|
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. |
On November 25 2021 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2021 22:25 Acrofales wrote:On November 25 2021 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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)? Because all those other things don't cause nations to go into lockdown. 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.
Those are, again, 2 different arguments. Are you trying to reduce the pressure on healthcare officials? Or are you trying to avoid a lockdown? Because denying antivaxxers access to healthcare will (probably) do NOTHING to help avoid a lockdown.
|
On November 25 2021 23:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2021 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 25 2021 22:25 Acrofales wrote:On November 25 2021 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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)? Because all those other things don't cause nations to go into lockdown. 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. Those are, again, 2 different arguments. Are you trying to reduce the pressure on healthcare officials? Or are you trying to avoid a lockdown? Because denying antivaxxers access to healthcare will (probably) do NOTHING to help avoid a lockdown.
The obvious difference between obese person and antivaxxer is that obese person cannot pass diabetes to anyone else, while antivaxxer can spread COVID regardless of what he believes.
|
On November 25 2021 23:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2021 21:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2021 21:24 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. 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.
I completely agree with you that this will probably not convince anti-vaxxers to give in and get vaccinated, nor will it address the overloading of hospitals. I think we have pretty good ideas of how to do that, based on polls that tell us what will actually persuade people to get vaccinated (if their jobs mandate it, if it's needed for travel, etc.).
The specific example of extenuating circumstances that I'm referring to is purely used as a method for figuring out which of the two individuals ought to receive treatment, as a tiebreaker, assuming that the two individuals are otherwise reasonably similar physiologically and that they'd require the same medicine and that there's only enough medicine for one of them. Probably very niche, on most days, but we already have plenty of states with past documentation of their hospitals reaching full capacity due to covid outbreaks, so I think it's an interesting, and potentially practical, thought experiment to consider.
I also think that making this decision, compared to the opposite decision (the opposite decision would be saving the anti-vaxxer and not saving the vaccinated person, as this is a literal, hypothetical dichotomy) would be fairer in the grand scheme of things, and it would portray one (of hopefully several) consequences that an anti-vaxxer might end up experiencing. (Other consequences and frustrations might include being limited to where they shop, eat, work, or travel, based on decisions made by business owners or other countries.)
|
On November 25 2021 23:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2021 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 25 2021 22:25 Acrofales wrote:On November 25 2021 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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)? Because all those other things don't cause nations to go into lockdown. 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. Those are, again, 2 different arguments. Are you trying to reduce the pressure on healthcare officials? Or are you trying to avoid a lockdown? Because denying antivaxxers access to healthcare will (probably) do NOTHING to help avoid a lockdown. When lockdowns are used to relieve pressure off of healthcare they are the same argument.
When hospitals are not full of antivaxxers there is no need for a lockdown to stop hospitals from filling up.
|
Vaccinated people can also spread COVID.
Belgium has been putting some serious pressure on getting vaccinated and in Flanders we've reached an 81.27% vaccination rate. 92.74% for 18+ population. We're among the best in Europe with these numbers, and vastly better than Brussels/Wallonia, the other regions in Belgium.
Alas we're also about to go in lockdown, seems like high vaccination numbers don't mean much. 20.000+ new infections each day.
Now all the vaccinated people are about to be vaccinated a 3rd time. I wonder where it will end?
I myself am vaccinated and don't mind getting my booster shot, I'm just skeptical of politicians pointing fingers at unvaccinated people, the data we have does not show that all our problems are due to unvaccinated ppl imo.
If more countries like Austria start mandating a vaccine, they'll soon no longer be able to use the unvaccinated population as a scapegoat for the worsening COVID situation, I wonder who/what they will target next.
|
On November 26 2021 00:11 Laurens wrote:
Vaccinated people can also spread COVID.
Belgium has been putting some serious pressure on getting vaccinated and in Flanders we've reached an 81.27% vaccination rate. 92.74% for 18+ population. We're among the best in Europe with these numbers, and vastly better than Brussels/Wallonia, the other regions in Belgium.
Alas we're also about to go in lockdown, seems like high vaccination numbers don't mean much. 20.000+ new infections each day.
Now all the vaccinated people are about to be vaccinated a 3rd time. I wonder where it will end?
I myself am vaccinated and don't mind getting my booster shot, I'm just skeptical of politicians pointing fingers at unvaccinated people, the data we have does not show that all our problems are due to unvaccinated ppl imo.
If more countries like Austria start mandating a vaccine, they'll soon no longer be able to use the unvaccinated population as a scapegoat for the worsening COVID situation, I wonder who/what they will target next. what is the hospital situation like tho? because just infections isn't that big of an issue if a low enough % of them lands in the hospital.
|
|
|
On November 26 2021 00:11 Laurens wrote:
Vaccinated people can also spread COVID.
Has anyone on TL suggested otherwise? I haven't seen anyone here assert that vaccinated people cannot possibly spread covid.
If more countries like Austria start mandating a vaccine, they'll soon no longer be able to use the unvaccinated population as a scapegoat for the worsening COVID situation, I wonder who/what they will target next.
Hold on there, scapegoat? We had months of documented evidence suggesting that the early strains of covid were a lot less infectious if you're vaccinated, and that unvaccinated people were the ones perpetuating the pandemic and enabling the virus to get stronger and create new strains (e.g., delta). They're being correctly blamed, as are any politicians or figureheads or newspeople or celebrities who didn't take covid seriously and convinced their followers to not take it seriously either.
|
On November 26 2021 00:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2021 00:11 Laurens wrote:
Vaccinated people can also spread COVID. Has anyone on TL suggested otherwise? I haven't seen anyone here assert that vaccinated people cannot possibly spread covid.
It was in response to this post from Silvanel, but the thread moved a bit while I was typing:
The obvious difference between obese person and antivaxxer is that obese person cannot pass diabetes to anyone else, while antivaxxer can spread COVID regardless of what he believes.
|
On November 26 2021 00:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2021 00:11 Laurens wrote:
Vaccinated people can also spread COVID.
Belgium has been putting some serious pressure on getting vaccinated and in Flanders we've reached an 81.27% vaccination rate. 92.74% for 18+ population. We're among the best in Europe with these numbers, and vastly better than Brussels/Wallonia, the other regions in Belgium.
Alas we're also about to go in lockdown, seems like high vaccination numbers don't mean much. 20.000+ new infections each day.
Now all the vaccinated people are about to be vaccinated a 3rd time. I wonder where it will end?
I myself am vaccinated and don't mind getting my booster shot, I'm just skeptical of politicians pointing fingers at unvaccinated people, the data we have does not show that all our problems are due to unvaccinated ppl imo.
If more countries like Austria start mandating a vaccine, they'll soon no longer be able to use the unvaccinated population as a scapegoat for the worsening COVID situation, I wonder who/what they will target next. what is the hospital situation like tho? because just infections isn't that big of an issue if a low enough % of them lands in the hospital.
Across the entire country it's 33/66 at ages 85+ (vaccinated/non-vaccinated) and 16/84 for ages 18-65.
Not the best sample size but vaccination clearly helps achieve less hospitalization, that much is true.
|
They can, but as the study posted in this thread recently showed, vaccinated people stay contagious shorter and are less likely to be infected in the first place.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27089 Posts
On November 26 2021 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2021 23:39 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 21:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2021 21:24 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. 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. I completely agree with you that this will probably not convince anti-vaxxers to give in and get vaccinated, nor will it address the overloading of hospitals. I think we have pretty good ideas of how to do that, based on polls that tell us what will actually persuade people to get vaccinated (if their jobs mandate it, if it's needed for travel, etc.). The specific example of extenuating circumstances that I'm referring to is purely used as a method for figuring out which of the two individuals ought to receive treatment, as a tiebreaker, assuming that the two individuals are otherwise reasonably similar physiologically and that they'd require the same medicine and that there's only enough medicine for one of them. Probably very niche, on most days, but we already have plenty of states with past documentation of their hospitals reaching full capacity due to covid outbreaks, so I think it's an interesting, and potentially practical, thought experiment to consider. I also think that making this decision, compared to the opposite decision (the opposite decision would be saving the anti-vaxxer and not saving the vaccinated person, as this is a literal, hypothetical dichotomy) would be fairer in the grand scheme of things, and it would portray one (of hopefully several) consequences that an anti-vaxxer might end up experiencing. (Other consequences and frustrations might include being limited to where they shop, eat, work, or travel, based on decisions made by business owners or other countries.)
In the case of a legitimate tie-break yes, I do agree, that would seem prudent.
But ascertaining and weighting things gets more complex unless one restricts it purely to that. The more severe unvaccinated case vs the slightly less severe unvaccinated case, what then? And if there is that weighting what is the differential threshold of severity where unvaccinated gets prioritised despite being less responsible.
If the only application of it is in absolute tiebreakers, that scenario is probably not hugely common, but yeah you could institute it. If the scope goes anything beyond that, I think you run into problems.
|
Norway28842 Posts
On November 25 2021 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2021 22:25 Acrofales wrote:On November 25 2021 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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)? Because all those other things don't cause nations to go into lockdown. 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.
Obesity is a pretty major factor in how likely people are to get hospitalized from a covid-infection. I'm honestly guessing that if you set the BMI high enough, the likelihood of hospitalization might be comparable to whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated. (While I'm not able to find a graph)
Anyway, if you take two people of similar age groups, give one person a bmi of 22 and the other one of 42, have the 42 bmi guy be vaccinated and the 22 bmi guy be unvaccinated, and I'm pretty certain the 42 bmi guy is on average gonna be a bigger burden on your health care system. Perhaps not for covid specifically, but definitely if you take everything into consideration.
I mean, it's technically easier to get vaccinated than it is to lose 60 kg of excess body weight, but that probably depends on to what degree you've fallen into one of those parallel information universes (which I'm not really sure you can blame on people). Anti-vaxxers come in different breeds, some are like 'I just figured the disease wasn't that bad and that I could ride it out if I got it', some are 'this vaccine is part of a plot to mentally control the population and turn us all into sheeple'. The former I'm sure you can reach with fear and coercion, the latter will only be more certain about the nefariousness. It's your prerogative to say fuck those people, I guess, but myself, I think they're people all the same and deserving of just the same love and compassion and care as other people are.
|
On November 26 2021 00:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2021 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2021 23:39 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 21:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2021 21:24 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. 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. I completely agree with you that this will probably not convince anti-vaxxers to give in and get vaccinated, nor will it address the overloading of hospitals. I think we have pretty good ideas of how to do that, based on polls that tell us what will actually persuade people to get vaccinated (if their jobs mandate it, if it's needed for travel, etc.). The specific example of extenuating circumstances that I'm referring to is purely used as a method for figuring out which of the two individuals ought to receive treatment, as a tiebreaker, assuming that the two individuals are otherwise reasonably similar physiologically and that they'd require the same medicine and that there's only enough medicine for one of them. Probably very niche, on most days, but we already have plenty of states with past documentation of their hospitals reaching full capacity due to covid outbreaks, so I think it's an interesting, and potentially practical, thought experiment to consider. I also think that making this decision, compared to the opposite decision (the opposite decision would be saving the anti-vaxxer and not saving the vaccinated person, as this is a literal, hypothetical dichotomy) would be fairer in the grand scheme of things, and it would portray one (of hopefully several) consequences that an anti-vaxxer might end up experiencing. (Other consequences and frustrations might include being limited to where they shop, eat, work, or travel, based on decisions made by business owners or other countries.) In the case of a legitimate tie-break yes, I do agree, that would seem prudent. But ascertaining and weighting things gets more complex unless one restricts it purely to that. The more severe unvaccinated case vs the slightly less severe unvaccinated case, what then? And if there is that weighting what is the differential threshold of severity where unvaccinated gets prioritised despite being less responsible. If the only application of it is in absolute tiebreakers, that scenario is probably not hugely common, but yeah you could institute it. If the scope goes anything beyond that, I think you run into problems.
It certainly can become more debatable if we introduce additional variables and nuances, sure. You asked "The more severe unvaccinated case vs the slightly less severe unvaccinated case, what then?" Does that mean we're changing the comparison from *the vaccinated person and unvaccinated person both have equally mild/medium symptoms* to *the vaccinated person has mild/medium symptoms but the unvaccinated person has severe/devastating symptoms that are way worse*? That modification might not be an appropriate one to make in the first place, as I'd imagine someone with much worse symptoms would need much more treatment than someone with mild symptoms, so the premise that equal medicine would work for either person might end up being rejected in this case. But assuming that we're talking about one magic healing pill left, to either restore a vaccinated person with mild/medium symptoms or an unvaccinated person with severe symptoms, and assuming that there's no alternative treatment for either person (i.e., the vaccinated person doesn't have access to a back-up treatment), then I'd probably still lean towards helping the vaccinated person with milder symptoms.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27089 Posts
On November 26 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2021 00:34 WombaT wrote:On November 26 2021 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2021 23:39 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 21:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 25 2021 21:24 WombaT wrote:On November 25 2021 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. 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. I completely agree with you that this will probably not convince anti-vaxxers to give in and get vaccinated, nor will it address the overloading of hospitals. I think we have pretty good ideas of how to do that, based on polls that tell us what will actually persuade people to get vaccinated (if their jobs mandate it, if it's needed for travel, etc.). The specific example of extenuating circumstances that I'm referring to is purely used as a method for figuring out which of the two individuals ought to receive treatment, as a tiebreaker, assuming that the two individuals are otherwise reasonably similar physiologically and that they'd require the same medicine and that there's only enough medicine for one of them. Probably very niche, on most days, but we already have plenty of states with past documentation of their hospitals reaching full capacity due to covid outbreaks, so I think it's an interesting, and potentially practical, thought experiment to consider. I also think that making this decision, compared to the opposite decision (the opposite decision would be saving the anti-vaxxer and not saving the vaccinated person, as this is a literal, hypothetical dichotomy) would be fairer in the grand scheme of things, and it would portray one (of hopefully several) consequences that an anti-vaxxer might end up experiencing. (Other consequences and frustrations might include being limited to where they shop, eat, work, or travel, based on decisions made by business owners or other countries.) In the case of a legitimate tie-break yes, I do agree, that would seem prudent. But ascertaining and weighting things gets more complex unless one restricts it purely to that. The more severe unvaccinated case vs the slightly less severe unvaccinated case, what then? And if there is that weighting what is the differential threshold of severity where unvaccinated gets prioritised despite being less responsible. If the only application of it is in absolute tiebreakers, that scenario is probably not hugely common, but yeah you could institute it. If the scope goes anything beyond that, I think you run into problems. It certainly can become more debatable if we introduce additional variables and nuances, sure. You asked "The more severe unvaccinated case vs the slightly less severe unvaccinated case, what then?" Does that mean we're changing the comparison from *the vaccinated person and unvaccinated person both have equally mild/medium symptoms* to *the vaccinated person has mild/medium symptoms but the unvaccinated person has severe/devastating symptoms that are way worse*? That modification might not be an appropriate one to make in the first place, as I'd imagine someone with much worse symptoms would need much more treatment than someone with mild symptoms, so the premise that equal medicine would work for either person might end up being rejected in this case. But assuming that we're talking about one magic healing pill left, to either restore a vaccinated person with mild/medium symptoms or an unvaccinated person with severe symptoms, and assuming that there's no alternative treatment for either person (i.e., the vaccinated person doesn't have access to a back-up treatment), then I'd probably still lean towards helping the vaccinated person with milder symptoms.
Well, I wouldn’t be seeking to change the rough terms of the hypothesis, more how that transmutes to practical application.
Medical staff either have to accurately ascertain tiebreak cases, or in the absence of direct equivalence, then add vaccination status as an additional weighting in terms of triage.
Which, in the relevant scenario of unvaccinated people having knock-on effects, I.e overloading of hospitals that would potentially necessitate such measures, staff are overloaded as it is so having to triage in this manner is adding additional complexity and workload and ultimately making delivering care harder.
If that makes sense
|
This is quite worrying news. Very little known so far, but what little there is is bad. Let's hope it's not as bad as it sounds, and that vaccines are just as effective as against at least delta:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/25/scientists-call-for-travel-code-red-over-covid-variant-found-in-southern-africa
The variant, which was only identified on Tuesday, initially sparked concern because it carries an “extremely high number” of mutations that could allow it to evade immunity. The latest data, presented by South African scientists on Thursday, revealed the variant also appears to be more transmissible and is already present in provinces throughout the country.
|
Didn’t South Africa already have a variant that allowed for reinfection and had vaccine resistance?
If that becomes deadlier or more transmissible, that could be a problem. Maybe we’ll all have to get another, another booster dose.
|
I think every variant can be caught more than once. Delta is so prevalent, that it surpasses every other variant most places. Just ask JimmyC, maybe he knows which strains his brother (?) has caught already? Was it three times he's gotten the virus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
