Super-spreader Situations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really a super spreading event but a pregnant woman in Brazil gets infected at a surprise baby shower and dies shortly after emergency delivery.


Camila Graciano from Brazil had been careful throughout the pandemic, and stayed inside where possible, as she was pregnant and in an at-risk group. However, friends decided to throw her a surprise baby shower in anticipation of her impending arrival. Not long after the party, the mom-to-be was in hospital fighting for her life.

One of Graciano's co-workers at the baby shower had the virus but was symptomless. Graciano's brother Daniel Helio Ambrosio told Globo news that a friend at the party had notified everyone when she got sick, shortly after the event. "Unfortunately, my sister was one of those infected," said Ambrosio.
Click to expand...

https://www.newsweek.com/pregnant-w...three-days-after-surprise-baby-shower-1528271

The woman had preexisting conditions including hypertension so she was being careful.
 
Birdie Num Nums said:
August 28 article: Coronavirus Outbreak From Maine Wedding Spreads To Jail, Rehabilitation Center:
Click to expand...

Well that's a very odd statement. Was it community spread, or was it a super-spreader?

If attendees (note plural) were coming to the event pre-loaded with community spread, how are they now blaming it all on this one event? Sounds like both need to be blamed and the community behavior in general also needs to be looked at.

Super spreader events are important transmission vectors and must be controlled. But statements like this muddle the waters and just confuse the issue.

"What concerns me in this situation is the fact that the number of individuals who were affected from that initial setting ... was higher than we would have anticipated," he said during virtual press briefing. "It suggests that there was already community transmission happening in Penobscot County by the attendees, and when they came together, it was kind of like a powder keg that was giving off sparks, and generated a higher-than-expected number of cases." ...
Click to expand...
 
JoeWras said:
Well that's a very odd statement. Was it community spread, or was it a super-spreader?

If attendees (note plural) were coming to the event pre-loaded with community spread, how are they now blaming it all on this one event? Sounds like both need to be blamed and the community behavior in general also needs to be looked at.

Super spreader events are important transmission vectors and must be controlled. But statements like this muddle the waters and just confuse the issue.
Click to expand...

I think he just means that or more attendees were already infected due to community spread, and the gathering bringing them together with other people meant kaboom - the opportunity to simultaneously spread it to way more people.
 
explanade said:
Not really a super spreading event but a pregnant woman in Brazil gets infected at a surprise baby shower and dies shortly after emergency delivery.




https://www.newsweek.com/pregnant-w...three-days-after-surprise-baby-shower-1528271

The woman had preexisting conditions including hypertension so she was being careful.
Click to expand...

Wow, how irresponsible for people to give a surprise shower to a high risk pregnant woman. They could have done a Zoom shower--I have participated in some of those. The person who came to the party who was infected with the virus must feel terribly guilty--I know I would.

Friends of mine who have a grandchild on the way (due in 2 weeks) where told they had to quarantine themselves for an indefinite period of time if they want to see the grandchild.
 
Last edited:
explanade said:
Don't they deny liver and other organ transplants to alcoholics and drug addicts? - Sometimes

Or people deemed too old? - Sometimes
Click to expand...

But not because of the behavior/age. It is because the success rate in those folks is much lower and/or the complication rate is much higher. The risk/benefit calculation (especially since donor organs are a very scarce commodity) favors other candidates.
 
NavAir said:
But not because of the behavior/age. It is because the success rate in those folks is much lower and/or the complication rate is much higher. The risk/benefit calculation (especially since donor organs are a very scarce commodity) favors other candidates.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but I've always thought that if adults who volunteer ahead of time to donate their organs got a nice bump up the selection chain, that would increase the number of organ donors.

Back on topic......

France is now having issues with new cases approaching their worst record. This is attributed to people getting careless in big groups. But, since it is mostly young folks the hospitals are not overwhelmed. Yet.

There was a riot in Germany with people protesting lock down restrictions. Who said the Europeans were being more civilized about CV issues?
 
Last edited:
audreyh1 said:
I think he just means that or more attendees were already infected due to community spread, and the gathering bringing them together with other people meant kaboom - the opportunity to simultaneously spread it to way more people.
Click to expand...

Which means they have a community spread problem!

The point being, yes, super-spreader situations are bad. Understood. Constant publicity and blame about them could work against spreading prevention if people lose sight of the situation right in front of them when they go to the store, for instance.
 
Last edited:
Well yes, community spread is essentially everywhere, which is why large gatherings are banned almost everywhere.

I think constantly discouraging large gatherings and reminding people that these are super spreader situations and giving examples of how bad the outcomes can be is important. It is worse than going to the store for a brief period while staying away from others in the store and wearing a mask.
 
Last edited:
Chuckanut said:
France is now having issues with new cases approaching their worst record. This is attributed to people getting careless in big groups. But, since it is mostly young folks the hospitals are not overwhelmed. Yet.
Click to expand...
It’s young people at first, so the hospitals don’t get overwhelmed, at first. But outbreaks among young people do eventually expose the more vulnerable age groups, and eventually hospitals do start filling up.
 
Golden sunsets said:
In today's news, the number of infected people tied to this event has now increased from 38 to 53. It's small in comparison to spreader events like Sturgis, but even in small situations such as this wedding, the damage done is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

To continue the saga on this spreader event, the count is now at 88 with a prison outbreak and a nursing home outbreak now tied to the event. The Inn's health license was pulled for two days but they are open again. The owners say that they misunderstood the current regulations, assuming that if they used two rooms for the wedding festivities then they would be allowed 50 people per room and did not need to include other non wedding attendees who were at the Inn in their total count. How naive, (read willfully ignorant) can people be.
 
Golden sunsets said:
To continue the saga on this spreader event, the count is now at 88 with a prison outbreak and a nursing home outbreak now tied to the event. The Inn's health license was pulled for two days but they are open again. The owners say that they misunderstood the current regulations, assuming that if they used two rooms for the wedding festivities then they would be allowed 50 people per room and did not need to include other non wedding attendees who were at the Inn in their total count. How naive, (read willfully ignorant) can people be.
Click to expand...

The Inn was only shut for 2 days:confused: And now 88 infected and at least one death? No wonder no one is obeying the rules, there is no enforcement.
 
harllee said:
The Inn was only shut for 2 days:confused: And now 88 infected and at least one death? No wonder no one is obeying the rules, there is no enforcement.
Click to expand...

I would not attend or hold any event at that Inn in the future.
 
How much does a wedding venue like that get?

Do they just offer staff or also offer planning services for the bridezilla weddings?
 
Golden sunsets said:
In today's news, the number of infected people tied to this event has now increased from 38 to 53. It's small in comparison to spreader events like Sturgis, but even in small situations such as this wedding, the damage done is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

explanade said:
How much does a wedding venue like that get?

Do they just offer staff or also offer planning services for the bridezilla weddings?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Barn Weddings are all the rage in this part of the Northeast and can be very expensive as a wedding venue. Big Moose Lodge is in northern Maine, and advertises special events including weddings, so I'm not sure if it is a fancy venue or not. It's so far away that I doubt it was a destination wedding. Its in an area of the state that is, shall we say politically conservative.
 
Golden sunsets said:
To continue the saga on this spreader event, the count is now at 88 with a prison outbreak and a nursing home outbreak now tied to the event. The Inn's health license was pulled for two days but they are open again. The owners say that they misunderstood the current regulations, assuming that if they used two rooms for the wedding festivities then they would be allowed 50 people per room and did not need to include other non wedding attendees who were at the Inn in their total count. How naive, (read willfully ignorant) can people be.
Click to expand...

The limit was 50, and this group had 65 gather. I imagine at 50 they still could have caused major outbreaks.
 
First, an attendee would have to prove causation. How can you prove you didn't get it at the grocery? Or that it was one of the extra 15 people who infected you, not one of the 50 that would have been compliant with the law? Maybe the bride, who would have been there anyway, was patient zero

Second, there will be an issue of contributory negligence. If you walked in the door and saw a huge crowd without masks, you should have walked right back out. By now, everyone knows the risk.
 
explanade said:
Forget about criminal penalties which the state may impose.

Can those infected pursue civil litigation against the venue?

There are real costs that some may incur, both from short-term care as well as potential long-term health care.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about the lawsuit potential since the start, mostly for unprotected employees, but in this case protecting customers. In this case, if there were enough tracing, customers could trace the virus back to businesses and individual people. It's not that much different than suing a bar for over-serving someone who later gets in a crash.

When I worked in the animal health area, sometimes there would be an outbreak of some animal disease that resulted in the euthanization of whole flocks or herds of animals. And often farmers, breders, or ranchers wouldn't report diseases or participate in any tracing for fear they could get sued for being the source of the outbreak. There were ways that the animal authorities would mitigate that, usually involving cash payments for the animals euthanized.

If limiting lawsuits is what it takes to get a more well funded and robust national tracing system to be supported by business groups, than that would be in the interest of public health.
 
Gumby said:
Second, there will be an issue of contributory negligence. If you walked in the door and saw a huge crowd without masks, you should have walked right back out. By now, everyone knows the risk.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I did this morning. I returned an item that I had ordered online to a store. After that transaction was completed I wanted to wander around a bit but about the third or fourth time I saw someone without a mask, including two employees, I decided that "this is not a good place to be" and left. No doubt that store has lost sales from me and will continue to do so in the future because I won't go back.
 
Gumby said:
First, an attendee would have to prove causation. How can you prove you didn't get it at the grocery? Or that it was one of the extra 15 people who infected you, not one of the 50 that would have been compliant with the law? Maybe the bride, who would have been there anyway, was patient zero

Second, there will be an issue of contributory negligence. If you walked in the door and saw a huge crowd without masks, you should have walked right back out. By now, everyone knows the risk.
Click to expand...
The 65 vs max 50 people was only one of the violations. The State mandate is that the 50 people have to wear masks and socially distance from each other by 6 feet. Neither of those criteria were met as well.

Picture 50 people, attending a family wedding, all wearing masks and standing 6 feet apart for the entire event. Not going to happen. The Inn, in their statement finally given yesterday, stated that there were multiple signs posted at the Inn stating the requirement that masks must be worn and that all employees were wearing masks.
 
timo2 said:
It's not that much different than suing a bar for over-serving someone who later gets in a crash.
Click to expand...
Those lawsuits are usually covered by specific dram shop laws, not general tort law.
 
Gumby said:
Those lawsuits are usually covered by specific dram shop laws, not general tort law.
Click to expand...

the trace back would be similar though? Where was the individual, who were they with, and how did the get the virus (or alcoholic beverage). Wouldn't a dram law just be a subset of the possible legal tools available, and would not preclude a lawsuit otherwise?
 
Dram shop laws make it easier for a person injured by a drunk driver to sue the alcohol seller. One thing they do is establish a duty not to sell alcohol to already drunk people. Otherwise, if you are the injured party and weren't at the bar or didn't deal with the seller, the defense will be able to claim that there was no duty to you and therefore no breach. Second, they remove the defense of supervening bad acts by a third party (i.e. - the drunk driver).

I'm not saying your legal theory would never work, just that it is more difficult than you think and the dram shop liability lawsuits are no particular help. If you are someone who was infected by a party attendee, it will be difficult to prove that the Inn had a duty to you, someone who wasn't there. It will also be difficult to prove that your illness was proximately caused by their negligence. You'll also have to deal with potential supervening bad acts defense because the attendee who infected you did not wear a mask or socially distance. If you were one of the attendees who was infected, you might have a slightly better case, but you would still face a defense of contributory negligence. The people with the best claims would be the employees, because the Inn has a duty to provide a safe workplace and they didn't voluntarily attend a party.

Probably the thing that would get the Inn's attention would be for the state to suspend their various licenses. I'd bet the Maine Attorney General is looking at that issue right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Study on 1 person who infected 32-52 in one meeting
Replies
0
Views
559
Bongleur
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom