4 ms·

I mean, yeah. If vaccines don't protect against virus spread... Fuck it, let people decide. Either take a vaccine or risk getting Covid in the wild. Just make

by bserge 5y ago

I mean, yeah. If vaccines don't protect against virus spread... Fuck it, let people decide. Either take a vaccine or risk getting Covid in the wild. Just make it so you can't use a hospital bed in that case. It's only fair to people who are actually forced to go to the hospital, as opposed to gambling for it.

bawolff 5y ago
Vaccines do protect against spread though. Not perfectly mind you, but the effect is still significant if a significant portion of the population is vaccinated.
curmudgeon22 5y ago
Should smokers be denied medical treatment related to that choice too?
- tartoran 5y ago
  If they overwhelmed the medical system to the detriment of others then yes. And this is coming from an ex smoker who knew it was bad for you when begun smoking. Now this is slightly different for other age groups that started their habit when the tobacco industry were paying doctors to promote smoking.
  - manwe150 5y ago
    Fortunately, I don’t know anyone addicted to getting the vaccine daily, so the proposed choice is nonsensical.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Smokers are routinely denied organ transplants if they refuse to quit. Same thing for alcohol. "Heart and lung transplant candidates must be free of nicotine and tobacco use, including chewing tobacco, for six months prior to an initial listing." https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/ https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/
- blitzar 5y ago
  Yes. And heroin addicts, and morbidly obease people.
  - Dove 5y ago
    This line of reasoning goes to a dark place. You can't know what makes sense in someone else's life. A heroin addict self-medicating unbearable pain is, to me, a tragic figure deserving help. A morbidly obese person may be suffering from an undiagnosed underlying condition that makes diet and exercise impossible. A smoker may need the stress release. Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by the Wright brothers during their experimental flights? Surely that's highly dangerous highly voluntary stuff. Should we refuse to rescue hikers if they become lost or trapped? Should the coast guard never help recreational sailors? Should we have to submit to a proscribed diet exactly to prove we deserve medical care? Should we forgo treatment for tendonitis if it can be shown we ignored known warnings about typing too much? To me, people are precious, and they lead messy, imperfect lives. They make bad decisions and good ones, and decisions I don't understand. They'll take risks I never would in pursuit of goals I don't see as valuable. Sometimes, when you really get to know someone, a decision that didn't make sense from a distance really starts to. And sometimes people are being self-destructive and there's no more to the story, and sometimes it's something they go through and come out the other side of. My conviction is to love and help them no matter what. Sometimes I can't, and that's a different thing, but deciding that someone doesn't deserve help is a level of judgement I don't want and can't justify. Maybe what they were doing really was worth it. I don't know. Even if it's not, it's essential to let people try. I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable. I am sure others feel the same way, about control in areas in which I wouldn't mind it because I happen to already be normal. So I am against it on principle. People need to be people, in all their messy glory. And we should help them if we can, regardless of how they got there. I think the only case in which I would act differently was if I thought letting someone suffer natural consequences was for their best - and I would have to be incredibly sure. Leaving people to a fatal condition when we could help them is incomprehensible and inhumane to me, and represents a dangerous level of escalating disagreement into dehumanization.

by bserge 5y ago

bawolff 5y ago

Vaccines do protect against spread though. Not perfectly mind you, but the effect is still significant if a significant portion of the population is vaccinated.

curmudgeon22 5y ago

Should smokers be denied medical treatment related to that choice too?

tartoran 5y ago
If they overwhelmed the medical system to the detriment of others then yes. And this is coming from an ex smoker who knew it was bad for you when begun smoking. Now this is slightly different for other age groups that started their habit when the tobacco industry were paying doctors to promote smoking.
- manwe150 5y ago
  Fortunately, I don’t know anyone addicted to getting the vaccine daily, so the proposed choice is nonsensical.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Smokers are routinely denied organ transplants if they refuse to quit. Same thing for alcohol. "Heart and lung transplant candidates must be free of nicotine and tobacco use, including chewing tobacco, for six months prior to an initial listing." https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/ https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/
blitzar 5y ago
Yes. And heroin addicts, and morbidly obease people.
- Dove 5y ago
  This line of reasoning goes to a dark place. You can't know what makes sense in someone else's life. A heroin addict self-medicating unbearable pain is, to me, a tragic figure deserving help. A morbidly obese person may be suffering from an undiagnosed underlying condition that makes diet and exercise impossible. A smoker may need the stress release. Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by the Wright brothers during their experimental flights? Surely that's highly dangerous highly voluntary stuff. Should we refuse to rescue hikers if they become lost or trapped? Should the coast guard never help recreational sailors? Should we have to submit to a proscribed diet exactly to prove we deserve medical care? Should we forgo treatment for tendonitis if it can be shown we ignored known warnings about typing too much? To me, people are precious, and they lead messy, imperfect lives. They make bad decisions and good ones, and decisions I don't understand. They'll take risks I never would in pursuit of goals I don't see as valuable. Sometimes, when you really get to know someone, a decision that didn't make sense from a distance really starts to. And sometimes people are being self-destructive and there's no more to the story, and sometimes it's something they go through and come out the other side of. My conviction is to love and help them no matter what. Sometimes I can't, and that's a different thing, but deciding that someone doesn't deserve help is a level of judgement I don't want and can't justify. Maybe what they were doing really was worth it. I don't know. Even if it's not, it's essential to let people try. I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable. I am sure others feel the same way, about control in areas in which I wouldn't mind it because I happen to already be normal. So I am against it on principle. People need to be people, in all their messy glory. And we should help them if we can, regardless of how they got there. I think the only case in which I would act differently was if I thought letting someone suffer natural consequences was for their best - and I would have to be incredibly sure. Leaving people to a fatal condition when we could help them is incomprehensible and inhumane to me, and represents a dangerous level of escalating disagreement into dehumanization.