Yes. So why would they want to keep him in isolation, to the point where they might not let him out. What purpose, specifically, does keeping him in isolation serve? You said they were paranoid and extra cautious. Cautious about what?
In other words, what were they worried was gonna happen if he WASN’T in isolation?
Do you know?
Sorry, Barrett. I knew what you were referring to just after I posted. It was a long day.
Isn’t it interesting that the two posters arguing this most, ahhh, virulently are guests?
I’m thinking “socked troll.”
I’m also thinking literally “socked troll.”
Think what you want, I don’t give a shit.
If that’s what you think of people who put forth reasoned arguments that you disagree with, then I know to avoid you in the future.
Not of each other, though. While Capatalist Lion Tamer and I have had several goes at each other in this thread, I’m pretty sure he’s not a troll or a sock.
I am, however, less sure about…certain other posters.
Thank you, Kokopilau. I have found you to be a very reasonable poster.
Oh, you think we’re the same poster.
Tell you what, genius. Go ahead and report this thread, or post, or whatever is easiest. I’m a moderator on another board, and am easily able to check the IP address of any given poster. I would imagine that there is a good chance that the moderators on the SDMB have the same ability.
In the meantime, go fuck yourself.
Perhpas, but the risk to others was still minimal. So he’s not asshole of the year for having done so. It’s as simple as that.
About spreading of the disease. Same reason my father in law wouldn’t shake hands with me a few hours after I shook hands with a guy who had AIDS.
Yeah, gimme a break. If one person argues persistently against you, they must be a troll. If 2 people argue against you, it must be a troll with a sock. It couldn’t possibly be two independent people with a legitmate point.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Speaker’s right to get on a commercial airliner, and expose others (regardless of how minimal the risk was) to a disease that kills 70 percent of the people who contract it, ended when he knew how dangerous the disease was.
So, the doctors in two separate countries were worried he might be…contagious?
Airplanes probably kill more than 70% of the people who are unfortunate enough to be standing in their way when they crash.
So if you fly a plane over a populated area – no matter how minimal the risk of crashing is – you are violating peoples’ rights.
By your reasoning, anyway.
I don’t know.
So, you say the Italians might have locked him up because they were worried he might spread the disease, but you don’t know if they might have thought he was contagious?
Yes
I don’t know if any Italian doctors actually developed an opinion on the issue. If have knowledge on this point, feel free to share it. But I will want to see a cite, so you might want to avoid making stuff up.
So, you don’t think that locking someone up because they might spread a disease means that they were worried about contagion?
See my post #689.
People with a negative sputum smear, but positive culture test for TB, infect seven percent of those to whom they’re exposed (cite: http://www.in.gov/isdh/dataandstats/epidem/2003/may/tb.pdf). With Speaker’s particular strain of TB, 70 percent of those who contract it will die.
If you can show me that 4.9 percent of the earth’s population has been killed by airplanes falling on them, I’ll agree with you.
Your link is not working.
If he really imposed a 49% chance of death on each passenger near him, then yeah he’s an asshole. But somehow I doubt it.
Can you post your link again?