this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
284 points (98.6% liked)

World News

39096 readers
3933 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A woman in Austria was found guilty of fatally infecting her neighbor with COVID-19 in 2021, her second pandemic-related conviction in a year, according to local media. A judge sentenced the 54-year-old on Thursday to four months’ suspended imprisonment and an 800-euro fine ($886.75) for grossly negligent homicide.

The victim, who was also a cancer patient, died of pneumonia that was caused by the coronavirus, according to Austrian news agency APA. A virological report showed that the virus DNA matched both the deceased and the 54-year-old woman, proving that the defendant “almost 100 percent” transmitted it, an expert told the court.

“I feel sorry for you personally -- I think that something like this has probably happened hundreds of times,” the judge said Thursday. “But you are unlucky that an expert has determined with almost absolute certainty that it was an infection that came from you.”

top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 142 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The most relevant part of the article, to me, has not been quoted:

This week, the judge heard statements from the deceased’s family, who said there had been contact in a stairwell between the neighbors on Dec. 21, 2001 — when the defendant would already have known she had COVID-19. But she denied the meeting, saying she was too sick to get out of bed that day. She also said she believed she had bronchitis, which she typically gets every year.

But the woman’s doctor told police that the defendant had tested positive with a rapid test and told him that she “certainly won’t let herself be locked up” after the result.

Seems pretty open-and-shut to me. If she had something like drug-resistant TB, there would be no question here.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 72 points 2 months ago

With that context, 4 months and $800 doesn't feel like enough

[–] fistac0rpse@fedia.io 45 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Dec. 21, 2001 - do news sites no longer employ editors or proofreaders?

[–] Damage@feddit.it 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What, you don't recall COVID-99?

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I heard it made computers cough on nye

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 10 points 2 months ago

They almost all stopped doing so some years back. As someone who used to want to be a copywriter, reading modern articles with all of their constant mistakes is very frustrating.

[–] breakingcups@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Huh, I'm surprised the doctor was allowed to comment on that.

[–] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why? There a limits on health care privacy privilege. Also with regards to with attorneys as well.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Medical privacy ends when the condition may cause detrimental effects to other people. It's not that difficult of a concept to understand.

Somebody who has epilepsy is not allowed to drive vehicles or fly a plane. They might have an episode while operating the vehicle and kill/injure others.

Somebody with a confirmed deadly disease is not allowed to wander around spreading it to others. Their decisions to ignore quarantine restrictions will kill/injure others.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Public health is a privacy exception.

[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 38 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So, unless you die of it, there are no repercussions to someone blatantly coughing at your face, again and again, despite protests.

I don't feel sorry for anyone doing that.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Coughing deliberately in someones face can be battery in many states with a good lawyer.

[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 6 points 2 months ago

In India, if I call out someone for coughing in my face, IATA.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Well, no repercussions from the government. But the government is not the only entity capable of creating repercussions.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Seems there are no real repercussions at all.

800 euro and 4 weeks at home?

[–] anubis119@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I understand the reasoning, I'm just not sure I like the precedence this establishes. The details are quite vague.

The article says there was contact in a stairwell. What kind of contact? How long? Even if you got your groceries delivered, how would you get them if you aren't allowed in a common area? No details at all.

This feels dystopian to me because the judgement seems to imply that if you are unlucky enough to have a better immune system than your deceased neighbor who was sick with the same strain of virus, that you're fully liable for their death. IDK

[–] cmeio@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To give a bit nore details: She ignored her quarantine mandate, didn't wear a mask and chatted him up in the stairwell. Because she was convinced she doesn't have Covid even though she was diagnosed.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Sounds like typhoid Mary

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She also has a previous conviction for intentionally spreading the virus.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then why the fuck is this one suspended?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 7 points 2 months ago

Good question, isn't it.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

For months and under $1000 for murdering someone. That's really not going to stop anyone doing it again.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 19 points 2 months ago

Suspended sentence. She only spends 4 months in jail if she breaks the law again.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Murder implies intent. If the assailant, knowing they had COVID, purposefully coughed in to the face of the victim with the intent of infecting them, then you have a point. But the article does not imply that is what happened.

[–] lol_idk@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Except if she does it again, right?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] lol_idk@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Literally how do you even get access to a syringe of covid-19

Edit: Oh, "infecting"...

[–] kerrypacker@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

Almost absolute certainty? So not?