7 ms·

Yeah, the Post complaint (echoed elsewhere) is basically a call for having a social credit score that can say “you’re not a good person, so we’re not going to l

Yeah, the Post complaint (echoed elsewhere) is basically a call for having a social credit score that can say “you’re not a good person, so we’re not going to let the doctors save you.”

rob74 5y ago
...and the next step would be "we're not going to treat you for Covid because you're not vaccinated".
- achow 5y ago
  This is not same. The non vaccinated are actively choosing to be a danger to people around them. It is like actively carrying concealed unlicensed gun which can silently and anynomously fire at people.
  - rob74 5y ago
    I'm vaccinated myself and basically I have the same opinion as you. But David Bennett also actively chose to stab someone seven times in 1988 - "only" leaving him paralyzed, but probably with the intent to kill him? Ok, he probably served time for that and it was a long time ago, so judicially you can consider him rehabilitated. My argument was that once you refuse to treat (former) criminals, that's a slippery slope. And apparently I was right, since some here seem to consider people who choose not to get vaccinated worse that violent criminals...
    - op00to 5y ago
      Worse? No. The unvaccinated are far more likely to get sick or die as a part of any medical procedure right now just because of the base risk of COVID in hospitals. If you can’t take the first step to protect yourself and others, there’s not much health care providers can do to change your mind.
  - jlawson 5y ago
    I think you're confused on what the word 'actively' means.
    - achow 5y ago
      'Actively' seems to be accurate for the scenario when one is choosing to make body conducive to incubate virus, or already incubating them (albeit unknowingly if asymptomatic). [Edit] And if you meant active in context of 'Active shooter', then still use of the word active is not wrong. Virus laden body is like carrying a concealed gun which is on 'auto pilot', it is actively spraying bullets; it IS active all the while.
      - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
        I can't think of a single person I know that hasn't ducked down to the shops to pick something up when they have the flu. By your definition, they are actively attempting to cause harm to others - which is an interesting take.
        sersi 5y ago
        Even before covid, I would always wear a mask if I had a flu and would try as much as possible not to go to shops or pick up anything. A lot of people I know do the same.
        op00to 5y ago
        I haven’t “ducked down to the shops” when I’m ill. It’s not that hard to keep necessities around.
  - Razengan 5y ago
    > This is not same. > The non vaccinated are actively choosing to be a danger to people around them. > It is like actively carrying concealed unlicensed gun which can silently and anynomously fire at people. What about giving a life extension to someone who stabs other people? The recipient of the heart transplant, David Bennett, actively chose to be a danger to people around him.
    - achow 5y ago
      Yes. Why not stick to that topic. Why to conflate by bringing in vaccine one?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 5y ago
  That's different because there's no moral judgement in that position. If you refuse treatment for a condition, even a preventative one, then there's no moral imperative to offer a different treatment later. Doctors did their best to save you, but you didn't do your part. That's on you.
  - dijonman2 5y ago
    I couldn’t disagree more. Everyone deserves the same level of care.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jagger27 5y ago
      Everyone deserves care. It’s unpleasant to think about giving emergency care to people who actively refuse preventative treatments at the cost of canceled appointments and surgeries for non-COVID patients. Triaging really sucks.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      They're getting it. Everyone is offered the vaccine. If people choose not to accept that care then what happens afterwards has to be assessed and prioritized on a case by case basis. If there's an ICU bed and two patients, one who's a Covid patient who refused to protect themselves and the other someone who has something not preventable, the second one should get priority. Ideally there would be two beds, and everyone would get the care they need, but reality means choices have to be made. Refusing a vaccine should send you to the back of the queue.
  - jlawson 5y ago
    Absolutely not, that's not how it works. You won't be denied tramua treatment for a gunshot because your doc told you to stop playing with guns. You won't be refused heart medicine because you didn't stop eating bacon when your doctor told you to 5 years earlier. You won't be denied ER treatment because you were drunk when you crashed your car. There is no rule where we have to treat all patients equally (including mass murderers) except those who didn't accept n earlier-offered treatment or who did something that caused their own medical condition (i.e which probably includes most medical conditions). Medical care is not an exploding offer. Honestly - shame on you for trying to sneak in an absurd exception just so you can abuse the medical system to hurt people you don't like. That's not what hospitals are for.
- op00to 5y ago
  I’m all for providing telemedicine to those who choose not to be vaccinated against COVID (compared to those who medically can it be vaccinated). But letting them into health care facilities? Nah, get your shots and come back.
corobo 5y ago
There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager that had this system in place, ep 7x5 Critical Care Naturally it was corrupt
renewiltord 5y ago
We already have that laundered through something else. Like if you’re a drinker you won’t get a liver.
- mlyle 5y ago
  That's not a moral judgment: that's a judgment about whether you're likely to not wreck the new organ and have a good outcome.
  - _delirium 5y ago
    That's a common rationalization for the moral judgment, but without evidence. "Recent studies have shown similar survival rates among individuals who undergo LT [liver transplant] for ALD [alcoholic liver disease] and those who undergo LT for other chronic causes of end-stage liver disease." [1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018475/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018475/
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mlyle 5y ago
      As your link says, there's an association between sobriety and liver transplant outcome. As your link also says, in most areas, you can receive a liver for ALD; there's just a 6 month sobriety rule. So we know: - 6 months of sobriety increase odds of ongoing subsequent sobriety - Sobriety improves LT transplant outcomes. Many believe, without strong numerical evidence either way: - 6 months of sobriety before procedure improves outcome of LT transplantation. Fewer believe: - A 6 month sobriety requirement is an unnecessary impediment to transplantation. Your paper says: "An interval of sobriety prior to LT is very desirable from a medical point of view. Abstinence may markedly improve liver function" i.e. in many cases, if people could stop drinking, they might not even need the liver!
- omgitsabird 5y ago
  That is not a universal statement[0]. They may get lower priority in many cases, but MELD[1] or a similar model is used to determine who gets priority for liver transplant. [0] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/destigmatizing-liver-transplant-for-patients-with-alcohol-use-disorder https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/destigmatizing... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_for_End-Stage_Liver_Disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_for_End-Stage_Liver_Dise...

Yeah, the Post complaint (echoed elsewhere) is basically a call for having a social credit score that can say “you’re not a good person, so we’re not going to let the doctors save you.”

rob74 5y ago

...and the next step would be "we're not going to treat you for Covid because you're not vaccinated".

achow 5y ago
This is not same. The non vaccinated are actively choosing to be a danger to people around them. It is like actively carrying concealed unlicensed gun which can silently and anynomously fire at people.
- rob74 5y ago
  I'm vaccinated myself and basically I have the same opinion as you. But David Bennett also actively chose to stab someone seven times in 1988 - "only" leaving him paralyzed, but probably with the intent to kill him? Ok, he probably served time for that and it was a long time ago, so judicially you can consider him rehabilitated. My argument was that once you refuse to treat (former) criminals, that's a slippery slope. And apparently I was right, since some here seem to consider people who choose not to get vaccinated worse that violent criminals...
  - op00to 5y ago
    Worse? No. The unvaccinated are far more likely to get sick or die as a part of any medical procedure right now just because of the base risk of COVID in hospitals. If you can’t take the first step to protect yourself and others, there’s not much health care providers can do to change your mind.
- jlawson 5y ago
  I think you're confused on what the word 'actively' means.
  - achow 5y ago
    'Actively' seems to be accurate for the scenario when one is choosing to make body conducive to incubate virus, or already incubating them (albeit unknowingly if asymptomatic). [Edit] And if you meant active in context of 'Active shooter', then still use of the word active is not wrong. Virus laden body is like carrying a concealed gun which is on 'auto pilot', it is actively spraying bullets; it IS active all the while.
    - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
      I can't think of a single person I know that hasn't ducked down to the shops to pick something up when they have the flu. By your definition, they are actively attempting to cause harm to others - which is an interesting take.
      - sersi 5y ago
        Even before covid, I would always wear a mask if I had a flu and would try as much as possible not to go to shops or pick up anything. A lot of people I know do the same.
      - op00to 5y ago
        I haven’t “ducked down to the shops” when I’m ill. It’s not that hard to keep necessities around.
- Razengan 5y ago
  > This is not same. > The non vaccinated are actively choosing to be a danger to people around them. > It is like actively carrying concealed unlicensed gun which can silently and anynomously fire at people. What about giving a life extension to someone who stabs other people? The recipient of the heart transplant, David Bennett, actively chose to be a danger to people around him.
  - achow 5y ago
    Yes. Why not stick to that topic. Why to conflate by bringing in vaccine one?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 5y ago
That's different because there's no moral judgement in that position. If you refuse treatment for a condition, even a preventative one, then there's no moral imperative to offer a different treatment later. Doctors did their best to save you, but you didn't do your part. That's on you.
- dijonman2 5y ago
  I couldn’t disagree more. Everyone deserves the same level of care.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jagger27 5y ago
    Everyone deserves care. It’s unpleasant to think about giving emergency care to people who actively refuse preventative treatments at the cost of canceled appointments and surgeries for non-COVID patients. Triaging really sucks.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    They're getting it. Everyone is offered the vaccine. If people choose not to accept that care then what happens afterwards has to be assessed and prioritized on a case by case basis. If there's an ICU bed and two patients, one who's a Covid patient who refused to protect themselves and the other someone who has something not preventable, the second one should get priority. Ideally there would be two beds, and everyone would get the care they need, but reality means choices have to be made. Refusing a vaccine should send you to the back of the queue.
- jlawson 5y ago
  Absolutely not, that's not how it works. You won't be denied tramua treatment for a gunshot because your doc told you to stop playing with guns. You won't be refused heart medicine because you didn't stop eating bacon when your doctor told you to 5 years earlier. You won't be denied ER treatment because you were drunk when you crashed your car. There is no rule where we have to treat all patients equally (including mass murderers) except those who didn't accept n earlier-offered treatment or who did something that caused their own medical condition (i.e which probably includes most medical conditions). Medical care is not an exploding offer. Honestly - shame on you for trying to sneak in an absurd exception just so you can abuse the medical system to hurt people you don't like. That's not what hospitals are for.
op00to 5y ago
I’m all for providing telemedicine to those who choose not to be vaccinated against COVID (compared to those who medically can it be vaccinated). But letting them into health care facilities? Nah, get your shots and come back.

corobo 5y ago

There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager that had this system in place, ep 7x5 Critical Care Naturally it was corrupt

renewiltord 5y ago

We already have that laundered through something else. Like if you’re a drinker you won’t get a liver.

mlyle 5y ago
That's not a moral judgment: that's a judgment about whether you're likely to not wreck the new organ and have a good outcome.
- _delirium 5y ago
  That's a common rationalization for the moral judgment, but without evidence. "Recent studies have shown similar survival rates among individuals who undergo LT [liver transplant] for ALD [alcoholic liver disease] and those who undergo LT for other chronic causes of end-stage liver disease." [1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018475/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018475/
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mlyle 5y ago
    As your link says, there's an association between sobriety and liver transplant outcome. As your link also says, in most areas, you can receive a liver for ALD; there's just a 6 month sobriety rule. So we know: - 6 months of sobriety increase odds of ongoing subsequent sobriety - Sobriety improves LT transplant outcomes. Many believe, without strong numerical evidence either way: - 6 months of sobriety before procedure improves outcome of LT transplantation. Fewer believe: - A 6 month sobriety requirement is an unnecessary impediment to transplantation. Your paper says: "An interval of sobriety prior to LT is very desirable from a medical point of view. Abstinence may markedly improve liver function" i.e. in many cases, if people could stop drinking, they might not even need the liver!
omgitsabird 5y ago
That is not a universal statement[0]. They may get lower priority in many cases, but MELD[1] or a similar model is used to determine who gets priority for liver transplant. [0] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/destigmatizing-liver-transplant-for-patients-with-alcohol-use-disorder https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/destigmatizing... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_for_End-Stage_Liver_Disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_for_End-Stage_Liver_Dise...