Elective Disease

[We Never Know]

Some of those would be factors.
For example, an alcoholic wouldn't qualify for a kidney transplant.
I say this is fair, given that kidneys are in short supply.
Why waste one on a drunk unlikely to have a successful outcome,
only to let another (better) recipient die, eh.

What about "since you have been vaccinated you should be ok". We need to help the unvaccinated.

 

[Quetzal]

Not true.

Which part? What are your thoughts?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I encourage you not to take these things personally. If you feel that you have been the target if a misguided comment, I would be happy to discuss and apologize as necessary.

How can you not take it personally when someone is prejudiced against you so much they want you to be sick?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which part? What are your thoughts?

It's not true that unvaccinated are putting people in danger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Understood, here is my counter: how long does the unvaccinated individual have to wait?

Until resources are available.

The theoretical situation in my head is this:

• An individual arrives due to COVID complications who does not have a vaccine.
• Medical resources are withheld as another individual who is vaccinated arrives with a similar rate of medical success (this sentence was hard, I hope it makes sense). This individual is granted access.
• Another individual arrives who is vaccinated, they are prioritized over the original patient.
• (repeat, etc)

How long does the unvaccinated individual have to wait before they have access to medical resources? This is the question I am stuck on.

I haven't yet formalized my hospital admission protocols yet.
But the evening is young.

 

[We Never Know]

Some of those would be factors.
For example, an alcoholic wouldn't qualify for a kidney transplant.
I say this is fair, given that kidneys are in short supply.
Why waste one on a drunk unlikely to have a successful outcome,
only to let another (better) recipient die, eh.

We aren't talking about transplants are we? I thought it was about the availability of hospital beds.

 

[We Never Know]

Understood, here is my counter: how long does the unvaccinated individual have to wait? The theoretical situation in my head is this:

• An individual arrives due to COVID complications who does not have a vaccine.
• Medical resources are withheld as another individual who is vaccinated arrives with a similar rate of medical success (this sentence was hard, I hope it makes sense). This individual is granted access.
• Another individual arrives who is vaccinated, they are prioritized over the original patient.
• (repeat, etc)

How long does the unvaccinated individual have to wait before they have access to medical resources? This is the question I am stuck on.

Why shouldn't the vaccinated come last. They have been vaccinated and have some protection.

 

[Revoltingest]

What about "since you have been vaccinated you should be ok". We need to help the unvaccinated.

I'd give priority to the vaccinated.
But note that their responsible choice results in
there being far fewer of them needing hospitalization.

 

[Revoltingest]

We aren't talking about transplants are we? I thought it was about the availability of hospital beds.

You brought up other factors to consider, eg, drinking.
I addressed a current policy regarding that factor.

 

[We Never Know]

I'd give priority to the vaccinated.
But note that their responsible choice results in
there being far fewer of them needing hospitalization.

There ya go. They have protection and need it less. They should come last.

Not really they should be treated the same as anyone else coming through the doors.

 

[We Never Know]

You brought up other factors to consider, eg, drinking.
I addressed a current policy regarding that factor.

They all need rooms...not transplants

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some of those would be factors.
For example, an alcoholic wouldn't qualify for a kidney transplant.
I say this is fair, given that kidneys are in short supply.
Why waste one on a drunk unlikely to have a successful outcome,
only to let another (better) recipient die, eh.

Alcoholism is a disease itself, just so you know. You need to consider what can cause someone to become a drunk. Many are mentally ill, have traumatic backgrounds or PTSD and drink to cope with their pain. But, whatever. Who cares about that stuff, right?

 

[We Never Know]

Alcoholism is a disease itself, just so you know. You need to consider what can cause someone to become a drunk. Many are mentally ill, have traumatic backgrounds or PTSD and drink to cope with their pain. But, whatever. Who cares about that stuff, right?

And sadly there isn't a vaccine for those.

 

[Revoltingest]

There ya go. They have protection and need it less. They should come last.

As a group, the vaccinated would need less care.
But the few breakthru cases in need would need it.
And they would get priority.

Not really they should be treated the sane as anyone else coming through the doors.

That's your way.
I started the thread to propose a way that
rewards responsibility over irresponsibility
in times of resource shortage.

 

[Revoltingest]

They all need rooms...not transplants

That misses the point about prioritization.

 

[We Never Know]

As a group, the vaccinated would need less care.
But the few breakthru cases in need would need it.
And they would get priority.

That's your way.
I started the thread to propose a way that
rewards responsibility over irresponsibility
in times of resource shortage.

I like the way you use the world "few".
20% is more than a few. But lets go with breakthrough cases are just a few.

 

[Revoltingest]

Alcoholism is a disease itself, just so you know. You need to consider what can cause someone to become a drunk. Many are mentally ill, have traumatic backgrounds or PTSD and drink to cope with their pain. But, whatever. Who cares about that stuff, right?

I see alcoholism as less of a choice than refusing vaccination.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't waste kidneys on an alcoholic, given
that better transplant candidates are also in need.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see alcoholism as less of a choice than refusing vaccination.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't waste kidneys on an alcoholic, given
that better transplant candidates are also in need.

Yeah, I get it. Let them die because their lives don't matter in your eyes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like the way you use the world "few".
20% is more than a few. But lets go with breakthrough cases are just a few.

1 in 5 is few relative to 4 in 5.
Let this not become quibbling over word choice, eh.

 

[We Never Know]

That misses the point about prioritization.

Are you saying a vaccinated person comes before...
-the drunk driver
-addict that OD'd
-the person choosing to eat twinkies and skittles instead of a healthy diet
-the depressed person who tried to commit suicide
-etc