Back

@davey Agree. They want us all to be masters of our own fate, yet they’ve denied us the conditions, information and tools to do so.

As one mortal species united, we could do so much more, for ourselves, our future, and other species. The least we can do is act to avert intentional harm against those least able to survive. That’s what I believe they’ve done by abandoning almost all preventative measures. Won’t be the last pandemic.

@bevpr I agree and I also am inclined to cavil.

Nonfeasance is not necessarily intentional harming, and can have deadly consequences though bereft of malicious intent.

Autocrats can have their own horrible ideas about uniting the species.

Last, there will be more pandemics regardless of preventive measures. Monkeypox was contained, thanks to quick, agile response. However, it did not spread nearly as easily as have some other diseases.

@davey good points. However, it seems to me, some folks did unite on a ‘strategy of inaction’, and the results are plain for anyone who cares to examine the balance of evidence.

@bevpr Can't argue with that. The devil is in trying to prove conscious intent from arms-folded behavior.

Perhaps the judge allowed this suit to go forward mainly because so many people were harmed.

This should not be necessary to overcome the high bar of the sovereign immunity defense.

Yet if the bar were too low, any property owner with a lawyer in their back pocket could charge the tax assessor as an individual.

@davey I did not attend law school, but I do know that most laws evolves, and in fact, behaviour tends to follow mostly only once laws are formulated/changed. I certainly hope we keep looking for the right balance.

Great conversation. Thank you.