Coronavirus Thread

Dave

Staff member
I'm sure he does. He wouldn't do it if he didn't think it would pay off for him.
Apparently the payoff is that a $2000 stimulus check will only go to a vote on the Senate as part of a bill that also removes Section 230 protection for social media companies and sets up a "bipartisan" commission on electoral fraud in the Presidential election.
 
Considering the Moderna vaccine costs a couple of hundred dollars per person, I sincerely hope the person responsible is forced to pay all damages. Odds of them facing any serious sort of repercussions is otherwise low.
I hope this isn't the start of a new way of obstructionism.
 

Dave

Staff member
Considering the Moderna vaccine costs a couple of hundred dollars per person, I sincerely hope the person responsible is forced to pay all damages. Odds of them facing any serious sort of repercussions is otherwise low.
I hope this isn't the start of a new way of obstructionism.
Gonna be hard to pay for all that with no job and a criminal record. You really think ANY hospital will hire him again? Hope his trumper ass likes the social safety nets his kind want to abolish.
 
Gonna be hard to pay for all that with no job and a criminal record. You really think ANY hospital will hire him again? Hope his trumper ass likes the social safety nets his kind want to abolish.
You think certain companies won't be extra supportive and offer a job for being this True and Real, Protecting Americans from being injected with nanobots/trackers/Facebook/Covid/Gay/whatever? Oh, she'll never work in a hospital again, probably. But plenty of other things out there.
 
Apparently the payoff is that a $2000 stimulus check will only go to a vote on the Senate as part of a bill that also removes Section 230 protection for social media companies and sets up a "bipartisan" commission on electoral fraud in the Presidential election.
Man, they have such a hate boner for that thing, don't they*?

--Patrick
*for arbitrarily small values of "they."
 
Didn't he die of an anurysm though?
Whoops..looks like. I just read a headline and then pasted. That's on me. While it's emerging that covid and brain issues may be related, I don't think anyone say that's the case here.

I'm usually good about reading articles from reddit before I post. I'll try to do better next time ;)
 
Last edited:
Just heard some not so good news. The plan was that by the end of 2021 60% of the population of Germany should be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. Currently, however, there are not enough daily vaccinations, so that this goal will not be achieved until 2030. :(
 
If deliberately spreading a virus is terrorism, is deliberately destroying vaccines to prolong exposure and heighten community transmission not also terrorism?
 
If deliberately spreading a virus is terrorism, is deliberately destroying vaccines to prolong exposure and heighten community transmission not also terrorism?
Terrorism is a crime of motivation and intent. If he's claiming that he did it to prevent the drugs from "changing people's DNA" then it's probably just destruction of government property.
 
Well, I just want to blow up a church to help people meet their Maker sooner, not kill them, but it still counts.
I mean, I know this won't be considered terrorism (for one thing. The guy is white), I'm just short of wondering.
Is intent important? If so, what intent is okay? This isn't self defense, this isn't in defense of the country. Yeah, he can be convinced he's saving those people - but if it's from a non-existent danger, that's deluded or terroristic.
 
These are the kinds of people we're going to see over the next year, isn't it?

Dear God - I just had that feeling of a "burning the Reichstag" moment.
 
Is intent important? If so, what intent is okay? This isn't self defense, this isn't in defense of the country. Yeah, he can be convinced he's saving those people - but if it's from a non-existent danger, that's deluded or terroristic.
Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
Yes. Intent is what makes it Terrorism. You have to be intentionally acting to "intimidate" the population into submission and unless we have proof this individual was doing so or doing this on behalf of a group with such aims, it's not terrorism. That doesn't make this "okay", but terrorism does have a very strict legal definition in the United States.
 
Top