A woman in Austria has been 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 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.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    1353·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • Drusas@fedia.io
        10·
        2 months 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.

      • RedWeasel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        2 months ago

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

        • The_v@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          2 months 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.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeEnglish
        221·
        2 months ago

        Welcome to a world without medical privacy.

        In the USA this wouldn’t happen because we have HIPAA.

        We also used to have Roe v. Wade…

  • anubis119@lemmy.worldEnglish
    364·
    2 months ago

    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@lemmy.worldEnglish
      541·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      321·
      2 months ago

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

  • ulterno@lemmy.kde.socialEnglish
    365·
    2 months ago

    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@lemmy.worldEnglish
      29·
      2 months ago

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

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

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

    • ms.lane@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      2 months ago

      Seems there are no real repercussions at all.

      800 euro and 4 weeks at home?

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 months 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.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
    32·
    2 months ago

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

    Edit: Oh, “infecting”…

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Ah yes, that leftist rag the Associated Press. Why is this propaganda bot allowed still?