this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024

284 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38562 readers

2721 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

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

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

284

Austrian woman is found guilty of fatally infecting her neighbor with COVID-19 (apnews.com)

submitted 4 days ago by MicroWave to c/world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 142 points 4 days 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 72 points 4 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What, you don't recall COVID-99?

[–] Noodle07 1 points 9 hours ago

I heard it made computers cough on nye

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days 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 13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] RedWeasel 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] The_v 6 points 3 days 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 9 points 4 days ago

Public health is a privacy exception.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago

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

[–] 13esq 3 points 3 days 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.

[–] anubis119 32 points 4 days 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 57 points 4 days 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 7 points 3 days ago

Sounds like typhoid Mary

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Then why the fuck is this one suspended?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

Good question, isn't it.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 days 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 33 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

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

[–] ms_lane 0 points 3 days ago

Seems there are no real repercussions at all.

800 euro and 4 weeks at home?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

At least they suspended her sentences so there's no consequences

[–] Valmond 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Except if she does it again, right?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Third time's a charm?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Yep, 3 suspended sentences would be perfect

[–] Feathercrown 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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

Edit: Oh, "infecting"...

[–] kerrypacker -2 points 3 days ago

Almost absolute certainty? So not?