Reply With Quote
Because I'm a human. We shouldn't deny medical for fats, smokers, addicts, etc.
Why are you thankful for that? Particularly when, in the antivax scenario, it creates a public health risk? You should hate not thank that
Because I'm a human. We shouldn't deny medical for fats, smokers, addicts, etc.
You're also purposefully obtuse. We penalize people who endanger the public health. That's why drunk driving is a crime. Although [insert low hanging fruit joke here].
You don't think that anti vaxxers shouldn't face repercussions for endangering the health of others?
Crisis standards of care may end up excluding unvaxxed as a bad risk for scarce resources. It sucks that we're getting to that, if only there was something we could have done proactively to prevent it, that would have been great. It's too bad we scarcely tried.
At what point do you hold people accountable for their decisions. Exercises of “freedom” are never risk of liability free.
I'm pro vax, full disclosure. Had two doses of Pfizer.
That said, your argument falls apart since the fully vaccinated also spread covid.
At the point at which resources must be rationed to promote best outcomes. We're already there in a few US states. Others are trying to hide the ball. The trend doesn't look good.
What does your personal pro-vax stance have to do with what we’re talking about? Or the reduced transmission risk of the vaccinated? These are lazy irrelevancies.
Vaxxed are spreading the virus and will continue to do so until everyone is infected, repeatedly.
The utilitarian view is consistent, I guess, but it seems to sidestep the issue if you ask me.
If they have to triage, they'll save the people most likely to survive. Younger, more fit, etc.
short of scarcity of resources, why shouldn't all comers receive reasonable care?
Damn, these people are creepy.
should we add means-testing when we have the resources to provide care? seems cruel.
Because the antivaxxer crowd is creating a public health issue of their own doing. Specifically, their refusal to follow science and do what’s best for the common good. If someone chooses to not be vaccinated, that’s fine. They made their bed and should live with the consequences. Or does accountability not matter?
Because vaccines are so expensive?
Also, vaccinated.
They'll treat the most likely to survive.
False equivalence. The unvaxed are the more significant transmission vector.
https://theconversation.com/amp/no-v...t-covid-171302
I get what you're saying, but denying care to people we have the resources to take care of, just because they were personally irreposnsible, seems gratuitous and unnecessary.
Should we deny cardiac care to people who drink and smoke too much? Or have an unhealthy diet?
Where does the line get drawn? Should medical care be only for people who take care of themselves? Feels wrong, if harm can be prevented, without harm to others.
Pre omicron
Yep. Vaccination in the era of COVID is a leading risk factor.
Do lawyers take courses in medical ethics? Makes you wonder
You left something out. Vaccination still mitigates hospitalization and death.
Drinking and smoking and obesity are not on all fours. They don’t pose a direct threat to public health (or an indirect one in non-covid times). The calculus is different when the threat is posed to others. That’s the brightline.
A good analogy, and a scenario I’d be in favor of, is to treat this like a dwi accident. Treat the antivaxxer, but also charge them with a crime. Arguably, the antivaxxer is a bigger health risk, so the increased penalty should be denial of care, but I’d also be in favor of making it a crime to seek care of you’re unvaccinated.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions