4 ms·

If we want to get rid of vaccine mandates I think the give and take has to go both ways. For instance: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/

If we want to get rid of vaccine mandates I think the give and take has to go both ways. For instance: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/statement-on-patient-prioritization-for-outpatient-therapies/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sta... : "Unvaccinated individuals at the highest risk of severe disease (anyone aged ≥75 years or anyone aged ≥65 years with additional risk factors)." in Tier 1 for priority usage of new, hard-to-get treatment. Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them when they're choosing not to help take care of society (even in terms of "reducing burden on healthcare system by getting a likely-less-severe case", even if transmissibility isn't affected as much).

vkou 5y ago
This sounds like a wonderful idea. Drop the vaccine mandates, and drop the mandates to treat the unvaccinated. If people don't want treatments that work, they should be free to explore the full space of treatments that don't. If you have ethical qualms about this, I'd like to point out that ethics go both ways. It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.
- peterangular 5y ago
  You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part of our country it's a race to the bottom of "I got mine, f u" and those folks seem largely represented in the group that's currently stressing our hospitals. I do agree however. And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.
  - danenania 5y ago
    If you open that door, should treatment also be denied to smokers, motorcycle riders, obese people, uninsured people, etc., etc.? It's about as slippery as a slope can get.
    - peterangular 5y ago
      > denied to smokers Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months. > uninsured people Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law. --- On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here. And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.
      - danenania 5y ago
        Not getting a transplant isn't comparable to being denied a hospital bed. "Will only be stabilized in the ER" In other words: they will be treated. No one is saying we need to give the best treatments, or any kind of treatment that is scarce and competitive (like transplants) to unvaccinated people, but you're talking about refusing people any treatment and sending them out to die at home or on the streets. That's extremely cruel and certainly is not done anywhere in the US currently.
        peterangular 5y ago
        Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is treating any underlying disease or cause. We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
        danenania 5y ago
        Splitting hairs? Which one of us is referring to various forms of medical treatment as "denying treatment"? You're advocating for sending unvaccinated people away with zero treatment. None of your examples are remotely comparable. If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?
    - vkou 5y ago
      > Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? No, just like how if I need surgery, and the hospital is full of anti-vaxxers with COVID, and I can't get treatment, I currently don't get my money back.
peterangular 5y ago
> Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them when they're choosing not to help take care of society Unfortunately as much as I agree with this it will never be the case. Hospitals are hurting for blood too - sucks. These spikes are largely unvaccinated folks from everything I'm reading. They're stressing the system but I guarantee you they don't care outside of their own selfishness.
barbazoo 5y ago
> Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them How would that work practically though? They still end up in the hospital, they're not going to test if they're vaxxed and put them at the end of the line if not.
- majormajor 5y ago
  No, I would argue for exactly that. If ten patients arrive at the ER and it's full, the unvaccinated-without-a-medical-condition-preventing-vaccination COVID patient gets a bed last, after the vaccinated COVID patients and any non-COVID patients. For people in CA, at least, there are digital records of this, not much testing needed. This would be called "heartless" on the individual scale, but towards a group that I believe is being heartless on a societal scale. Honestly, it's a capsule of where we are as a country: Here we have a government entity whose suggestions are rejected by these people still suggesting to prioritize them in order to get them the best treatment possible. I don't see anything like the same consideration for others being made by most of the unvaccinated. One side is trying to do what's best for everyone, the other side doesn't really give a shit about thinking things through.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    If they don't conveniently arrive at the same time, needing the same amount of care, would you advocate pulling the unvaccinated off ventilators and out of beds to be replaced by the vaccinated? If two do arrive at the same time, an unvaccinated person with far worse sickness faintly mumbling about ivermectin who waited until the last minute to come in, and a vaccinated person who is suffering but nowhere near the danger zone - do you put the unvaccinated person on the sidewalk outside? What about smokers or fat people?
    - majormajor 5y ago
      Short answer: yes. Long answer: you'd probably come up with a protocol around "ok, we have this ventilator available, give it to the unvaxed patient, but if we have other patients who end up needing one and they haven't improved in X hours/days, we will reallocate" and similar for all the various ways people can present, but "conveniently"... if the health system is that overloaded, you're gonna have ERs with a lot of patients all arriving at the same time. Hell, even pre-COVID, I got stuck waiting in an ER in December for days because the hospital was full once. (To your edit: has either smoking or obesity caused hospitals to fill to capacity and have to turn away patients? You'll notice here I'm talking about scarce medical resource allocation prioritization where they're actively competing with those more considerate of the rest of us, not something like insurance payments or coverage.)

vkou 5y ago

This sounds like a wonderful idea. Drop the vaccine mandates, and drop the mandates to treat the unvaccinated. If people don't want treatments that work, they should be free to explore the full space of treatments that don't. If you have ethical qualms about this, I'd like to point out that ethics go both ways. It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.

peterangular 5y ago
You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part of our country it's a race to the bottom of "I got mine, f u" and those folks seem largely represented in the group that's currently stressing our hospitals. I do agree however. And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.
- danenania 5y ago
  If you open that door, should treatment also be denied to smokers, motorcycle riders, obese people, uninsured people, etc., etc.? It's about as slippery as a slope can get.
  - peterangular 5y ago
    > denied to smokers Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months. > uninsured people Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law. --- On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here. And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.
    - danenania 5y ago
      Not getting a transplant isn't comparable to being denied a hospital bed. "Will only be stabilized in the ER" In other words: they will be treated. No one is saying we need to give the best treatments, or any kind of treatment that is scarce and competitive (like transplants) to unvaccinated people, but you're talking about refusing people any treatment and sending them out to die at home or on the streets. That's extremely cruel and certainly is not done anywhere in the US currently.
      - peterangular 5y ago
        Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is treating any underlying disease or cause. We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
        danenania 5y ago
        Splitting hairs? Which one of us is referring to various forms of medical treatment as "denying treatment"? You're advocating for sending unvaccinated people away with zero treatment. None of your examples are remotely comparable. If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?
  - vkou 5y ago
    > Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? No, just like how if I need surgery, and the hospital is full of anti-vaxxers with COVID, and I can't get treatment, I currently don't get my money back.

peterangular 5y ago

> Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them when they're choosing not to help take care of society Unfortunately as much as I agree with this it will never be the case. Hospitals are hurting for blood too - sucks. These spikes are largely unvaccinated folks from everything I'm reading. They're stressing the system but I guarantee you they don't care outside of their own selfishness.

barbazoo 5y ago

> Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them How would that work practically though? They still end up in the hospital, they're not going to test if they're vaxxed and put them at the end of the line if not.

majormajor 5y ago
No, I would argue for exactly that. If ten patients arrive at the ER and it's full, the unvaccinated-without-a-medical-condition-preventing-vaccination COVID patient gets a bed last, after the vaccinated COVID patients and any non-COVID patients. For people in CA, at least, there are digital records of this, not much testing needed. This would be called "heartless" on the individual scale, but towards a group that I believe is being heartless on a societal scale. Honestly, it's a capsule of where we are as a country: Here we have a government entity whose suggestions are rejected by these people still suggesting to prioritize them in order to get them the best treatment possible. I don't see anything like the same consideration for others being made by most of the unvaccinated. One side is trying to do what's best for everyone, the other side doesn't really give a shit about thinking things through.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  If they don't conveniently arrive at the same time, needing the same amount of care, would you advocate pulling the unvaccinated off ventilators and out of beds to be replaced by the vaccinated? If two do arrive at the same time, an unvaccinated person with far worse sickness faintly mumbling about ivermectin who waited until the last minute to come in, and a vaccinated person who is suffering but nowhere near the danger zone - do you put the unvaccinated person on the sidewalk outside? What about smokers or fat people?
  - majormajor 5y ago
    Short answer: yes. Long answer: you'd probably come up with a protocol around "ok, we have this ventilator available, give it to the unvaxed patient, but if we have other patients who end up needing one and they haven't improved in X hours/days, we will reallocate" and similar for all the various ways people can present, but "conveniently"... if the health system is that overloaded, you're gonna have ERs with a lot of patients all arriving at the same time. Hell, even pre-COVID, I got stuck waiting in an ER in December for days because the hospital was full once. (To your edit: has either smoking or obesity caused hospitals to fill to capacity and have to turn away patients? You'll notice here I'm talking about scarce medical resource allocation prioritization where they're actively competing with those more considerate of the rest of us, not something like insurance payments or coverage.)