Man Who Was Shot Six Times Still Waiting for Surgery Due to the Overwhelming Number of COVID Cases

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Harder was 10 months ago and we seemed to rise to the occasion... and no one was vaccinated. So it isn't a vaccination issue. IMO.

A better question is "where is the leadership now?"

Part of the problem of capacity in hospitals, @KenS, is that a whole heck of a lot of healthcare workers are burnt out, have quit, are sick themselves....

And besides, the percentage of people in hospital today, suffering from a single illness (Covid) is unlike anything that's been seen for a long, long time. If 30% or 50% of patients in a hospital are now Covid patients, do we seriously expect that the things that usually put people in hospital have stopped happening? I don't think so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is the question, isn't it?

Yes, that is the question posed to those who think this surge isn't an issue about vaccination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Part of the problem of capacity in hospitals, @KenS, is that a whole heck of a lot of healthcare workers are burnt out, have quit, are sick themselves....

And besides, the percentage of people in hospital today, suffering from a single illness (Covid) is unlike anything that's been seen for a long, long time. If 30% or 50% of patients in a hospital are now Covid patients, do we seriously expect that the things that usually put people in hospital have stopped happening? I don't think so.

I just read in the news that because of covid the hospital here is at capacity.
Other emergencies are still going to happen.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've said many, many times NO.
How hard is this? The guy who was shot doesn't have covid. He isn't in the situation he's in by having covid and not being vaccinated.
There is no reason to keep conflating the two.

Yes. That is correct. He took on those risks, he accepted responsibility, and when resources are limited those people need to be paying for their own consequences. NOT people like the guy in the OP, who doesn't have covid and wasn't admitted because of covid. He's just paying the price of the consequences for those who are in there with covid who willingly didn't vaccinate.

When there isn't enough to go around I believe this is equitable and fair.

Shadow. I wasnt talking about the guy, just a person in general.

 

[Kenny]

Part of the problem of capacity in hospitals, @KenS, is that a whole heck of a lot of healthcare workers are burnt out, have quit, are sick themselves....

And besides, the percentage of people in hospital today, suffering from a single illness (Covid) is unlike anything that's been seen for a long, long time. If 30% or 50% of patients in a hospital are now Covid patients, do we seriously expect that the things that usually put people in hospital have stopped happening? I don't think so.

I certainly agree that there has been a drain on the medical profession (my brother is an RN) which is a good reason to transport people to less affected areas which still have capacity.

I know we are deviating from what I said, which is OK, but let me go ahead and follow your lead with a question.

How is the use of Hydroxychloraquine today now they have taken politics out of it and realize its effectiveness?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. That is correct. He took on those risks, he accepted responsibility, and when resources are limited those people need to be paying for their own consequences. NOT people like the guy in the OP, who doesn't have covid and wasn't admitted because of covid. He's just paying the price of the consequences for those who are in there with covid who willingly didn't vaccinate.

Unvaccinated people who get COVID don't get it because of something they didn't do. They were already at risk (not put themselves at risk) of catching COVID, they just didn't Lower their risk. Their odds of catching COVID are the same, but the odds of it being serious depends on whether the person lowered their risk. Provaxxers are getting upset because people didn't lower their risk of catching COVID. The unvaccinated didn't do anything different so whether they lowered their risk or not is irrelevant.

It's immoral to deny someone medical treatment because they didn't lower their risk of catching COVID. They are still at the same odds. Any medical professional who follows medical ethics of saving lives will never apply such a political view of denying a person medical treatment because he chose not to lower his risk of catching COVID. His morals are irrelevant.

When there isn't enough to go around I believe this is equitable and fair.

I wouldn't say so. Regardless whether they are exempt they can spread the virus. If provaxxer is concerned about unvaccinated spreading the virus then anyone exempt shouldn't be excused from this scenario. COVID doesn't care whose exempt and who is not.

If you don't apply the same reasoning to the exempt as those who are not then its no longer about caring about people dying by achieving herd immunity. It devalues the purpose of being vaccinated when we pick and choose who we save first.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I certainly agree that there has been a drain on the medical profession (my brother is an RN) which is a good reason to transport people to less affected areas which still have capacity.

I know we are deviating from what I said, which is OK, but let me go ahead and follow your lead with a question.

How is the use of Hydroxychloraquine today now they have taken politics out of it and realize its effectiveness?

Who "realizes its effectiveness?" I don't know of any medical source for that statement. Here is the latest from The Lancet on the subject:

"For rheumatologists and our patients, hydroxychloroquine maintains its important, longstanding role in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, with known benefits ranging from reducing lupus disease activity and damage to lowering the risks of hyperglycaemia, hyperlipidaemia, and pregnancy complications. However, available evidence does not support the use of this medication in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19."

 

[SomeRandom]

Just to throw this out into the current debate guys, experts now warn it is now impossible for herd immunity due to the Detla strain. And before I continue I just want to make this absolutely and abundantly clear here.
Those same experts are not saying that the vaccine isn’t working. They are still saying it is our absolute best strategy that we have. Vaccinate for god’s sake, guys. The unvaccinated actually can’t rely on the vaccinated to keep them safe unlike all the other vaccines. (We can’t actually rely on people recovering to offer any boost in immunity. Like we often do with other illnesses. At least not yet.)

But that due to the severity of the Delta strain and because it is a lot more infectious, it is a lot harder to contain even with current vaccination rollouts. With vaccines offering protection for the more severe symptoms.

@Unveiled Artist You wish to talk of fears? Very well, right now actual honest to god experts around the globe fear that if we don’t get on top of this right now, future strains will render current vaccinations useless and we will have to start from scratch.

You wish to speak of global issues regarding COVID?
Very well, how about the imbalanced rollout scheme so far? With higher income countries (read the West pretty much) have been given priority of vaccinations including booster shots. Whilst lower income countries have been more or less left to their own devices. Which is kind of how we got the Delta variant in the first place. International relations complicating matters with international diplomacy not allowing for immediate hard border shut downs at the time. (Politics as usual is the worst evil, I guess.)
The WHO even asked last year that boosters be held off in the West just so we can try to use them to help poorer countries get vaccinated first.

Vaccines aren’t a magic wand but if you stand around and Umm and ahh for too long, then the long term consequences are actually far worse than any concerns over the current vaccines available are. Not that I’ve seen much in the way of scientific data relating to such concerns????


Will the spread of the Delta variant prevent herd immunity?

Epidemiologist says reaching herd immunity with Delta is "mythical"

Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca vaccines and the 'impossibility' of COVID herd immunity as Delta changes the score - ABC News
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/herd-immunity-delta-mythical/117386/

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Unvaccinated people who get COVID don't get it because of something they didn't do. They were already at risk (not put themselves at risk) of catching COVID, they just didn't Lower their risk. Their odds of catching COVID are the same, but the odds of it being serious depends on whether the person lowered their risk. Provaxxers are getting upset because people didn't lower their risk of catching COVID. The unvaccinated didn't do anything different so whether they lowered their risk or not is irrelevant.

It's immoral to deny someone medical treatment because they didn't lower their risk of catching COVID. They are still at the same odds. Any medical professional who follows medical ethics of saving lives will never apply such a political view of denying a person medical treatment because he chose not to lower his risk of catching COVID. His morals are irrelevant.



I wouldn't say so. Regardless whether they are exempt they can spread the virus. If provaxxer is concerned about unvaccinated spreading the virus then anyone exempt shouldn't be excused from this scenario. COVID doesn't care whose exempt and who is not.

If you don't apply the same reasoning to the exempt as those who are not then its no longer about caring about people dying by achieving herd immunity. It devalues the purpose of being vaccinated when we pick and choose who we save first.

I don't disagree at all with your statement that it is "immoral to deny someone medical treatment because they didn't lower their risk of catching COVID." That is correct -- when someone is sick, possibly in danger of their life, we must do everything we can to help.

I am just wishing that you would look at the bigger picture: the goal, if you think of it on a global level, is to reduce the amount of the virus that is actually out there -- spreading itself around and, what is much worse, continuing to mutate (darn that Darwin, but he was right).

 

[We Never Know]

Just to throw this out into the current debate guys, experts now warn it is now impossible for herd immunity due to the Detla strain. And before I continue I just want to make this absolutely and abundantly clear here.
Those same experts are not saying that the vaccine isn’t working. They are still saying it is our absolute best strategy that we have. Vaccinate for god’s sake, guys. The unvaccinated actually can’t rely on the vaccinated to keep them safe unlike all the other vaccines. (We can’t actually rely on people recovering to offer any boost in immunity. Like we often do with other illnesses. At least not yet.)

But that due to the severity of the Delta strain and because it is a lot more infectious, it is a lot harder to contain even with current vaccination rollouts. With vaccines offering protection for the more severe symptoms.

@Unveiled Artist You wish to talk of fears? Very well, right now actual honest to god experts around the globe fear that if we don’t get on top of this right now, future strains will render current vaccinations useless and we will have to start from scratch.

You wish to speak of global issues regarding COVID?
Very well, how about the imbalanced rollout scheme so far? With higher income countries (read the West pretty much) have been given priority of vaccinations including booster shots. Whilst lower income countries have been more or less left to their own devices. Which is kind of how we got the Delta variant in the first place. International relations complicating matters with international diplomacy not allowing for immediate hard border shut downs at the time. (Politics as usual is the worst evil, I guess.)
The WHO even asked last year that boosters be held off in the West just so we can try to use them to help poorer countries get vaccinated first.

Vaccines aren’t a magic wand but if you stand around and Umm and ahh for too long, then the long term consequences are actually far worse than any concerns over the current vaccines available are. Not that I’ve seen much in the way of scientific data relating to such concerns????


Will the spread of the Delta variant prevent herd immunity?

Epidemiologist says reaching herd immunity with Delta is "mythical"

Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca vaccines and the 'impossibility' of COVID herd immunity as Delta changes the score - ABC News

You are wasting your time. I posted a thread yesterday morning about how herd immunity isn't likely going to happen.

Herd Immunity -The World May Never Reach It Against Covid-19
"Even a vaccination rate of as high as 95% wouldn’t achieve it, he said."


It only got 4/5 replies from some that are starting to realize that may exactly be what happens. In my opinion people don't want to hear reality because reality scares them.
So it seems pointing the finger at and complaining about others gives them something to do instead of facing reality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Unveiled Artist You wish to talk of fears? Very well, right now actual honest to god experts around the globe fear that if we don’t get on top of this right now, future strains will render current vaccinations useless and we will have to start from scratch.

People fear that they get COVID and the pandemic. I hope people don't make health decisions based on fear but that's not always the case.

You wish to speak of global issues regarding COVID?
Very well, how about the imbalanced rollout scheme so far? With higher income countries (read the West pretty much) have been given priority of vaccinations including booster shots. Whilst lower income countries have been more or less left to their own devices. Which is kind of how we got the Delta variant in the first place. International relations complicating matters with international diplomacy not allowing for immediate hard border shut downs at the time. (Politics as usual is the worst evil, I guess.)
The WHO even asked last year that boosters be held off in the West just so we can try to use them to help poorer countries get vaccinated first.

SomeRandom. For some people facts and statistics helps them make health decisions but not everyone makes moral health decisions soley based on the experts (and many don't take their information for granted). Appeal to authority doesn't work for a minority. In a pandemic it's alright to be skeptical. In the US even more so (I'm assuming) than other countries. No one shoe fits all.

Vaccines aren’t a magic wand but if you stand around and Umm and ahh for too long, then the long term consequences are actually far worse than any concerns over the current vaccines available are. Not that I’ve seen much in the way of scientific data relating to such concerns????

Highly depends. Authorities shouldn't say you're in danger for by one factor only. It's better to judge the risks and benefits per your situation. If the risks outweigh the benefits take the vaccine. If it doesn't, don't take it.

It's not a one shoe fits all. Someone on RF doesn't even go out in public not near be near people at all. Her getting the vaccine would be just because. It wouldn't solve anything.

It just depends.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't disagree at all with your statement that it is "immoral to deny someone medical treatment because they didn't lower their risk of catching COVID." That is correct -- when someone is sick, possibly in danger of their life, we must do everything we can to help.

Yes. I do disagree with prioritizing who to save based on their decision to not vaccinate though.

I am just wishing that you would look at the bigger picture: the goal, if you think of it on a global level, is to reduce the amount of the virus that is actually out there -- spreading itself around and, what is much worse, continuing to mutate (darn that Darwin, but he was right).

I don't make health decisions based on what I read and hear about from experts and people in general. I'm not afraid of potentially spreading COVID because I don't put myself in a high risk (or in a high risk area) that my odds of catching it outweighs that I don't.

It is what it is. I'm not swayed by peer pressure, coercion, etc so...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It only got 4/5 replies from some that are starting to realize that may exactly be what happens. In my opinion people don't want to hear reality because reality scares them.
So it seems pointing the finger at and complaining about others gives them something to do instead of facing reality.

Sometimes people just don't respond to threads.
I once created a very and highly uneventful abortion thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow. I wasnt talking about the guy, just a person in general.

I feel I have been very clear and specific on my feelings regarding those who are in the hospital and paying the consequences of people who are in there with covid and willingly unvaccinated.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I feel I have been very clear and specific on my feelings regarding those who are in the hospital and paying the consequences of people who are in there with covid and willingly unvaccinated.

Okay... my clarification still stands, though. I wasn't talking about the guy having COVID just unvaccinated by choice in general who are in critical condition and denied medical treatment.

Since most people they say are unvaccinated in the hospital, according to your feelings, we should second or third priorities their suffering for those who did not choose to put themselves (or keep themselves) at risk.

Unfortunately, your opinions contradict carrying for people and saving people's lives by herd immunity. If you only save those who didn't choose to put themselves at risk, it's not carrying for humanity but just those who you feel are justified to live while others are not.

"To me" that is totally immoral. I can't imagine going to the hospital with a heart attack and waiting for an exempt from vaccinated person to die or leave so I can receive treatment (assuming it's not like medical ethics based on severity of the illness not intentions to vaccinate).

I can't imagine any person who would place life like that none the less be in a medical field and have the right and ability to do so.

 

[SomeRandom]

People fear that they get COVID and the pandemic. I hope people don't make health decisions based on fear but that's not always the case.

Health based options given by medical experts are always based on stats and science. That a doctor fears you may get skin cancer from staying in the sun too long isn’t actually based on emotion, but the scientific data. When a doctor fears something, it’s actually not the same as a person fearing something. It’s a clinical warning.

SomeRandom. For some people facts and statistics helps them make health decisions but not everyone makes moral health decisions soley based on the experts (and many don't take their information for granted). Appeal to authority doesn't work for a minority. In a pandemic it's alright to be skeptical. In the US even more so (I'm assuming) than other countries. No one shoe fits all.

Denying expert advice isn’t being skeptical, it’s being reactionary. There’s a difference between having doubts on a dubious or two study and outright rejecting multiple experts, from different disciplines no less.

Highly depends. Authorities shouldn't say you're in danger for by one factor only. It's better to judge the risks and benefits per your situation. If the risks outweigh the benefits take the vaccine. If it doesn't, don't take it.

But that’s the thing. No one is basing this on one factor alone.

The state next to me is absolutely being ravaged by Delta. We don’t have the vaccine resources necessary to outcompete it and it isn’t being contained very well. This is fact.
Many states in the US where vaccination rates are low are being overwhelmed with cases which the medical resources are struggling to handle. This is a fact.
Poorer countries have been faring the worst of it this is a fact.
And viruses, all viruses, randomly mutate. This is a fact. The most hosts available the more random mutations occur. The more random mutations the less effective vaccinations against it end up becoming. These are all scientific based facts.
That goes for literally every virus we currently vaccinate against. From small pox to the flu.
I’m sorry if reality has a scientific bias, that’s not really my fault.

It's not a one shoe fits all. Someone on RF doesn't even go out in public not near be near people at all. Her getting the vaccine would be just because. It wouldn't solve anything.

It’s the best solution we have right now and maybe the only one we will have for a long time.
I’m sorry but the window to rely on other medications to treat COVID is getting smaller and smaller. That might be a viable option for younger folks, maybe slightly older ones, but time is of the essence. That is just a fact. Something people will have to come to terms with or suffer even worse long term consequences. I don’t dictate reality.

It just depends.

Depends on what? I have yet to see any verifiable scientific evidence for any concerns regarding these current vaccines. Hell I haven’t even seen what the concerns regarding them even are. Just some vague notions of chemicals in vaccines, conspiracy theories regarding government control and an appeal to personal rights. As if that means something during a global pandemic. As if that is any way comparable to having people either die en masse or have life long internal organ damage

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Health based options given by medical experts are always based on stats and science. That a doctor fears you may get skin cancer from staying in the sun too long isn’t actually based on emotion, but the scientific data. When a doctor fears something, it’s actually not the same as a person fearing something. It’s a clinical warning.

Yes. Health experts will always say go to your own doctor to get medical advice. You gain gain a lot from authority but at the end in health decisions its between you and your doctor (and loves ones and so forth). So the experts can tell you that the vaccine is safe but you go to your doctor and find out the limitations and risks of taking it congruent with your current health and so forth.

Denying expert advice isn’t being skeptical, it’s being reactionary. There’s a difference between having doubts on a dubious or two study and outright rejecting multiple experts, from different disciplines no less.

You can decide not to vaccinate and not be in denial. It's a well-informed decision that you and others can justify by ignorance, denial, and so forth but at the end it's a personal health decision with the facts.

But yes, I mean skepticism. Skepticism is healthy when making informed decisions-even from the experts.

But that’s the thing. No one is basing this on one factor alone.

The state next to me is absolutely being ravaged by Delta. We don’t have the vaccine resources necessary to outcompete it and it isn’t being contained very well. This is fact.
Many states in the US where vaccination rates are low are being overwhelmed with cases which the medical resources are struggling to handle. This is a fact.
Poorer countries have been faring the worst of it this is a fact.
And viruses, all viruses, randomly mutate. This is a fact. The most hosts available the more random mutations occur. The more random mutations the less effective vaccinations against it end up becoming. These are all scientific based facts.
That goes for literally every virus we currently vaccinate against. From small pox to the flu.
I’m sorry if reality has a scientific bias, that’s not really my fault.

SomeRandom. I know all this AND I choose not to vaccinate.

It has nothing to do with rejection of facts, denial, and so forth. It's a well-informed decision that people may dislike all they want but they are not me.

Why would it be your fault? You're putting intentions in my mouth that don't exist.

It’s the best solution we have right now and maybe the only one we will have for a long time.
I’m sorry but the window to rely on other medications to treat COVID is getting smaller and smaller. That might be a viable option for younger folks, maybe slightly older ones, but time is of the essence. That is just a fact. Something people will have to come to terms with or suffer even worse long term consequences. I don’t dictate reality.

Okay. It also depends on the person's situation.

For example, how do you convince someone else that vaccination is worthwhile when they don't even converse and are around people to have the potential to catch and spread the virus?

Scare tactics and guilt tactics just doesn't work with me SomeRandom. It's counterproductive.

Depends on what? I have yet to see any verifiable scientific evidence for any concerns regarding these current vaccines. Hell I haven’t even seen what the concerns regarding them even are. Just some vague notions of chemicals in vaccines, conspiracy theories regarding government control and an appeal to personal rights. As if that means something during a global pandemic. As if that is any way comparable to having people either die en masse or have life long internal organ damage

You're not getting it. At all.

That verifiable scientific evidence is appropriate for some people than others because it depends on their situation, health, and so forth. With this evidence they choose what is best healthwise whether it means to vaccinate or not.

I don't know anything about conspiracy theories though. Without the internet the only way I'd know about all this is seeing people wear masks and the sudden change of rules in businesses etc. Everyone's situation is different. You have to at least respect that.

For example, Phenobarbital works with seizures-there is scientific evidence on this. Hundreds of people's lives have been saved and out of the hospital because of this medication. Scientific evidence says it will help AND I don't take it anymore because it does not help me. It's situational.

If taking the vaccine isn't in a person's best interest (say they are isolated) then so be. If it is, they take it. But no one needs to be convinced to take it and no one needs to be bombarded with verifiable facts to make health decisions on their own.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't disagree at all with your statement that it is "immoral to deny someone medical treatment because they didn't lower their risk of catching COVID." That is correct -- when someone is sick, possibly in danger of their life, we must do everything we can to help.

I am just wishing that you would look at the bigger picture: the goal, if you think of it on a global level, is to reduce the amount of the virus that is actually out there -- spreading itself around and, what is much worse, continuing to mutate (darn that Darwin, but he was right).

It is not a case of denying treatment, no one is denying treatment to any one. Vaccinated or not.

However the Delta variant has changed the entire situation. You will be infected by the Delta virus whether you are vaccinated or not.

What has become very clear is that the vaccination will protect you from becoming SERIOUSLY ill or getting long covid or from Death.

If you come into contact with the Delta variant you will catch Covid, vaccinated or not.
But the outcome will be very different. Those dying from it are almost 100% unvaccinated.

This is of serious concern to all those people who are unvaccinated for what ever reason, fear, choice or because of an unavoidable medical reason.
The virus makes no distinctions.

 

[crossfire]

It is not a case of denying treatment, no one is denying treatment to any one. Vaccinated or not.

However the Delta variant has changed the entire situation. You will be infected by the Delta virus whether you are vaccinated or not.

What has become very clear is that the vaccination will protect you from becoming SERIOUSLY ill or getting long covid or from Death.

If you come into contact with the Delta variant you will catch Covid, vaccinated or not.
But the outcome will be very different. Those dying from it are almost 100% unvaccinated.

This is of serious concern to all those people who are unvaccinated for what ever reason, fear, choice or because of an unavoidable medical reason.
The virus makes no distinctions.

The Governor of Texas--the state where the OP happened--has just tested positive for Covid. He has been fully vaccinated and is not experiencing any symptoms. He received Regeneron's monoclonal antibody treatment and is self-isolating.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Governor of Texas--the state where the OP happened--has just tested positive for Covid. He has been fully vaccinated and is not experiencing any symptoms. He received Regeneron's monoclonal antibody treatment and is self-isolating.

Probably the Delta virus then, but the vaccine should stop any serious symptoms, it has an extremely high success rate for doing so. Not sure what Regeneron is supposed to do in that case. Probably just took it because his insurance covers it. He will probably show clear of the virus in just a few days anyway.