5 ms·

Omicron is much less likely to hospitalize people, it never reached a concerning level in South Africa and cases are falling fast. I could see wanting covid pat

Omicron is much less likely to hospitalize people, it never reached a concerning level in South Africa and cases are falling fast. I could see wanting covid patients to pay for it themselves, but denying them entry is ridiculously cruel.

xvector 5y ago
What is cruel, is not doing the bare minimum as a member of society and needlessly taking up precious ER resources that other responsible and well-meaning members of society might need. To clarify, rather than denial of entry, I am suggesting deprioritization in the ER. If someone got into a car crash tomorrow and the ER is full, given a similar expected mortality between the crash victim and antivaxxer, the antivaxxer should be ejected to make room. Today we are already seeing that antivaxxers are saturating ERs and people have to wait hours for serious issues. I do not think it is particularly controversial to say that the antivaxxer is less deserving of care.
- iab 5y ago
  Whether people agree with you or not isn't the real issue here IMO. If this approach were to be adopted, it would be up to the physicians and other front-line workers to make the prioritization call, which adds too much of a burden to them.
  - xvector 5y ago
    Sure, and it's probably against policy, the Hippocratic Oath, etc. But if you talk to nurses, visit r/nursing, etc - the sentiment is clear. Front line workers are sick of having to prioritize antivax bed-wasters over people with real issues.
    - iab 5y ago
      I actually agree with the sentiment, but there is just no way to realistically apply this. There will always be a significant number of people in the "gray" zone (can't get vaccinated because of some other health condition, as a simple example) and so the burden of determining who is "good" and who is no tis on the already over-burdened staff. This is why triage has historically been, and will conceivably always be, the way hospitals adjudicate care .
- a3camero 5y ago
  I'd like to take up a different view on this issue, in the hope that this discussion helps to understand this issue from a different vantage point. Neither of us make any rules for anyone else, so this is an academic discussion anyway. I hope you're not offended by the disagreement, as it's driven only by an interest in moving toward a better position on this issue, not internet points or personal malice (& you're using a pseudonym anyway). At the moment, I don't read in this comment what seems like the right answer, but it's also a short version, and maybe my own thoughts on this are wrong - thank you at the very least for posting this, as it's given me an opportunity to think more about a different position. Below is a different point of view. -- Many people do not even do the "bare minimum" as a member of society, and they should be treated, to the greatest degree possible, like the people who do the maximum, or even just the usual. High-tax paying people, beloved teachers, famous artists, despised criminals - they should all be treated as humans, with the appropriate medical treatment according to their human needs, not their moral failures or victories. People are the product of society, and a component in it, and they should not be judged by stereotypes, or even judged at all, when it comes to responding to their medical needs. Ideally, we'd take this approach in every area of life, but this is especially justified when applied to injured and sick people. "Misguided" is a more useful frame for many people than "evil". Triage by prior behaviour is a poor basis for healthcare. Everyone has their own group of people they like less or more, according to their prior experiences. More importantly, the time to judge someone's moral behaviour is not at the point of healthcare delivery. Even if mistakes never happened, and your moral views are correct and correctly applied, it wouldn't be right to apply this rule because it would be the first step away from neutrality. The status quo of neutrality is a good rule, even if on rare occasions it results in seriously injured violent criminals receiving medical treatment ahead of sick nuns. Because almost all of the time it's the rule that is the most human, on our best behaviour. And especially so when we consider that many of our own views are not solely attributable to our individual choice but are in fact strongly influenced by our place in society. Once immoral individual behaviour is the yardstick for medical behaviour, perhaps based on views about groups, it's difficult to know when you've strayed off the moral path.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Triage by prior behavior is effectively prioritizing by who got there first. I don't think that's optimal. When hospital resources become limited, I support prioritizing people who took bare minimum steps to prevent being in that situation. Not to mention the associated dangers to staff that come along with the non-vaccinated population. My sister is an ICU nurse in a C19 ward, and has been threatened many times, screamed at countless times, by families of people with C19. They are all, as near as she can tell, of a certain tribe.
dredmorbius 5y ago
South Africa has an epidemiologically sophisticated population. That is, most people have already been exposed to Covid-19, conveying natural immunity, despite low vaccination rates (of about 25%). Extrapolating SA findings to other countries may be premature, though the actual severity of the Omicron variant remains an area of intense interest and investigation. Mild or otherwise, the US will all but certainly know within a month. Wishing for the more convenient answer may prove harmful or deadly to many.

xvector 5y ago

What is cruel, is not doing the bare minimum as a member of society and needlessly taking up precious ER resources that other responsible and well-meaning members of society might need. To clarify, rather than denial of entry, I am suggesting deprioritization in the ER. If someone got into a car crash tomorrow and the ER is full, given a similar expected mortality between the crash victim and antivaxxer, the antivaxxer should be ejected to make room. Today we are already seeing that antivaxxers are saturating ERs and people have to wait hours for serious issues. I do not think it is particularly controversial to say that the antivaxxer is less deserving of care.

iab 5y ago
Whether people agree with you or not isn't the real issue here IMO. If this approach were to be adopted, it would be up to the physicians and other front-line workers to make the prioritization call, which adds too much of a burden to them.
- xvector 5y ago
  Sure, and it's probably against policy, the Hippocratic Oath, etc. But if you talk to nurses, visit r/nursing, etc - the sentiment is clear. Front line workers are sick of having to prioritize antivax bed-wasters over people with real issues.
  - iab 5y ago
    I actually agree with the sentiment, but there is just no way to realistically apply this. There will always be a significant number of people in the "gray" zone (can't get vaccinated because of some other health condition, as a simple example) and so the burden of determining who is "good" and who is no tis on the already over-burdened staff. This is why triage has historically been, and will conceivably always be, the way hospitals adjudicate care .
a3camero 5y ago
I'd like to take up a different view on this issue, in the hope that this discussion helps to understand this issue from a different vantage point. Neither of us make any rules for anyone else, so this is an academic discussion anyway. I hope you're not offended by the disagreement, as it's driven only by an interest in moving toward a better position on this issue, not internet points or personal malice (& you're using a pseudonym anyway). At the moment, I don't read in this comment what seems like the right answer, but it's also a short version, and maybe my own thoughts on this are wrong - thank you at the very least for posting this, as it's given me an opportunity to think more about a different position. Below is a different point of view. -- Many people do not even do the "bare minimum" as a member of society, and they should be treated, to the greatest degree possible, like the people who do the maximum, or even just the usual. High-tax paying people, beloved teachers, famous artists, despised criminals - they should all be treated as humans, with the appropriate medical treatment according to their human needs, not their moral failures or victories. People are the product of society, and a component in it, and they should not be judged by stereotypes, or even judged at all, when it comes to responding to their medical needs. Ideally, we'd take this approach in every area of life, but this is especially justified when applied to injured and sick people. "Misguided" is a more useful frame for many people than "evil". Triage by prior behaviour is a poor basis for healthcare. Everyone has their own group of people they like less or more, according to their prior experiences. More importantly, the time to judge someone's moral behaviour is not at the point of healthcare delivery. Even if mistakes never happened, and your moral views are correct and correctly applied, it wouldn't be right to apply this rule because it would be the first step away from neutrality. The status quo of neutrality is a good rule, even if on rare occasions it results in seriously injured violent criminals receiving medical treatment ahead of sick nuns. Because almost all of the time it's the rule that is the most human, on our best behaviour. And especially so when we consider that many of our own views are not solely attributable to our individual choice but are in fact strongly influenced by our place in society. Once immoral individual behaviour is the yardstick for medical behaviour, perhaps based on views about groups, it's difficult to know when you've strayed off the moral path.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  Triage by prior behavior is effectively prioritizing by who got there first. I don't think that's optimal. When hospital resources become limited, I support prioritizing people who took bare minimum steps to prevent being in that situation. Not to mention the associated dangers to staff that come along with the non-vaccinated population. My sister is an ICU nurse in a C19 ward, and has been threatened many times, screamed at countless times, by families of people with C19. They are all, as near as she can tell, of a certain tribe.

dredmorbius 5y ago

South Africa has an epidemiologically sophisticated population. That is, most people have already been exposed to Covid-19, conveying natural immunity, despite low vaccination rates (of about 25%). Extrapolating SA findings to other countries may be premature, though the actual severity of the Omicron variant remains an area of intense interest and investigation. Mild or otherwise, the US will all but certainly know within a month. Wishing for the more convenient answer may prove harmful or deadly to many.