Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Corona / Covid-19 Virus - General Discussion

We do not place restrictions on HIV+ individuals to protect others, such as making it illegal for them to have unprotected sex, or to have sex without first disclosing their status

Such cases have come to the courts though, under, IIRC GBH. Not sure how far any of them got.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Graham wrote:

We do not place restrictions on HIV+ individuals to protect others, such as making it illegal for them to have unprotected sex, or to have sex without first disclosing their status.

Interesting point because there seems to be big difference between countries: In Germany it clearly constitutes criminal assault if a HIV positive (who knows about it) has unprotected sex with another individual w/o disclosing their status. Tons of court rulings about that.

Graham wrote:

The virus and the mode of transmission may be different, but the principle of who is responsible for your health (you are) holds, I believe.

The question in my opinion is: What does it take to protect yourself? And therefore the mode of transmission is not irrelevant.

For HIV (as ppt for all other diseases that are only transmissible by exchange of body fluid) all it takes to protect myself is to not touch other peoples blood and not have unprotected sex with people I don’t know. Even thought the law is different in Germany, I could follow a line of reasoning that says that potential recipients can protect themselfes
For Covid (as ppt for all other diseases that are transmitted via airborne infection) I think the situation is different: The only way to protect myself would be to stay in my cellar.

Germany

Graham wrote:

We do not place restrictions on HIV+ individuals to protect others, such as making it illegal for them to have unprotected sex, or to have sex without first disclosing their status.

The UK really doesn’t? In Sweden HIV+ individuals have to disclose their status to anyone they risk infecting. Unprotected sex by HIV+ individuals without disclosure has been considered legally equivalent to causing (attempting to cause) grievous bodily harm – which is certainly illegal. Of course today most HIV+ individuals on modern anti-HIV medication don’t risk infecting anyone even by unprotected sex.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear about HIV. There have been prosecutions in the UK too, but it is basically under existing criminal law – GBH or some such, and of course to have sex with someone is much more definitive act that it is possible to make someone responsible for compared to simply exhaling in a public place (which would appear to be the suggested ‘fist-swinging’ with respect to Covid-19). What I meant about HIV was that we don’t generally put extra measures in place, we don’t metaphorically make them paint a red cross on their door.

Malibuflyer wrote:

For Covid (as ppt for all other diseases that are transmitted via airborne infection) I think the situation is different: The only way to protect myself would be to stay in my cellar.

Then it comes down to how much we’re prepared to tolerate risk from natural phenomena and to what extent we view it as the role of government to eliminate these risks. We tolerate and manage many different risks in our daily lives – as aviators we probably understand this more than most.

EGLM & EGTN

Dear Mr
You have been invited to book your COVID-19 vaccinations. Prompt booking via the link is advised as there are only a few appointments available at present.
Please click on the link…

Booked for 1 week from now.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

You have been invited to book your COVID-19 vaccinations

So this is it then, the end of EuroGA

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Graham wrote:

What I meant about HIV was that we don’t generally put extra measures in place, we don’t metaphorically make them paint a red cross on their door.

You gave the answer yourself: We did not need “extra measures” because it takes more than just exhaling to infect someone else with HIV. Therefore the existing laws are already suited well enough.

Graham wrote:

Then it comes down to how much we’re prepared to tolerate risk from natural phenomena and to what extent we view it as the role of government to eliminate these risks. We tolerate and manage many different risks in our daily lives – as aviators we probably understand this more than most.

I would not call it a “natural phenomenon” is someone who is infected with a deadly virus is coughing at my face.

And yes, as Aviators we do understand more than most, that some things can be regulated better at the few than at the many:
- We have design regulations in place to make sure that I don’t have to recalculate the strength of every bolt in my plane
- We have ops regulations in place that make sure I can rely on at least certain standards of operations when I sit in an airliner (and don’t have to ask for their W&B to check myself)
- We have Traffic regulations in place that make sure that in the traffic pattern nobody else is flying in the opposite direction because they like.

All of those regulations are (accepted) restrictions of freedom because we understood that sometimes it is justified to employ burden on some to avoid death of others. Most notably – and in contrast to the Covid situation – we have such regulations in place in aviation even though most safety issues are “symmetric” in a sense that if I put others in danger I put myself in the same danger and therefore my mere egoism keeps me from doing stupid things.

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

I would not call it a “natural phenomenon” is someone who is infected with a deadly virus is coughing at my face.

Social etiquette already dictates that one doesn’t cough in another’s face. But of course you already know that this wasn’t what I was referring to as a natural phenomenon.

The natural phenomenon is the circulation of a very infectious respiratory virus in the human population. To refer to it as a ‘deadly virus’ is just buying into the hysteria that is causing large portions of the population (and governments) to lose sight of what we’re dealing with here. You know well enough that if you’re infected the chances of it killing you are vanishingly small.

I argue against long-term measures legally enforcing things like masks and vaccines not because I disagree with the measures but because I believe they’re unworkable. Vaccination certificates for travel between countries is workable because it’s a simple matter of international politics and we already do it with things like yellow fever. Masks in supermarkets is easy: everyone can see your mask (or not) and their shop = their rules, or else don’t come in. A system where you can’t go to the cinema, a restaurant or a football match without proving your vaccination status is as ludicrous as it is unworkable.

EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

A system where you can’t go to the cinema, a restaurant or a football match without proving your vaccination status is as ludicrous as it is unworkable.

Why? Both cinemas and football stadia already have entrance checks (for tickets or, in the case of stadia, dangerous items) already. It would be a matter of seconds to check somebody’s vaccination status along with the ususal checks. Last year, in restaurants, Germans had to provide their contact data anyways for the purpose of contract tracing.It is easily immaginable letting people provide proof of vaccination at the same point.

Last Edited by MedEwok at 23 Feb 14:50
Novice pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Graham wrote:

Vaccination certificates for travel between countries is workable because it’s a simple matter of international politics

Will counties prevent the citizen of a country returning to that country without proof of vaccination? That is not the case now. Will intra-Schengen border controls be permanently reestablished? I doubt it.

As the health issues fade, people will grow tired of the pointless theatre. Those who want the protection will get vaccinated, the moral posturing will become unpopular and that will be the end of it. The problem in Europe is that this will likely take quite a while, governments have dug themselves a very big hole and will keep digging for a while.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Feb 15:56
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top