Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.

[Birdjaguar]

This case hinges entirely on this detail. Why do we not know this? The only way the man's consent could be relevant is if his wife were incapable of giving it, and he was the one listed to make choices for her while she's unable to do so.

There are two potential scenarios here, and they completely change fault:

1. Wife gave consent, and man committed assault.
2. Wife did not give consent, and thus the nurse committed assault.

At baseline, I'm inclined to suspect #1 is the answer, since it's more likely and since authorities are looking for the man. But this is Canada we're talking about, and I find the line "unclear whether wife gave consent" fishy.

The husband certainly committed assault regardless of anything else.

 

[Takhisis]

The farce continueth. There is an ongoing attempt to ‘revive culture’ which includes mini-concerts spread throughout the city in public areas, such as, to name a random example, right below Takhisis' window. So they manage to fulfil the objectives of getting people together (virus spread), annoying the locals (including yours truly) and looking like moronic opportunists.

(We also get the discovery of the scandalous conduct of government officials who put themselves on the dole, pretending to be unemployed, to increment their incomes and also… to finance their re-election campaigns for this year)

 

[Zelig]

Why you’re not getting a delta-specific booster yet

 

[El_Machinae]

So, it looks like the booster that we'll actually need is against beta's lineage. We'll be vaccinating kids here soon (I'd bet), so let's hope that if the vaccine doesn't stop beta from spreading amongst them, we'll have a booster available for our seniors.

 

[amadeus]

Why you’re not getting a delta-specific booster yet

For those too lazy to read (myself largely included) it sounds like:

1. Current vaccines work well
2. Retooling might cost more than the benefit

 

[Hrothbern]

• Retooling might cost more than the benefit

Yes
The "going for perfection" as usual the enemy of the "good enough"
Retooling would cost most of all more approval time.
And yes, these approvals cause also the bulk of the cost expressed in money, but time delay converts in deaths.

 

[FriendlyFire]

This case hinges entirely on this detail. Why do we not know this? The only way the man's consent could be relevant is if his wife were incapable of giving it, and he was the one listed to make choices for her while she's unable to do so.
But this is Canada we're talking about, and I find the line "unclear whether wife gave consent" fishy.

You do KNOW that he started punching before the nurse could answer right ?
Its not that hard to connect the dots here. Given the behaviour of the husband

The nurse didn't even have time to speak up for herself before he started punching her," Carrier said.
After attacking the nurse, the man quickly ran out of the pharmacy

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-who-gave-his-wife-covid-vaccine/5841625001/

 

[Arwon]

We're up to 91% of 16+ people with first doses!

Case numbers are still in the couple of dozen range each day (in a territory of half a million) but with the vax rates getting towards the targets, we're moving into opening up to endemic Covid normal over the next couple months.

Lockdown eases on Friday with school starting to go back next week, lockdown ends on Oct 15th when we're projecting to 80% of over 12s fully vaccinated, so restaurants, pubs, personal services etc open then. Density limits lift and more stuff like in-shop retail opens on Oct 29, and we should probably see travel freed up between here, NSW and Victoria around then.

The laggard states will probably take a couple months to catch up.

 

[Arwon]

Also, after eschewing the exponential growth/plateau/decline model, our indefinite random scatter of daily cases are obviously trending to zero now lol:

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You do KNOW that he started punching before the nurse could answer right ?
Its not that hard to connect the dots here. Given the behaviour of the husband

So again, why do we not know whether the wife consented, which would put to bed any of this discussion? Is it that hard to know this? I was under the impression that people signed consent forms, are those not a thing in Canada?

If she gave consent, he's just a criminal assailant. If she did not, and he knew that for whatever reason, I would still not condone his actions but would consider them more excusable and expect criminal charges for those involved in giving shot w/o consent. It's a big difference. And I already acknowledged the most likely explanation...to quote you "it's not that hard" to grasp that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I just figured it out. They don't know who the assailant is, so they don't know who the wife is. This makes providing any particulars impossible, since they can't double check the specific consent. Of course, the pharmacy will think they have all the forms in order, but won't have permission to prove it to the police spokesperson

 

[tjs282]

There are two potential scenarios here, and they completely change fault:

No, they don't.

1. Wife gave consent, and man committed assault.
2. Wife did not give consent, and thus both the husband and the nurse committed assault.

FTFY

It could be good reporting by the reporter, who noticed that it's an absent detail. Worst case, it reminds us not to assume

So again, why do we not know whether the wife consented, which would put to bed any of this discussion? If she gave consent, he's just a criminal assailant. If she did not, and he knew that for whatever reason, I would still not condone his actions but would consider them more excusable and expect criminal charges for those involved in giving shot w/o consent. It's a big difference.

If the patient did not consent, then yes, the nurse technically committed assault (broke the skin), and the patient (or her husband, if she is now incapable) would have the right to bring criminal charges.

Regardless, the husband is just a criminal assailant. There are no mitigating circumstances, because he never had any legal right to mete out 'punishment' for the 'crime' of his wife getting vaxxed.

The police spokesman quoted in the article clearly states that the man assaulted the nurse for giving his wife a shot without his permission. I mean, WTH? Is this the 18th century, or the 21st?

There are no laws in Canada that say individuals need their spouses' permission to get vaccinated, and it is unclear if his wife had given consent.

Since the assault on the nurse (and presumably the vaccination by the nurse) took place in a pharmacy, it seems pretty clear (to me) that the wife went in there under her own steam, and got the shot of her own volition.

And her husband disapproved.

To be honest, I'd be far more worried about her risk of bodily harm from him, than from the covid-vac.

 

[MrCynical]

Sure, but in this case it WAS mentioned, specifically, as an unknown. As opposed to saying nothing about it, the writer specifically put that it was unclear. Maybe it was just for a bit of flair or w/e, but it seems an odd thing to mention for the exact reason you quoted. Normally, we would expect consent to be routine/trivial, so why specifically write this?

Possible explanation 1: writer didn't bother to check and just glosses over it with "unclear".

Possible explanation 2: writer did ask the wife if she consented, and didn't get an answer. This has obvious and ugly implications given the behaviour of her husband, so the writer is leaving it vague for the wife's safety.

We are not talking about a woman who's lying unconscious in a hospital bed somewhere, where you might be able to claim at least some doubt on the consent issue. This is a walk-in pharmacy. The idea that they are somehow grabbing people off the street and forcibly vaccinating them is not even an edge case - it's farcically stupid to treat that as a possibility without some seriously solid evidence to back up such an unlikely scenario. As for "signed consent forms", I don't know about Canada, but when I got my vaccination I didn't sign anything. There might have been a "recipient said yes" tick box somewhere for the nurse to tick, but that's about it.

Oh, and the husband is still at fault and guilty of assault even in the ludicrous scenario that the wife somehow did not give consent.

EDIT - well spotted El Machinae. The husband hasn't been caught yet, so the writer couldn't ask the wife as they don't know who she is. It's still an utterly unrealistic scenario that the wife was vaccinated without consent, and spectacularly more likely that we're looking at a dangerous and abusive husband here.

 

[El_Machinae]

I still think it was a well-spotted detail, and that factoid would hugely affect my interpretation. It is a detail that actually showed I'd assumed a fact not in evidence.


Looking through the data, I think my region might be through Delta soon ... if only because it burns so fast.

So, we'll have some natural immunity plus the immunity from vaccine uptake ... which means I think we should be calculating what variant is going to get through current immunity to cause future risks.

I'm in Alberta, not Québec, so different health authorities. I definitely signed consent. I even teased them about the errors in their consent form.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

FTFY

Fair/agreed, I had misinterpreted the timetable. This is assault by the man regardless.

Regardless, the husband is just a criminal assailant. There are no mitigating circumstances

That's not really true, regarding sentencing and such. The court has a history of treating these two kinds of murderers very differently when it comes to sentencing them:

• Man breaks and enters a house to rob it, and kills someone inside in surprise encounter.
• Man's daughter is raped and murdered, and he gets to the murderer before the law.

These are both murderers, but society views them differently. They have been sentenced differently. We probably SHOULD treat them differently.

Thus, we should have a different perception of this case depending on what state the man's wife was in, whether she did/could give consent, and the time tables. I would not condone someone assaulting someone else, but I would expect a different reaction if the context was "I don't like what you did" vs "by the way I just assaulted your wife". Obviously, the source of anger is much lesser, but so is the offense.

The police spokesman quoted in the article clearly states that the man assaulted the nurse for giving his wife a shot without his permission. I mean, WTH? Is this the 18th century, or the 21st?

That's my line! Why are the article/police treating *his* permission as relevant/known, while not even confirming the wife's, when it's the wife's that matters? I'm trying to reconcile why this guy's permission is being given such relevance...it normally shouldn't be relevant at all.

Since the assault on the nurse (and presumably the vaccination by the nurse) took place in a pharmacy, it seems pretty clear (to me) that the wife went in there under her own steam, and got the shot of her own volition.

More clear to you than the writer, at least, who specifically wrote out that it was unclear (which is strange).

lazy writer didn't bother to check and just glosses over it with "unclear".

There's too much of this in "journalism" already. But if the writer really were that lazy, an even more functional/lazy alternative would have been to simply omit that line entirely. In fact this option would still work for your 2nd hypothetical as well.

We are not talking about a woman who's lying unconscious in a hospital bed somewhere, where you might be able to claim at least some doubt on the consent issue. This is a walk-in pharmacy.

Yeah, that's why the way the article is written is strange.

The idea that they are somehow grabbing people off the street and forcibly vaccinating them is not even an edge case - it's farcically stupid to treat that as a possibility

That's not the only possible explanation, however. And it's not one that would come to mind for me. If I were to imagine a non-consent hypothetical, it would be more along the lines of:

• Wife went in for one type of vaccine and either got both that vaccine and COVID together, or got just COVID. The latter could even originate as an actual mistake, since the most commonly given vaccine would likely be COVID (aka in a sequence of 20-30 vaccinations for COVID, hers was something else but someone was inattentive/screwed up). I consider this scenario still-unlikely, but by far the most likely type of non-consent scenario since human negligence is common and it doesn't require any malice or planning to happen.
  
• The person administering vaccines was acting like an activist, and giving COVID vaccines alongside whatever else w/o asking.

I consider the 2nd possibility very unlikely, much more so than simple assault. But then, a subset of the population has unironically suggested to fire "vaccine guns" at people, so I wouldn't completely rule it out. If people actually did that, I would "not guilty" anyone giving those assailants 100% immunity to future infection with actual guns. Similarly, I would still consider this man guilty of assault, but would be a lot more lenient than I'm inclined to be at first glance.

Edit: the most boring explanation is most likely the correct one. And that is that this man is just a nutter who flew off the handle and assaulted someone. But that's not very interesting to discuss, hence entertaining the hypotheticals above.

 

[Samson]

That's not really true, regarding sentencing and such. The court has a history of treating these two kinds of murderers very differently when it comes to sentencing them:

• Man breaks and enters a house to rob it, and kills someone inside in surprise encounter.
• Man's daughter is raped and murdered, and he gets to the murderer before the law.

These are both murderers, but society views them differently. They have been sentenced differently. We probably SHOULD treat them differently.

Most places (or at least the UK) crack down on vigilante killing really hard, as they are so bad for society.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Most places (or at least the UK) crack down on vigilante killing really hard, as they are so bad for society.

I mean, it's still murder. I would just expect something closer to the minimum sentence, in a lot of places. Besides, while it's "vigilante killing", it isn't ONLY that. It's not some random guy finding a killer first and taking him out.

 

[Drakle]

As Republicans die in Droves from COVID, Republican leadership springs into action to save their base from itself ... haha of course not. They scaremonger about mandates to raise money.

Death Cult.

Said lawsuits are absolutely doomed according to all case law.

And despite the hysteria, very few people are actually willing to lose their job over it

I very much doubt that one guy was any good.




Anyway, Australia is overall about to overtake the US in vaccination, and not slowing down. NSW already has and the ACT of course even further ahead.

 

[Zardnaar]

Been fluctuating between 12-45 last few weeks mostly around 20. 45 today a week after going to level 3 from 4.

Still restricted to Auckland most a certain part of Auckland of people not following the rules.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452553/covid-19-45-new-community-cases-today-all-in-auckland

 

[Takhisis]

Your total cases are half our daily deaths!

Today we reached another nice round number. Now we are over 155,000.