Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[CaptainAmerica]

What do the dead ones get? And what happens when the person/business responsible doesn't have enough money to pay everyone?

Nobody is dead because the lawsuit happens *before* the bad stuff happens. And the lawsuit itself probably doesn't happen because the businesses voluntarily comply with safety standards to avoid said lawsuits.

 

[Horizons '83]

Just when I thought I'd re-join the thread, 7 billion people dead is ok with one poster... welp....

 

[Chi84]

Nobody is dead because the lawsuit happens *before* the bad stuff happens. And the lawsuit itself probably doesn't happen because the businesses voluntarily comply with safety standards to avoid said lawsuits.

But what is the basis of this lawsuit?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Nobody is dead because the lawsuit happens *before* the bad stuff happens. And the lawsuit itself probably doesn't happen because the businesses voluntarily comply with safety standards to avoid said lawsuits.

People drive drunk and kill people now. You're allowed to sue them, but it doesn't seem to be an effective deterrent for some. So what exactly do you think would be different?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

But what is this lawsuit?

I'm starting to get the feeling it involves time travel, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[sullyinMT]

So guess doctors shouldn't need licenses to practice then either? Let's just publish their diplomas, proof of malpractice insurance, and how success stats. People can decide if that's safe enough for them.

Why stop there? They shouldn’t need to have proof of malpractice as a government entity can’t regulate what you purchase (credentialing entities like hospitals or clinics that might employee them aside).

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Okay, now I'm invested. What kind of lawsuit can you file in advance of the fact?

I'm not talking current state. But I got baited into defending a minarchist worldview, which would necessarily come with a top-to-bottom overhaul of tort law.

Regulation creates a "check the box" approach to safety. "As long as I'm in compliance with the regulations, I'm good." Wrong. Ditch the regulatory fines in favor of expanded civil liability and investments in safety will be much more substantive.

 

[mmascari]

Again, I feel that you're missing my point.

I am against lockdowns, period. I have no number. The number could be 7 billion and I still would be against lockdowns.

I don't think I'm missing any point. You've been pretty clear that it should be up to any individual to determine and manage their own personal risk. Along with how that involves interactions with others that are independently managing their own risk, in ways that may not be clear prior to the interactions.

You've been clear that any collective response that requires individuals to act to some common safety or mitigation against spread that they don't determine on their own shouldn't be required, even if that means 10,000,000 or 7,000,000,000 people die because individuals are not taking actions to mitigate the spread at their own determination.

I'm going to assume, so this could be totally wrong, that based on your other posts, if someone is able to contact trace back an infection to an interaction where the other party vouched with them that it was a safe interaction, now proven false. They should be able to sue the other person for damages caused by transmitting the infection to them. Probably damages dependent on the impact of the transmission. So, if someone can contact track back you (generically) that grandma's death originated from you, they can sue you for millions. The threat of this interaction being what causes people to take mitigation efforts, since there can be no common policy to restrict and reduce community spread, just individual decisions. Thus, there must be a way to take a community risk and make it an individual risk to eliminate the need for the community response.

My number is smaller. It's still a number. I'm not some saint here where all life is precious and we should value every one, the risk be damned we should all live in bubbles or perfect safety. We just have different numbers. I can read your posts knowing your number, and they'll make more sense.

 

[sullyinMT]

But what is the basis of this lawsuit?

Violating code(s)? Oh, wait ...

 

[Chi84]

I'm starting to get the feeling it involves time travel, but I'm not 100% sure.

I would love to know the theory and elements of the class action lawsuits that are being proposed.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So guess doctors shouldn't need licenses to practice then either? Let's just publish their diplomas, proof of malpractice insurance, and how success stats. People can decide if that's safe enough for them.

You realize that the government is incredibly bad at almost everything it does, right? Set aside constitutional, legal, and philosophical concerns and just consider for a second that the State sucks at everything except war. Yes, I would be much more comfortable with a competent private agency issuing medical licenses. I trust the American Medical Association's say-so that you're a competent doctor more than I trust the State of Pennsylvania to say so.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don't think I'm missing any point. You've been pretty clear that it should be up to any individual to determine and manage their own personal risk. Along with how that involves interactions with others that are independently managing their own risk, in ways that may not be clear prior to the interactions.

You've been clear that any collective response that requires individuals to act to some common safety or mitigation against spread that they don't determine on their own shouldn't be required, even if that means 10,000,000 or 7,000,000,000 people die because individuals are not taking actions to mitigate the spread at their own determination.

I'm going to assume, so this could be totally wrong, that based on your other posts, if someone is able to contact trace back an infection to an interaction where the other party vouched with them that it was a safe interaction, now proven false. They should be able to sue the other person for damages caused by transmitting the infection to them. Probably damages dependent on the impact of the transmission. So, if someone can contact track back you (generically) that grandma's death originated from you, they can sue you for millions. The threat of this interaction being what causes people to take mitigation efforts, since there can be no common policy to restrict and reduce community spread, just individual decisions. Thus, there must be a way to take a community risk and make it an individual risk to eliminate the need for the community response.

My number is smaller. It's still a number. I'm not some saint here where all life is precious and we should value every one, the risk be damned we should all live in bubbles or perfect safety. We just have different numbers. I can read your posts knowing your number, and they'll make more sense.

 

[sullyinMT]

I'm not talking current state. But I got baited into defending a minarchist worldview, which would necessarily come with a top-to-bottom overhaul of tort law.
[...]
Ditch the regulatory fines in favor of expanded civil liability and investments in safety will be much more substantive.

West Virginia coal miners would like a word.
Or, check out Radium Girls on Netflix

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nobody is dead because the lawsuit happens *before* the bad stuff happens. And the lawsuit itself probably doesn't happen because the businesses voluntarily comply with safety standards to avoid said lawsuits.

All you are doing is setting up a regulatory framework with a different name. You’re duplicating the inefficiency you claim to be resolving. The class is the local community. To protect themselves the local community can engage in inspections and preemptive lawsuits to correct violations. They can even hire people who specialize in doing just this sort of work. Viola, you now have a building department that wastes the court’s time instead of being able to first handle things itself.

This is essentially how the ADA is handled at the federal level. Instead of a single source you get a tangled mess of disagreeing rulings.

 

[Chi84]

All you are doing is setting up a regulatory framework with a different name. You’re duplicating the inefficiency you claim to be resolving. The class is the local community. To protect themselves the local community can engage in inspections and preemptive lawsuits to correct violations. They can even hire people who specialize in doing just this sort of work. Viola, you now have a building department that wastes the court’s time instead of being able to first handle things itself.

This is essentially how the ADA is handled at the federal level. Instead of a single source you get a tangled mess of disagreeing rulings.

I would like to know more about the theory of "preemptive lawsuits." Who would have standing to bring them? If there are no actual damages, what would be the incentive for filing them?

 

[DisneyDebRob]

So you don't want regulations, but you want to be able to sue in advance for something that might happen? Or are you arguing that the mere threat of a lawsuit will get people to behave responsibly? Because I already explained why that's not true.

You really don’t even need to explain it. Just watch the news and everyday life and know that some could care less about what the response will be to their actions. A threat of it beforehand? Well even less if a chance. It would become a game of dare then. This whole thinking is silly and bordering on insane.

 

[mmascari]

To be clear. This was understanding of your point. Not support of it.

There's no way it would the way you think it would work. In your best case scenario, you've replaced a government by the people, that's at least somewhat responsive to the public with large companies setting rules that only policy holders can see. In the worse case, you create isolated shell companies and deadbeats that simply take the risk knowing they lose everything if it fails. Which doesn't help the victim at all.

The entire tragedy of the commons is based on this. If I'm infected, but want to PARTY!!!, current mitigations try to prevent me from doing activities that will put others in danger. If we eliminate them, only their ability to sue me puts any constraint on my action. Good luck, as I've got nothing and hence no risk.

Community spread, the thing we need to reduce to a manageable level is a community problem. While individual actions can contribute to or delay the resolution, they cannot solve it on their own. They require a community action to reach goal.

 

[havoc315]

People drive drunk and kill people now. You're allowed to sue them, but it doesn't seem to be an effective deterrent for some. So what exactly do you think would be different?

Arguably, it often is a pretty good deterrent. Fear of litigation risk already leads to a significant degree of self-regulation.

I don’t personally believe it to be a replacement for government regulation. But from a theoretical perspective, it’s actually not absurd. In practice, doesn’t work for countless reasons.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Interestingly, some places actually saw an increase in auto-deaths during the lock down. It is surmised, that will less cars on the road, people started being less cautious leading to more accidents.

The Roads Are Quieter Due to Coronavirus, but There Are More Fatal Car Crashes

Fewer drivers are hitting the road during the pandemic, yet police in some places have made an unexpected discovery: an increase in deadly car crashes.

www.wsj.com

actually that doesn't surprise me. I drive on 95 every day to work and I've noticed a huge increase in speed because now there aren't as many cars on the road. Whew, I use to be surprised when someone hit 80, now it seems like 90 is the norm. You lose control at 90 mph and it isn't going to be pretty.

 

[eliza61nyc]

To be clear. This was understanding of your point. Not support of it.

There's no way it would the way you think it would work. In your best case scenario, you've replaced a government by the people, that's at least somewhat responsive to the public with large companies setting rules that only policy holders can see. In the worse case, you create isolated shell companies and deadbeats that simply take the risk knowing they lose everything if it fails. Which doesn't help the victim at all.

The entire tragedy of the commons is based on this. If I'm infected, but want to PARTY!!!, current mitigations try to prevent me from doing activities that will put others in danger. If we eliminate them, only their ability to sue me puts any constraint on my action. Good luck, as I've got nothing and hence no risk.

Community spread, the thing we need to reduce to a manageable level is a community problem. While individual actions can contribute to or delay the resolution, they cannot solve it on their own. They require a community action to reach goal.

yep and unfortunately it's an action needed by a country that is the very antithesis of "community". lol, kill the entire planet just as long as I can do what I want.