THE COVID'S ADVOCATE

Tweet

When I first heard that Trump was privately questioning the broadly agreed upon count of US coronavirus deaths, now quickly approaching a hundred thousand, saying that number was exaggerated, and they were really much lower. I wondered "How does that work in his mind?"

Surely, he wasn't doubting that thousands of Americans, roughly 85,000 (roughly indeed!) as I write this, that rang in the New Year with the rest of us, are now in body-bags, or coffins, after having tested positive for coronavirus, or having shown every sign of having succumb to COVID-19. Even I will agree that there is plenty of Fake News to be found, but surely, he doesn't think these people are faking their deaths? He must have another angle.

Then I remembered some commentary I heard on Fox News that argued that it was unfair to blame coronavirus for all these deaths because often there were contributing factors, or comorbidities involved, and knowing where Trump gets his Fake News, I thought: That must be where his mind is going!

When we hit that hundred thousand mark, is it really fair to say coronavirus has killed a hundred-thousand Americans? After all, most of those people were old and used up. You wouldn't get much for them in a wrongful death lawsuit. “Loss of Future Income? Give me a break! They're costing you money. You should pay me,” says the COVID's advocate.

It's like if you were apportioning blame or damages in a wrongful death lawsuit, in which Coronavirus, Diabetes, and Hypertension were all involved. You wouldn't say all damages should be paid only by Coronavirus, while letting the other parties get off Scot-free. That wouldn't be fair! That's how Trump, the businessman, would look at it. So, probably he is thinking that of that hundred thousand, coronavirus bears only a part of the blame, but is given all of it. Is that how he is arriving at a lower number?

Trump is threatening to sue China for coronavirus damages, whereas they are just another party damaged by the virus. That's stupid. That led me to thinking about how I would attempt to defend coronavirus is such a lawsuit, if I was the COVID's advocate.

It would be the height of folly to attempt to avoid paying any damages, given the mounting empirical evidence and death toll, but I think I could limit the damage to my client by arguing along these lines:

It's true that my client has amassed a small fortune through genome patents, name usage rights, and other deals with Big Pharma, and it would like to do the right thing. In settlement, COVID is willing to pay damages to every country equally, in so far as possible, for the deaths it is responsible for in each country. However, when the United States, despite certain obvious advantages with regards to economy, infrastructure, and health technology, summits a claim for 84,119 deaths, while South Korea summits one for 260 deaths, Norway for 229, South Africa for 219, Panama for 256, Israel for 264, and so on, I must protest, as the COVID's advocate, that this carnage in the US can not entirely, or even mainly, laid at my client's feet.

We recognize the requirement that a party seeking damages has to be able to show that they took such steps as considered reasonable and ordinary to limited the damages. For example, if someone scratched you, causing an open wound on a limb, and you sought no medical treatment, you didn't even apply first-aid, but instead let it fester unattended, until the limb had to be amputated, you can hardly lay that limb at the feet of the person who scratched you.

So, I would argue that if my client, coronavirus, a virus that is novel to all who have not battled it, and so really does treat all people as equals, has been found responsible for say 300,000 deaths worldwide, even with my client taking on board all the claims against other comorbidities that have contributed to COVID deaths worldwide, and the United States is but 5% of the world's population, then, even without taking into account the advanced state of economy, infrastructure, and medical technology in the United States, factors that should have limited the damages there, my client's responsiblity should be limited to that same death rate in the US. So 5% of 300,000, or roughly 15,000. The rest are due to the criminally negligent way “damage mitigation” was handled by the national leadership of the United States. Those deaths were cause because they didn't take my client seriously soon enough. They didn't take the steps to mitigate the damage that were taken in so many other countries. They looked on while the fire was kindling, and didn't call the fire department until half the house had burned down.

My client, COVID will accept responsibility for roughly 15,000 of those 100,000 American lives. For the remainder, perhaps you should sue the Trump Administration.

That's how I would argue the case if I was the COVID's advocate.

Clay Claiborne