OT: Coronavirus 4 - or is that thread 2.75?

[Svechhammer]

Imagine how far gone you have to be to think that literally drinking your own piss is preferable to getting a f***ing free shot that has proven to work.

At the end of this whole thing, the one thing I've learned is that the anti-vax movement is seriously dangerous to society and should be treated as such, going so far as to label it a terrorist group, and to hold everyone actively promoting its beliefs accountable for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths. I'd even support them being charged on international crimes against humanity.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

There's always been an anti-vax movement, and unsurprisingly, the reasoning behind it hasn't changed much. There was a lot of resistance to the smallpox vaccine in England back in the early 1800s

Reasons included:

- It was "unchristian" to take the vaccine, because it came from an animal.
- They didn't trust Edward Jenner and felt he was wrong about how the disease spread
- They felt the vaccine violated their personal freedom, especially after the government mandated taking the vaccine.

And here we are, 200 years later, with the same movement using the same basic arguments against the vaccine.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Bodily autonomy is a real argument. I believe people absolutely have the right to decide what goes into their bodies.

The right not to be exposed to a deadly disease is an equally real argument. I believe people absolutely have the right to know if they're being exposed to deadly diseases.

These rights can conflict with one another in all kinds of interesting ways, we know now.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Also the effectiveness of the vaccine at any given point in time changes this math immensely.

You don’t have to be anti-vax (only capable of basic reason) to realize that the bodily autonomy argument becomes stronger the weaker the vaccine gets. Somewhere in the broad range between not taking your multivitamin (which does weakly help you not catch diseases) and not taking a 100%-effective vaccine is where society has drawn a line on when people are allowed to get mad at you for not putting stuff into your body. Over the last 6 months we’ve watched the vaccine go from 99% effective to “30% effective if you take a booster but you’ll probably get sick anyway but your cough won’t be as bad” or whatever. That, to me, changes the math on the whole mindset.

If we are truly moving toward seasonality with this thing, then we are essentially moving towards flu shot territory, which has never had this level of stigma surrounding it from either side, partly because it’s never been especially effective (I’ve never been morally against it, but I’ve only gotten it twice in my life and no medical care or public access has ever been denied to me the other 25+ years). It’s probably where both sides need to get to, one side needs to stop saying it’ll kill you, and the other side probably at some point soon needs to stop denying basic amenities and care for not getting it.

(Also, in most cases politically nowadays, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I would guess much of the highly publicized lies about all the bad stuff it does to you would be tempered if the highly publicized push for 100% compliance under penalty of denial of inclusion in society was tempered. Of course, neither side will give in first, so we’ll just wait for this to peter out, which it will… eventually.)

 

[Bub]

Also the effectiveness of the vaccine at any given point in time changes this math immensely.

You don’t have to be anti-vax (only capable of basic reason) to realize that the bodily autonomy argument becomes stronger the weaker the vaccine gets. Somewhere in the broad range between not taking your multivitamin (which does weakly help you not catch diseases) and not taking a 100%-effective vaccine is where society has drawn a line on when people are allowed to get mad at you for not putting stuff into your body. Over the last 6 months we’ve watched the vaccine go from 99% effective to “30% effective if you take a booster but you’ll probably get sick anyway but your cough won’t be as bad” or whatever. That, to me, changes the math on the whole mindset.

If we are truly moving toward seasonality with this thing, then we are essentially moving towards flu shot territory, which has never had this level of stigma surrounding it from either side, partly because it’s never been especially effective (I’ve never been morally against it, but I’ve only gotten it twice in my life and no medical care or public access has ever been denied to me the other 25+ years). It’s probably where both sides need to get to, one side needs to stop saying it’ll kill you, and the other side probably at some point soon needs to stop denying basic amenities and care for not getting it.

(Also, in most cases politically nowadays, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I would guess much of the highly publicized lies about all the bad stuff it does to you would be tempered if the highly publicized push for 100% compliance under penalty of denial of inclusion in society was tempered. Of course, neither side will give in first, so we’ll just wait for this to peter out, which it will… eventually.)

It's been equally disturbing and eye-opening to see people I thought were reasonable go from "herd immunity is what we need" to "100% compliance or no health care for you." If you've decided that the unvaccinated should get society's cold shoulder, then you're as guilty of irrationality as the urine-drinkers.

(NB: I'm not pointing at you, AD, as I agree with your post here.)

 

[Navin R Slavin]

It’s probably where both sides need to get to, one side needs to stop saying it’ll kill you, and the other side probably at some point soon needs to stop denying basic amenities and care for not getting it.

The issue is that, until COVID-19 actually does peak, the unvaccinated people getting hospitalized in large numbers are essentially causing a denial of service to the vaccinated who are, by and large, not being hospitalized for it.

It's reasonable to ask whether those who are disproportionately taking up services should pay some kind of premium for that, especially since it's the result of a choice. Some say "you can't get the government to pay for your abortion treatment" -- if that is fair, then the argument "you can't get the government to pay for your COVID treatment if you choose not to be vaccinated" is similarly fair. Or perhaps neither argument is fair.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

The issue is that, until COVID-19 actually does peak, the unvaccinated people getting hospitalized in large numbers are essentially causing a denial of service to the vaccinated who are, by and large, not being hospitalized for it.

It's reasonable to ask whether those who are disproportionately taking up services should pay some kind of premium for that, especially since it's the result of a choice. Some say "you can't get the government to pay for your abortion treatment" -- if that is fair, then the argument "you can't get the government to pay for your COVID treatment if you choose not to be vaccinated" is similarly fair. Or perhaps neither argument is fair.

You can reduce this line of reasoning to the absurd, though. It really depends on your definition of a choice, and then how closely the choice is tied to the actual illness at hand. Very few are purposely catching Covid regardless of their vaccination status, so it's influenced indirectly by a choice, rather than directly. People who weigh 500 lbs are not denied medical care due to their lifestyle choices, even though in many cases those lifestyle choices directly contribute to a medical condition. People who overdose are not denied medical care even though their ailments are probably more directly the cause of a choice than anyone's. Once we start talking about who's "worthy" of medical care we open a big can of worms that includes a lot of scenarios in which none of us want to see medical care denied.

 

[MinJaBen]

You can reduce this line of reasoning to the absurd, though. It really depends on your definition of a choice, and then how closely the choice is tied to the actual illness at hand. Very few are purposely catching Covid regardless of their vaccination status, so it's influence indirectly by a choice, rather than directly. People who weigh 500 lbs are not denied medical care due to their lifestyle choices, even though in many cases those lifestyle choices directly contribute to a medical condition. People who overdose are not denied medical care even though their ailments are probably more directly the cause of a choice than anyone's. Once we start talking about who's "worthy" of medical care we open a big can of worms that includes a lot of scenarios in which none of us want to see medical care denied.

Your examples are problematic. Someone 500 pounds is not overweight just because of lifestyle, and someone who overdosed probably has an addiction disorder. I’m fine treating the COVID vaccine deniers if we all admit they have an addiction to ignorance.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Your examples are problematic. Someone 500 pounds is not overweight just because of lifestyle, and someone who overdosed probably has an addiction disorder. I’m fine treating the COVID vaccine deniers if we all admit they have an addiction to ignorance.

People with addiction disorders usually get there by a series of choices, people who are obese almost always do the same. In both cases, the choices preceded the "disorder". Same with Covid - the choice not to get vaccinated precedes the high-risk "precondition" of not having antibodies.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

being overweight and drug addiction are not contagious respiratory viruses

 

[Sens1Canes2]

We treat, and try to save the lives of, people who murder, rape, steal, etc. We don’t deny medical treatment to the other side in war, for goodness sake. We try to save their lives. Maybe try to tamp down the indignation on the “unvaccinated,” just a little.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

being overweight and drug addiction are not contagious respiratory viruses

Very true, and while this probably doesn't affect the question of whether people should be medically treated, it does bring me back to my original point, which is that the calculus of all of this changes with the effectiveness of the vaccine in question.

If the vaccine 100% works - those vaccinated are completely fine and not in danger, and those not vaccinated are no longer contagious to anyone but their own unvaccinated cohort.

If the vaccine is 0% effective - we are all in the same boat and there's no real reason to differentiate between the 2 groups, medically speaking.

Then there's a big gray area in the middle about where you're allowed to get mad at people for not taking the vaccine, and it all depends on effectiveness. I brought up the flu shot because that's one of the previous cases we have of our response in behavior towards a "semi-effective" vaccine before Covid came around. When the vaccine was actually more likely to completely prevent the disease, harsh measures for not taking it had more of a leg to stand on. Now that you're pretty much going to get it regardless of your vaccination status, and if you're vaccinated it'll be better and if you're not it'll be worse... that's a different question, is it not?

 

[MinJaBen]

We treat, and try to save the lives of, people who murder, rape, steal, etc. We don’t deny medical treatment to the other side in war, for goodness sake. We try to save their lives. Maybe try to tamp down the indignation on the “unvaccinated,” just a little.

No, but it is rationed. They certainly don't get treatment at the expense of a US service member.

 

[MinJaBen]

Very true, and while this probably doesn't affect the question of whether people should be medically treated, it does bring me back to my original point, which is that the calculus of all of this changes with the effectiveness of the vaccine in question.

If the vaccine 100% works - those vaccinated are completely fine and not in danger, and those not vaccinated are no longer contagious to anyone but their own unvaccinated cohort.

If the vaccine is 0% effective - we are all in the same boat and there's no real reason to differentiate between the 2 groups, medically speaking.

Then there's a big gray area in the middle about where you're allowed to get mad at people for not taking the vaccine, and it all depends on effectiveness. I brought up the flu shot because that's one of the previous cases we have of our response in behavior towards a "semi-effective" vaccine before Covid came around. When the vaccine was actually more likely to completely prevent the disease, harsh measures for not taking it had more of a leg to stand on. Now that you're pretty much going to get it regardless of your vaccination status, and if you're vaccinated it'll be better and if you're not it'll be worse... that's a different question, is it not?

That statement is false. When the unvaccinated take up all the beds in an ICU, causing a person with a stroke to be denied access to the care they need, they are "contagious" to people outside their cohort. There are not an infinite number of beds or providers. If there were, your argument would make sense.

 

[Svechhammer]

Being unvaccinated right now for those eligible is the result of a singular choice and can be resolved without cost in the matter of seconds. Being 500lbs is not the result of a singular choice and while it can be resolved without cost, it will take years to accomplish. Being a drug addict is not the result of a singular choice and is almost impossible to cure without costly rehab.

I am so tired of people using actual illnesses to excuse their decision to not fulfill their part of the social contract.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

That statement is false. When the unvaccinated take up all the beds in an ICU, causing a person with a stroke to be denied access to the care they need, they are "contagious" to people outside their cohort. There are not an infinite number of beds or providers. If there were, your argument would make sense.

Very true, which then directs me back yet again to the argument that you didn't like about obesity or drug use. How do we "rank" people's ailments when some choice in the past has directly or indirectly affected their status? Someone gets a stroke because they've been imprudently working themselves too hard and putting themselves under too much stress at work, someone has a heart attack because they do not exercise and eat fast food 14 times per week, someone overdoses and needs immediate medical care, someone who intentionally attempts suicide, someone who gets "hospitalizable" Covid which could have been prevented or lessened by a vaccine. All of these are affected to some degree by choices, and when we start denying care to some and not others, we are essentially "ranking" these choices whether we realize it or not. And, using your logic above, every single one of these people are "contagious" to people outside their cohort when you consider the beds in the ICU they take up.

Note that I'm not actually making any definitive statements about whether or how these should be "ranked." You're right that once hospital beds are taken up, we are in a conundrum, and perhaps we do need to rank them in the case of a dire or emergency situation. But note that we're almost always saying that those who chose not to get vaccinated are the ones taking the hospital beds from the ones who overdosed or had a heart attack, and not the other way around. My point is that illnesses or ailments that are affected by choices are not limited to just Covid, and that should be recognized when we start talking about the "worthiness" of people seeking medical care.

(Keep in mind: the article that started this discussion is about a guy who's already using up a bed due to kidney failure and doesn't even have Covid. The guy doesn't have Covid and he will continue to use up a bed until he dies or receives treatment.)

 

[Svechhammer]

Very true, which then directs me back yet again to the argument that you didn't like about obesity or drug use. How do we "rank" people's ailments when some choice in the past has directly or indirectly affected their status? Someone gets a stroke because they've been imprudently working themselves too hard and putting themselves under too much stress at work, someone has a heart attack because they do not exercise and eat fast food 14 times per week, someone overdoses and needs immediate medical care, someone who intentionally attempts suicide, someone who gets "hospitalizable" Covid which could have been prevented or lessened by a vaccine. All of these are affected to some degree by choices, and when we start denying care to some and not others, we are essentially "ranking" these choices whether we realize it or not. And, using your logic above, every single one of these people are "contagious" to people outside their cohort when you consider the beds in the ICU they take up.

Note that I'm not actually making any definitive statements about whether or how these should be "ranked." You're right that once hospital beds are taken up, we are in a conundrum, and perhaps we do need to rank them in the case of a dire or emergency situation. But note that we're almost always saying that those who chose not to get vaccinated are the ones taking the hospital beds from the ones who overdosed or had a heart attack, and not the other way around. My point is that illnesses or ailments that are affected by choices are not limited to just Covid, and that should be recognized when we start talking about the "worthiness" of people seeking medical care.

(Keep in mind: the article that started this discussion is about a guy who's already using up a bed due to kidney failure and doesn't even have Covid. The guy doesn't have Covid and he will continue to use up a bed until he dies or receives treatment.)

The second that the severely overweight and drug addicts completely overwhelm the healthcare system, then we can have that conversation. But that wasn't the case. That has never been the case.

What is going on right now is that the healthcare industry is underwater right now because of the sheer volume of unvaccinated people being admitted for COVID. To the point where their issues are causing other emergency patients to be denied service because of a lack of beds. So yeah, their personal choice is causing others to die while they sit on their own deathbeds.

I'm all in favor of triaging unvaccinated patients right out of intensive care if it means prioritizing patients who have done the bare minimum to protect themselves during a global pandemic.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

No, but it is rationed. They certainly don't get treatment at the expense of a US service member.

True.

I don’t know the answer to this … but do hospitals/emergency rooms ration care to non-citizens?

 

[MinJaBen]

Very true, which then directs me back yet again to the argument that you didn't like about obesity or drug use. How do we "rank" people's ailments when some choice in the past has directly or indirectly affected their status? Someone gets a stroke because they've been imprudently working themselves too hard and putting themselves under too much stress at work, someone has a heart attack because they do not exercise and eat fast food 14 times per week, someone overdoses and needs immediate medical care, someone who intentionally attempts suicide, someone who gets "hospitalizable" Covid which could have been prevented or lessened by a vaccine. All of these are affected to some degree by choices, and when we start denying care to some and not others, we are essentially "ranking" these choices whether we realize it or not. And, using your logic above, every single one of these people are "contagious" to people outside their cohort when you consider the beds in the ICU they take up.

Note that I'm not actually making any definitive statements about whether or how these should be "ranked." You're right that once hospital beds are taken up, we are in a conundrum, and perhaps we do need to rank them in the case of a dire or emergency situation. But note that we're almost always saying that those who chose not to get vaccinated are the ones taking the hospital beds from the ones who overdosed or had a heart attack, and not the other way around. My point is that illnesses or ailments that are affected by choices are not limited to just Covid, and that should be recognized when we start talking about the "worthiness" of people seeking medical care.

(Keep in mind: the article that started this discussion is about a guy who's already using up a bed due to kidney failure and doesn't even have Covid. The guy doesn't have Covid and he will continue to use up a bed until he dies or receives treatment.)

It's not about ranking ailments, it's about availability. We can have the argument about any "self inflicted" illnesses when they are causing all other care to suffer under the weight of their impact. To date, that has never happened with any other illness to my knowledge. So when the obesity pandemic fills our hospitals to the point where people can't get treatment, let's talk. When alcoholics take up all the medicines other patients need, let's talk. To my knowledge, only COVID vaccine deniers have brought us to that point before. And this is why that guy who needs the kidney is being denied: if there were an infinite supply of good kidneys for donation and an infinite supply of the people and resources need to care for a transplant patient, then he'd get the transplant. But there are not either of those things. So hospitals/providers put health stipulations on those who receive the transplants. That is why not only vaccination status is an issue, but other health factors such as smoking and alcohol use are used to rank/deny patients when getting transplants.

 

[MinJaBen]

True.

I don’t know the answer to this … but do hospitals/emergency rooms ration care to non-citizens?

No. But they do triage.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

I wonder when the “unvaccinated” will include those who’ve had their initial shots but not boosters. I also wonder when they’ll start putting the screws to the kids … because that will be the beginning of the end of “peace” IMO.

Best I can tell, maybe 20-30% of eligible under 18s have had shots?

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

The second that the severely overweight and drug addicts completely overwhelm the healthcare system, then we can have that conversation. But that wasn't the case. That has never been the case.

What is going on right now is that the healthcare industry is underwater right now because of the sheer volume of unvaccinated people being admitted for COVID. To the point where their issues are causing other emergency patients to be denied service because of a lack of beds. So yeah, their personal choice is causing others to die while they sit on their own deathbeds.

I'm all in favor of triaging unvaccinated patients right out of intensive care if it means prioritizing patients who have done the bare minimum to protect themselves during a global pandemic.

You make a decent point, regarding both ease of choice and the recent overwhelming of the healthcare system. And in cases where an "up for grabs" ICU bed is actually in question, perhaps this is a good barometer. In the case of outright denying medical care when it's otherwise accessible, though, I don't feel like that should be on the table, do you?

 

[MinJaBen]

I wonder when the “unvaccinated” will include those who’ve had their initial shots but not boosters. I also wonder when they’ll start putting the screws to the kids … because that will be the beginning of the end of “peace” IMO.

Best I can tell, maybe 20-30% of eligible under 18s have had shots?

We've past both points. The CDC already considers the booster as a necessity for fully vaccinated status. And kids in some locals are required to be vaccinated to go to school now.

 

[MinJaBen]

You make a decent point, regarding both ease of choice and the recent overwhelming of the healthcare system. And in cases where an "up for grabs" ICU bed is actually in question, perhaps this is a good barometer. In the case of outright denying medical care when it's otherwise accessible, though, I don't feel like that should be on the table, do you?

No doctor would do this, and I am not in favor of outright denial. But rationing care, when needed, should be on the table.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

We've past both points. The CDC already considers the booster as a necessity for fully vaccinated status. And kids in some locals are required to be vaccinated to go to school now.

“Waivers are easy to obtain”

Thanks for the info, tho.