriction, those who defy the various health and safety requirements for the virus will have to face the consequences. We're seeing more and more of that happening now. But I've not seen much, yet, of people going to court to make a grievance against whomever imposed a consequence, such as being fired from their job or refused service (incl air-flight) upon them for failing to follow virus requirements. So, there is legal remedy, such as being fired from work, which is as obvious as being found guilty in a court of law. They don't have to be found guilty because the employer has the right to fire someone for most any reason that does not involve a protected class.

 

[trouble13]

We have laws that restrict driving, such as traffic lights, stop signs and speed limit, to best ensure our safety and health from unsafe driving. We also have laws that allow such restrictions as are being mandated which can include the requirement of various vax. An unvaxxed person knows or should know they are the ones most likely to infect others. Just as with those who defy driving restriction, those who defy the various health and safety requirements for the virus will have to face the consequences. We're seeing more and more of that happening now. But I've not seen much, yet, of people going to court to make a grievance against whomever imposed a consequence, such as being fired from their job or refused service (incl air-flight) upon them for failing to follow virus requirements. So, there is legal remedy, such as being fired from work, which is as obvious as being found guilty in a court of law. They don't have to be found guilty because the employer has the right to fire someone for most any reason that does not involve a protected class.

Yes the gov makes laws that restrict what it deems to be dangerous activities. What vaxers seem to be arguing is that people not doing anything is the same as someone doing something dangerous. That is false.

It's not the individuals responsibility to protect other people from catching a virus. You might as well argue that we should all live like the boy in bubble from the 70s.

Simply put is not my job to protect you from a virus that may or may not have.

With that said I will agree that private industry is within their rights to mandate just as their employees are within their rights to reject the policy.

This is an argument that the government should be standing on the sidelines for.

 

[Ethel2]

Yes the gov makes laws that restrict what it deems to be dangerous activities. What vaxers seem to be arguing is that people not doing anything is the same as someone doing something dangerous. That is false.

It's not the individuals responsibility to protect other people from catching a virus. You might as well argue that we should all live like the boy in bubble from the 70s.

Simply put is not my job to protect you from a virus that may or may not have.

With that said I will agree that private industry is within their rights to mandate just as their employees are within their rights to reject the policy.

This is an argument that the government should be standing on the sidelines for.

Yes, your job IS to protect me as well as every other member of society as best you can. That is why if you are a cigarette smoker you may not smoke around others and it is why the government regulates where you may smoke. Its exactly the same situation.
What is it with you people? You somehow think that you have no social responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect others. In point of fact, DO have such a responsibility and there are laws and mandates to force you to do so. The government has in the past taken an active role in protecting innocent citizens from people who would do them harm because of idiotic careless behavior such as driving drunk.
Now the government is making more rules to control the behavior of social misfits through workplace rules. If you don't like it move to the Alaska north woods and isolate yourself from society. As long as you are a member of THIS society you are required to take reasonable steps not to endanger others through your carelessness.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes the gov makes laws that restrict what it deems to be dangerous activities. What vaxers seem to be arguing is that people not doing anything is the same as someone doing something dangerous. That is false.

It's not the individuals responsibility to protect other people from catching a virus. You might as well argue that we should all live like the boy in bubble from the 70s.

Simply put is not my job to protect you from a virus that may or may not have.

With that said I will agree that private industry is within their rights to mandate just as their employees are within their rights to reject the policy.

This is an argument that the government should be standing on the sidelines for.

It is every Americans responsibility to their fellow Americans to help stop the Pandemic.

 

[trouble13]

It is every Americans responsibility to their fellow Americans to help stop the Pandemic.

Perhaps ethically (debatable) but not legally. I as a person am under no legal obligation to stop covid.

Your argument fails before we have even gotten to the part where we discuss that the vaccine does not prevent us from being infected by the variants.

If you feel the vaccine protects you I highly recommend you get yourself jabbed. Stop trying to force people to do something that they don't agree with you about.

 

[Ethel2]

Perhaps ethically (debatable) but not legally. I as a person am under no legal obligation to stop covid.

Your argument fails before we have even gotten to the part where we discuss that the vaccine does not prevent us from being infected by the variants.

If you feel the vaccine protects you I highly recommend you get yourself jabbed. Stop trying to force people to do something that they don't agree with you about.

Wrong again. The precedent has already been set during the smallpox epidemic when the courts decided that people MUST get vaccinated for the public good. It wasn't just to protect the individual from getting infected-if it was only YOU who was at risk who cares what you do with your own body. So LEGALLY there is precedent for requiring vaccination no matter how much you may whine about it.

 

[trouble13]

Wrong again. The precedent has already been set during the smallpox epidemic when the courts decided that people MUST get vaccinated for the public good. It wasn't just to protect the individual from getting infected-if it was only YOU who was at risk who cares what you do with your own body. So LEGALLY there is precedent for requiring vaccination no matter how much you may whine about it.

I think some of you are in such a hurry to declare people who you don't agree with as 'wrong' that you forget to read what's posted.

 

[Ethel2]

I think some of you are in such a hurry to declare people who you don't agree with as 'wrong' that you forget to read what's posted.

I read it. While the vaccines do not offer total protection against the variants (or even the original variant) they offer a very high level of protection, over 90% if you are fully vaccinated and are within six months of your last shot or if you have received a booster. There is no vaccine in existence that is 100% effective.
You are wrong: there IS legal precedent during a public health emergency to REQUIRE vaccination to protect society from YOU.
Besides: these mandates do not require you to get vaccinated. You have a choice. Get vaccinated OR have your privileges significantly reduced.
Your choice.

 

[Fledermaus]

Perhaps ethically (debatable) but not legally. I as a person am under no legal obligation to stop covid.

Your argument fails before we have even gotten to the part where we discuss that the vaccine does not prevent us from being infected by the variants.

If you feel the vaccine protects you I highly recommend you get yourself jabbed. Stop trying to force people to do something that they don't agree with you about.

Selfish attitudes keep the pandemic and its adverse effects going.

Good job.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes the gov makes laws that restrict what it deems to be dangerous activities. What vaxers seem to be arguing is that people not doing anything is the same as someone doing something dangerous. That is false.

It's not the individuals responsibility to protect other people from catching a virus. You might as well argue that we should all live like the boy in bubble from the 70s.

Simply put is not my job to protect you from a virus that may or may not have.

With that said I will agree that private industry is within their rights to mandate just as their employees are within their rights to reject the policy.

This is an argument that the government should be standing on the sidelines for.

It isn't your job. It's the job of our govt and society to protect the health and safety of the people. That means keeping you from infecting others. Even though if you had any sense of society, you'd do that anyway.

 

[trouble13]

It isn't your job. It's the job of our govt and society to protect the health and safety of the people. That means keeping you from infecting others. Even though if you had any sense of society, you'd do that anyway.

So if I go out of my house and catch a virus, should I be able to sue the gov for negligence? Why or why not?

 

[Visbek]

Perhaps ethically (debatable) but not legally. I as a person am under no legal obligation to stop covid.

Incorrect.

35 states already have laws on the books criminalizing the transmission of communicable diseases. Most of those laws were a reaction to the AIDS epidemic, but most of them were not limited to HIV or STDs. A prosecutor might also have the option to charge you with assault if you knowingly and deliberately try to spread COVID.

In March 2020, the Department of Justice circulated a memo reminding recipients of pandemic-related crimes. Many were about fraud (e.g. selling fake medicines), but it also included "purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19." Because COVID-19 is classified as a biological agent under existing laws, it could even be prosecuted via some terrorism laws. Numerous states have also made it illegal to specifically threaten someone by saying you'll give them COVID.

And obviously, laws or emergency declarations which require you to wear a mask or take other actions are largely saying that yes, you have a legal responsibility not to spread the virus.

Obviously the vast majority of scofflaws are not arrested or prosecuted for refusing to wear a mask, and it is not illegal to refuse vaccination. Most legal action happens when the individual is being disruptive or engages in assault, or claims "I have COVID!" and then deliberately coughs or sneezes or spits on someone. There were also cases where individuals who violated social distancing rules were arrested (e.g. a barber who was privately giving haircuts in violation of the rules got busted in New York State) though such cases are rare. It would also be very difficult to prove in a court that "I got COVID from Trouble13 and no one or nowhere else."

However, it's been a long-standing legal principle that the state is properly empowered to enforce public safety, even if that means curtailing some liberties. I.e. you've always had at least some legal requirement not to spread the virus, and you most certainly do not have any legal right to spread a potentially lethal disease.


Morally, it is utterly and completely indefensible to say that "I can spread a deadly disease if I want." There are some potential mitigating factors; e.g. we needed many people to perform various jobs long before we had any vaccines or treatments. An essential worker who does everything they can to keep other people safe isn't morally responsible for spreading the virus. However, a worker (essential or otherwise) who doesn't care about the health and safety of others, and refuses to take steps to protect themself or others, is morally culpable if others are harmed as a result of his behavior.

I.e. your selfishness, or hatred of government, or partisan mindset, is not sufficient to allow you to harm others. That's a pretty basic moral principle.

 

[Ethel2]

Incorrect.

35 states already have laws on the books criminalizing the transmission of communicable diseases. Most of those laws were a reaction to the AIDS epidemic, but most of them were not limited to HIV or STDs. A prosecutor might also have the option to charge you with assault if you knowingly and deliberately try to spread COVID.

In March 2020, the Department of Justice circulated a memo reminding recipients of pandemic-related crimes. Many were about fraud (e.g. selling fake medicines), but it also included "purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19." Because COVID-19 is classified as a biological agent under existing laws, it could even be prosecuted via some terrorism laws. Numerous states have also made it illegal to specifically threaten someone by saying you'll give them COVID.

And obviously, laws or emergency declarations which require you to wear a mask or take other actions are largely saying that yes, you have a legal responsibility not to spread the virus.

Obviously the vast majority of scofflaws are not arrested or prosecuted for refusing to wear a mask, and it is not illegal to refuse vaccination. Most legal action happens when the individual is being disruptive or engages in assault, or claims "I have COVID!" and then deliberately coughs or sneezes or spits on someone. There were also cases where individuals who violated social distancing rules were arrested (e.g. a barber who was privately giving haircuts in violation of the rules got busted in New York State) though such cases are rare. It would also be very difficult to prove in a court that "I got COVID from Trouble13 and no one or nowhere else."

However, it's been a long-standing legal principle that the state is properly empowered to enforce public safety, even if that means curtailing some liberties. I.e. you've always had at least some legal requirement not to spread the virus, and you most certainly do not have any legal right to spread a potentially lethal disease.


Morally, it is utterly and completely indefensible to say that "I can spread a deadly disease if I want." There are some potential mitigating factors; e.g. we needed many people to perform various jobs long before we had any vaccines or treatments. An essential worker who does everything they can to keep other people safe isn't morally responsible for spreading the virus. However, a worker (essential or otherwise) who doesn't care about the health and safety of others, and refuses to take steps to protect themself or others, is morally culpable if others are harmed as a result of his behavior.

I.e. your selfishness, or hatred of government, or partisan mindset, is not sufficient to allow you to harm others. That's a pretty basic moral principle.

These people are generally amoral. It’s just me me me. If they had any concern about their fellow citizens they would already have done the right thing.
I have no respect for people who are only out for themselves.

 

[trouble13]

Incorrect.

35 states already have laws on the books criminalizing the transmission of communicable diseases. Most of those laws were a reaction to the AIDS epidemic, but most of them were not limited to HIV or STDs. A prosecutor might also have the option to charge you with assault if you knowingly and deliberately try to spread COVID.

In March 2020, the Department of Justice circulated a memo reminding recipients of pandemic-related crimes. Many were about fraud (e.g. selling fake medicines), but it also included "purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19." Because COVID-19 is classified as a biological agent under existing laws, it could even be prosecuted via some terrorism laws. Numerous states have also made it illegal to specifically threaten someone by saying you'll give them COVID.

And obviously, laws or emergency declarations which require you to wear a mask or take other actions are largely saying that yes, you have a legal responsibility not to spread the virus.

Obviously the vast majority of scofflaws are not arrested or prosecuted for refusing to wear a mask, and it is not illegal to refuse vaccination. Most legal action happens when the individual is being disruptive or engages in assault, or claims "I have COVID!" and then deliberately coughs or sneezes or spits on someone. There were also cases where individuals who violated social distancing rules were arrested (e.g. a barber who was privately giving haircuts in violation of the rules got busted in New York State) though such cases are rare. It would also be very difficult to prove in a court that "I got COVID from Trouble13 and no one or nowhere else."

However, it's been a long-standing legal principle that the state is properly empowered to enforce public safety, even if that means curtailing some liberties. I.e. you've always had at least some legal requirement not to spread the virus, and you most certainly do not have any legal right to spread a potentially lethal disease.


Morally, it is utterly and completely indefensible to say that "I can spread a deadly disease if I want." There are some potential mitigating factors; e.g. we needed many people to perform various jobs long before we had any vaccines or treatments. An essential worker who does everything they can to keep other people safe isn't morally responsible for spreading the virus. However, a worker (essential or otherwise) who doesn't care about the health and safety of others, and refuses to take steps to protect themself or others, is morally culpable if others are harmed as a result of his behavior.

I.e. your selfishness, or hatred of government, or partisan mindset, is not sufficient to allow you to harm others. That's a pretty basic moral principle.

TLDR;

 

[bluesmoke]

So if I go out of my house and catch a virus, should I be able to sue the gov for negligence? Why or why not?

If you don't believe the govt is doing it's job of protecting the health and safety of the people, which includes you, then let those who make such decision know what you think and vote for those you think will see to it such gets done.