Hmm yes what could be the difference between these two situations? It's real brain strain!
-
The case that allowing the sale of wildlife constitutes "recklessly or intentionally killing or maiming" people in a different country because of a naturally-arising virus doesn't seem any less tenuous to me.
Nobody could have foreseen this... https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warned-that-china-was-a-time-bomb-for-novel-coronavirus-outbreak-in-2007/ …
-
-
Other countries also do not allow the sale of live wildlife for food. This isn't something specific that Chinese people do, it's a basic safety standard the CCP has failed to institute.
-
Are viruses less likely to arise if you don't plan to eat the animals?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why stop there? I'm sure you could blame some substantial number of deaths on industrial output, or deforestation, or whatever, from any advanced economy, for instance, and this is also entirely foreseeable. I don't think you can impose liability ex post facto in this way.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.