3 ms·

I think it's important to note that these are not currently clogging the medical system like unvaccinated COVID cases. Edit: spelling

benmmurphy 5y ago
If the risk of say 'gang banging' is higher but it's not a problem because the number of people involved in the activity is lower then I think that is a bad argument for treating 'gang banging' differently. For example what if I was to claim there are really two distinct groups of 'unvaccinated' Covid people. Group A and Group B unvaccinated. Group A only contains 1 person and very clearly is not clogging up the hospitals. Someone claims to be 'Group A' unvaccinated and asserts their actions are not a problem because they are not clogging up the system. A more realistic example is there are 20 smaller groups of people that in total are the same size as the Covid unvaccinated group but these groups have twice the risk as the unvaccinated group. If we make decisions based on group_size * risk then these groups are fine but we see that combined they have a much worse effect on capacity than the unvaccinated group. If we make decisions based solely on risk and not risk * group_size then the 'triage' protocol is going to make more sense. Practically, you might have to treat groups differently because it's impossible to make efficient rules for a lot of small groups but ignoring the practical costs of rule making it is risk that is important not the size of the groups.
- nradov 5y ago
  Hospitals in cities like Chicago with large gang populations sometimes have to go on diversion due to being overwhelmed by gunshot wounds. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/us/chicago-mount-sinai-hospital/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/us/chicago-mount-sinai-hospit...
- freebreakfast 5y ago
  I don't see this as being about group size or risk. Rather, I see it as being about resources. There is one group who are consuming medical resources in such a way that it is limiting access for others. And the reason for this consumption is largely a personal decision to not take precautions that would prevent such consumption. If 'gang banging' or any other elective activity (or lack thereof) were resulting in a similar situation, I think it would be right to explore the idea of limiting access for those making such decisions to ensure access for others.
- swader999 5y ago
  It's more nuanced though. A healthy young person with no comorbidities is probably better off getting infected and developing natural immunity. Perhaps relying on monoclonal treatments and even ivermectin if it gets too severe. Vaccinating everyone is a recipe for endless boosters and a societal factory of increasingly more severe variants.

benmmurphy 5y ago

If the risk of say 'gang banging' is higher but it's not a problem because the number of people involved in the activity is lower then I think that is a bad argument for treating 'gang banging' differently. For example what if I was to claim there are really two distinct groups of 'unvaccinated' Covid people. Group A and Group B unvaccinated. Group A only contains 1 person and very clearly is not clogging up the hospitals. Someone claims to be 'Group A' unvaccinated and asserts their actions are not a problem because they are not clogging up the system. A more realistic example is there are 20 smaller groups of people that in total are the same size as the Covid unvaccinated group but these groups have twice the risk as the unvaccinated group. If we make decisions based on group_size * risk then these groups are fine but we see that combined they have a much worse effect on capacity than the unvaccinated group. If we make decisions based solely on risk and not risk * group_size then the 'triage' protocol is going to make more sense. Practically, you might have to treat groups differently because it's impossible to make efficient rules for a lot of small groups but ignoring the practical costs of rule making it is risk that is important not the size of the groups.

nradov 5y ago
Hospitals in cities like Chicago with large gang populations sometimes have to go on diversion due to being overwhelmed by gunshot wounds. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/us/chicago-mount-sinai-hospital/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/us/chicago-mount-sinai-hospit...
freebreakfast 5y ago
I don't see this as being about group size or risk. Rather, I see it as being about resources. There is one group who are consuming medical resources in such a way that it is limiting access for others. And the reason for this consumption is largely a personal decision to not take precautions that would prevent such consumption. If 'gang banging' or any other elective activity (or lack thereof) were resulting in a similar situation, I think it would be right to explore the idea of limiting access for those making such decisions to ensure access for others.
swader999 5y ago
It's more nuanced though. A healthy young person with no comorbidities is probably better off getting infected and developing natural immunity. Perhaps relying on monoclonal treatments and even ivermectin if it gets too severe. Vaccinating everyone is a recipe for endless boosters and a societal factory of increasingly more severe variants.