EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 520
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4803 Posts
On November 25 2021 07:36 Simberto wrote: I don't understand why we can't all be on board to do our best to fight this fucking pandemic. Just apply the normal distribution to humans and you quickly can see how in a society of howmany million people there are tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of 'bad apples'. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5585 Posts
On November 25 2021 16:49 BlackJack wrote: Yeah, certainly. If there are not enough resources for everyone, e.g. ICU beds, then they should be prioritized to the vaccinated That would be unconstitutional in most of Europe, most likely. Certainly a legal nightmare for any country with universal healthcare. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25506 Posts
On November 25 2021 19:28 RKC wrote: Sending unvaccinated COVID patients at the back of the ICU queue or exempting them from healthcare subsidy for treatment is LESS constitutional than fining and jailing an unvaccinated person who's healthy and COVID-free in Europe? I’m not expert but I’d probably say yes? You would be ultimately denying medical care to people who might badly, badly need it. It’s certainly a rather big no-no in terms of medical ethics anyway. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28675 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44390 Posts
On November 25 2021 19:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: People aren't really arguing for not giving unvaccinated treatment though - just that they should be in the back of the line, the only way they'd be denying anyone medical care is if there aren't enough resources and they need to choose who should be the ones denied medical care. Agreed. It's basically a priority/triage type thing, not that we're looking for a mass genocide of anti-vax people. If we actually wanted the anti-vax people to simply die, then we wouldn't be pushing so hard for them to get vaccinated in the first place and join the rest of society (and the rest of reality) in properly addressing this infectious disease. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/playing-god | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5585 Posts
On November 25 2021 19:28 RKC wrote: Sending unvaccinated COVID patients at the back of the ICU queue or exempting them from healthcare subsidy for treatment is LESS constitutional than fining and jailing an unvaccinated person who's healthy and COVID-free in Europe? Of course. Many European countries have compulsory vaccinations for various diseases. There are also laws for emergency situations like a pandemic that allow for mandatory vaccination. On the other hand, many constitutions guarantee access to healthcare and prohibit discrimination. When it comes to triage, an unvaccinated young person will typically get the ICU bed over an elderly vaccinated person. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25506 Posts
On November 25 2021 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed. It's basically a priority/triage type thing, not that we're looking for a mass genocide of anti-vax people. If we actually wanted the anti-vax people to simply die, then we wouldn't be pushing so hard for them to get vaccinated in the first place and join the rest of society (and the rest of reality) in properly addressing this infectious disease. My understanding of how triage generally works is via a mix of judgement calls on severity of ailment/injury and general vulnerability. Assuming the health service is stretched thin, and looking at comparative hospitalisation and death rates across vaccinated/non-vaccinated folks, it would seem an inversion of that as they’re more likely to be/get more sick by virtue of not being vaccinated if there is some kind of queueing system. In a crude sense you’d be sending those who, were it any other condition would likely be at the front of the queue, to the back. It’s also an additional layer of triage admin, which assuming services are very stretched may just stretch them further still and affect care delivery across the board. In this particular hypothetical I’m assuming a state of real overload. Can’t we just clobber up some funds and populate the utopian Mohdoo IslandTM? Aside from the holiday of a lifetime, I’m more in favour of via carrots and sticks getting as many folks to vaccinate as possible, I think attempting to make a two-tiered hospital system across vaccination status lines could get really messy, even in just a practical implementation sense. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21717 Posts
On November 25 2021 19:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: No, denying them Covid care entirely was the point I was making. Healthcare can't keep working at 110% (or more) constantly. We need their workload to go down, its been almost 2 years of this. Burnout is a more serious issue then ever before.People aren't really arguing for not giving unvaccinated treatment though - just that they should be in the back of the line, the only way they'd be denying anyone medical care is if there aren't enough resources and they need to choose who should be the ones denied medical care. Back of the line doesn't solve the problems of the pressure their chosen stupidity puts on healthcare. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44390 Posts
On November 25 2021 21:24 WombaT wrote: My understanding of how triage generally works is via a mix of judgement calls on severity of ailment/injury and general vulnerability. Assuming the health service is stretched thin, and looking at comparative hospitalisation and death rates across vaccinated/non-vaccinated folks, it would seem an inversion of that as they’re more likely to be/get more sick by virtue of not being vaccinated if there is some kind of queueing system. In a crude sense you’d be sending those who, were it any other condition would likely be at the front of the queue, to the back. It’s also an additional layer of triage admin, which assuming services are very stretched may just stretch them further still and affect care delivery across the board. In this particular hypothetical I’m assuming a state of real overload. Can’t we just clobber up some funds and populate the utopian Mohdoo IslandTM? Aside from the holiday of a lifetime, I’m more in favour of via carrots and sticks getting as many folks to vaccinate as possible, I think attempting to make a two-tiered hospital system across vaccination status lines could get really messy, even in just a practical implementation sense. When I'm referring to the prioritization, I'm referring to "If we have limited resources and we can only give a treatment to one of two people, do we give it to the person who tried to be safe and will likely continue taking medical advice seriously after the treatment, or do we give it to the person who went out of their way to put themselves in this situation, ignores medical advice, and will likely do the same thing again (which would require even more treatment)?" When it comes down to those two individuals, I'm not about to reward the latter, and I don't think we ought to. That's a great example of how they simply should have to deal with the consequences of their own ignorance, and it's only relevant when hospitals are overburdened and have to make these extreme decisions. I wish that medical treatments for anti-vaxxers who are covid-positive included a mandatory vaccination, but given that an immediate vaccination would be pretty redundant, I think it'd be hard to enforce making sure that these anti-vaxxers return in a few months to get vaccinated for real. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18012 Posts
On November 25 2021 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: No, denying them Covid care entirely was the point I was making. Healthcare can't keep working at 110% (or more) constantly. We need their workload to go down, its been almost 2 years of this. Burnout is a more serious issue then ever before. Back of the line doesn't solve the problems of the pressure their chosen stupidity puts on healthcare. Why stop at Covid tho. Can't we just stop giving smokers care for lung/throat problems? And obese people care for diabetes? Because burnout in medical personnel is a more serious issue than ever before. Why are you singling out unvaccinated over any other self-inflicted harm? If smoking isn't clear enough, maybe stick with people who drink themselves into a coma, or overdose on any other drug, blow off their hands with fireworks, or injure themselves doing something entirely avoidable (e.g. skiing)? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18012 Posts
On November 25 2021 22:56 JimmiC wrote: We do charge those people more, smoking and booze has its increased taxes and now sugar is starting to get it more, here in Canada we have a province with a sugar tax and others are proposing their own. Higher risks sports are tougher because they tend to have health benefits as well, but in private medical insurance (and life) you do have to pay more if participate in those type of things. Often a policy will be written with an "exclusion" so your policy will cover you for anything but accidents that happen in that activity. But you're arguing for something other than Gorsameth is. Gor is making the rather radical argument that they should be denied service entirely to save the medical personnel from burnout. Charging antivaxxers more doesn't help against burnout (at least not in the short term, which is when it's needed). This rather radical approach is not dissimilar to Mohdoo rafts (tm) where I presume they would be denied medical service just as effectively. Mohdoo rafts are unethical for any number of reasons, but I would like to focus specifically on why antivaxxers get chucked on a raft (or in Gor's slightly less radical proposal, denied healthcare) and people who otherwise choose to endanger their lives "merely" have to pay for that in taxes? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21717 Posts
On November 25 2021 22:25 Acrofales wrote: Because all those other things don't cause nations to go into lockdown. Why stop at Covid tho. Can't we just stop giving smokers care for lung/throat problems? And obese people care for diabetes? Because burnout in medical personnel is a more serious issue than ever before. Why are you singling out unvaccinated over any other self-inflicted harm? If smoking isn't clear enough, maybe stick with people who drink themselves into a coma, or overdose on any other drug, blow off their hands with fireworks, or injure themselves doing something entirely avoidable (e.g. skiing)? Obese people don't cause me to have to keep wearing a mask when leaving the house. Smokers don't close down bars, restaurants and concerts, skiers don't make me worry about the safety of my vulnerable parents. And yes I understand its unethical, immoral and extreme but its extremely frustrating to see my country slide towards another apparently inevitable long lockdown and act like there is nothing we can do about it because we can't possibly hurt the feeling of the poor unvaccinated morons so lets fuck everyone 100x as hard compared to just jabbing a needle in them. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25506 Posts
On November 25 2021 21:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: When I'm referring to the prioritization, I'm referring to "If we have limited resources and we can only give a treatment to one of two people, do we give it to the person who tried to be safe and will likely continue taking medical advice seriously after the treatment, or do we give it to the person who went out of their way to put themselves in this situation, ignores medical advice, and will likely do the same thing again (which would require even more treatment)?" When it comes down to those two individuals, I'm not about to reward the latter, and I don't think we ought to. That's a great example of how they simply should have to deal with the consequences of their own ignorance, and it's only relevant when hospitals are overburdened and have to make these extreme decisions. I wish that medical treatments for anti-vaxxers who are covid-positive included a mandatory vaccination, but given that an immediate vaccination would be pretty redundant, I think it'd be hard to enforce making sure that these anti-vaxxers return in a few months to get vaccinated for real. Assuming individual’s x and y are equally sick, then perhaps yes. I would presume in a hospitalisation scenario, an average unvaccinated individual is more likely to either be sicker, or more likely to become sicker than a vaccinated one. I am, I must stress assuming this is the case extrapolating from other tidbits, I do not know if it is or not. So either you’re treating less severe cases first, or alternatively adding another weighting to traditional triage that adds admin. How severe must an unvaccinated person’s condition be vs a vaccinated one that they get treated first etc. The whole thing is aggravating as all fuck, I understand the desire to put in mechanisms where those who don’t vaccinate face some consequences, but trying to build a perfect system that accounts for all this and is fair can end up with an unwieldy end result that is less fair than the previous state of affairs. In addition to other issues I’d have, my primary is a purely pragmatic and administrative one. Aside from anything else, the population isn’t demarcated into responsible and irresponsible purely on vaccine status, plenty of the vaccinated flouted all sorts of sensible behaviour prior to getting the jab, and went back right to doing so. Is someone who’s been travelling partying all over the 7 kingdoms being more or less responsible than someone who’s terrified of both Covid and the vaccine and has been mostly isolating? One’s personal (likely) responsibility for the Covid pandemic isn’t simply a matter of getting vaccinated or not, I think there’s a tendency to increasingly view it in such terms. Don’t mistake my quibbling for not also sharing concerns over the impacts of folks not vaccinating, and especially the extremely dubious rationales many have for not doing so. There are some doors I’d rather not be opened, for both pragmatic and moral reasons. As others have mentioned, those who haven’t vaccinated aren’t exactly the only folks who are culpable in bad health outcomes. As Gorsmaeth said, doing this would punish folks for contributing to overloading hospitals, it wouldn’t stop them from overloading hospitals. Given some people are still genuine Covid skeptics, somehow, the threat of being de-prioritised for treatment of a disease they don’t think isn’t much of a stick to drive them to vaccination. Likewise the existing anti-authority/government types are probably going to be hardened yet further in their stance. Furthermore people’s risk assessment is awful and most probably think they’ll skate getting Covid anyway no matter what they do, so again they’re not thinking about treatment down the line. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21717 Posts
On November 25 2021 23:39 WombaT wrote:Given some people are still genuine Covid skeptics, somehow, the threat of being de-prioritised for treatment of a disease they don’t think isn’t much of a stick to drive them to vaccination. Exactly, I highly doubt the people who refuse to get vaccines (again, not those who can't get them for medical conditions) are actually worried about landing in the hospital, so punishing them there doesn't change their behaviour.Likewise the existing anti-authority/government types are probably going to be hardened yet further in their stance. Furthermore people’s risk assessment is awful and most probably think they’ll skate getting Covid anyway no matter what they do, so again they’re not thinking about treatment down the line. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25506 Posts
On November 23 2021 22:20 Acrofales wrote: Bit of a tangent here, but where on your travel insurance application do you have to mention you're bipolar. I don't think I've ever seen a field with "previous conditions", let alone one that they condition your quota on, and I travel a fair bit. Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked worldnomads.com, an insurer I often used, and they definitely didn't ask about preexisting conditions before the payment page. I was not a routine traveler anyway, then I got sick for quite some time. Then Covid came in, so I’m referring to the one time I did in that gap for a family holiday. You’re talking quite some time ago, and I probably didn’t do as much looking around as I could have. So whether I just got particularly unlucky where I enquired, or there’s been some change there, which would be cool. Don’t want to be spreading total bullshit, and it could have just been a particular insurer’s policy that I assumed was industry-wide etc. | ||
| ||
