COVID-19

[GroundPounder]

A question for those who would restrict care for those who did not get immunized. What is your take on giving Narcan to people in the midst of overdosing on opiates? By any measure, they brought the problem on themselves, so by that logic no one should waste time and effort to save them? You would be right in saying that no one else would be sickened by their choice, but they are still using valuable drugs, bed space and medical care.

 

[taxi1]

What is your take on giving Narcan to people in the midst of overdosing on opiates?

I’m kind of with you on that. I’ve never had to use it working EMS, knock on wood. It is cheap and it takes a medical emergency and magically makes it go away. Saves everyone hassle, although they will likely be a repeat customer.

EMS and hospitals are always going to treat, period. The real idea is that the people who chose not to get the free vaccination should self-restrict. Don’t go to the hospital.

Same as the drug users. Tell everyone not to call 911 if they OD. Because they will get treated.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I’m kind of with you on that. I’ve never had to use it working EMS, knock on wood. It is cheap and it takes a medical emergency and magically makes it go away. Saves everyone hassle, although they will likely be a repeat customer.

EMS and hospitals are always going to treat, period. The real idea is that the people who chose not to get the free vaccination should self-restrict. Don’t go to the hospital.

Same as the drug users. Tell everyone not to call 911 if they OD. Because they will get treated.

So it’s not about people dying for you but rather you want to be plitically correct about who dies.

 

[Spekkio]

A question for those who would restrict care for those who did not get immunized. What is your take on giving Narcan to people in the midst of overdosing on opiates? By any measure, they brought the problem on themselves, so by that logic no one should waste time and effort to save them? You would be right in saying that no one else would be sickened by their choice, but they are still using valuable drugs, bed space and medical care.

My point about restriction of care was to demonstrate how ridiculous the 'live and let live' line of reasoning is wrt the vaccine. Opiods are illegal without a prescription. So is driving without a seat belt. People still do these things anyway, but the numbers are reduced to a point that healthcare can handle the load. Obviously hospitals won't turn away people who broke the law any time soon.

We have established precedent that the government can make laws that shape public health policy, which also has a ripple economic effect. Reducing the adverse impacts of a disease by a factor of 10 to 25 falls in that category. Unless you're trying to argue that the aforementioned things should not be illegal.

 

[Mirage]

My point about restriction of care was to demonstrate how ridiculous the 'live and let live' line of reasoning is wrt the vaccine. Opiods are illegal without a prescription. So is driving without a seat belt. People still do these things anyway, but the numbers are reduced to a point that healthcare can handle the load. Obviously hospitals won't turn away people who broke the law any time soon.

We have established precedent that the government can make laws that shape public health policy, which also has a ripple economic effect. Reducing the adverse impacts of a disease by a factor of 10 to 25 falls in that category. Unless you're trying to argue that the aforementioned things should not be illegal.

So what's your take on junk food, smoking cigarettes, driving cars, drinking alcohol to excess, etc.? All those things increase your risk for varying deadly outcomes by equal factors. Should hospitals turn away those people? Should the government mandate what people can eat and make those things illegal, to protect people from themselves in the same way that mandating a vax does? Quite a slippery slope to totalitarianism you're working on there.

Or, perhaps, everyone dies one day, people should stop trying to save others from themselves, mind their own business, and "live and let live" as you mentioned?

After all, hospitals are a business and are sized to accommodate demand. If demand goes up, the size of the hospital will, too. You don't need to worry about what they can accommodate in the long term

 

[taxi1]

So it’s not about people dying for you but rather you want to be plitically correct about who dies.

That makes zero sense.

 

[HAL Pilot]

That makes zero sense.

You basically said you have no problem with drug users and non-vaccinated dying. You said they should choose not to go to the hospital to get treated. So obviously you don't care about people dying as long as they are the right ones that meet your political agenda. Because COVID is now nothing more than politics.

 

[SlickAg]

You basically said you have no problem with drug users and non-vaccinated dying. You said they should choose not to go to the hospital to get treated. So obviously you don't care about people dying as long as they are the right ones that meet your political agenda. Because COVID is now nothing more than politics.

They ought to move to New Zealand. It’s their version of Utopia: only two types of people.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452263026913128449

 

[taxi1]

You basically said you have no problem with drug users and non-vaccinated dying.

I said, to quote myself, "EMS and hospitals are always going to treat, period."

I've never asked a patient their political affiliation or if I am treating them because they broke for the law (alcohol-related, for example). I treat and move them up the chain, end of story.

If someone is going to reject the best medical advice of the establishment and skip the vaccine and then post stupid memes about the vaccine and needle rape and Ivermectin etc., then I do think they should be in it 100% and go all the way and not turn to that same medical establishment they just shat on when Covid gets real for them. Walk the walk, yes.

There's been quite a few posts here where people have brushed off 720,000 dead as no big deal. I missed your calling them out.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I said, to quote myself, "EMS and hospitals are always going to treat, period."

I've never asked a patient their political affiliation or if I am treating them because they broke for the law (alcohol-related, for example). I treat and move them up the chain, end of story.

If someone is going to reject the best medical advice of the establishment and skip the vaccine and then post stupid memes about the vaccine and needle rape and Ivermectin etc., then I do think they should be in it 100% and go all the way and not turn to that same medical establishment they just shat on when Covid gets real for them. Walk the walk, yes.

There's been quite a few posts here where people have brushed off 720,000 dead as no big deal. I missed your calling them out.

People die. A lot of those people would be dead now anyway. Tyranny is a big deal.

 

[Spekkio]

So what's your take on junk food, smoking cigarettes, driving cars, drinking alcohol to excess, etc.? All those things increase your risk for varying deadly outcomes by equal factors. Should hospitals turn away those people? Should the government mandate what people can eat and make those things illegal, to protect people from themselves in the same way that mandating a vax does? Quite a slippery slope to totalitarianism you're working on there.

No. You should probably read the post you quoted.

As for the various vices you posted:
-Smoking cigarettes is outlawed in most public indoor spaces.
-Bartenders can kick customers out if they are visibly drunk, and many are told not to serve any more drinks to them.
-There are many places with local ordinances against certain ingredients like trans fat. But with > 70% of the country overweight or obese, we're not doing a good enough job in this area wrt public health policy.
-Driving cars is legal, but you have to wear a seatbelt, you cannot text and drive, you have to pass a test to get a license, and you have to be insured.

You're not really doing a great job illustrating why COVID-19 vaccination requirements are some special thing that the government cannot mandate to reduce aggregate risk.

It's not totalitarianism to pass a public health policy bill to influence aggregate behavior, just like it's not totalitarianism to encourage people to buy homes by giving them tax writeoffs.

 

[Python]

There's been quite a few posts here where people have brushed off 720,000 dead as no big deal. I missed your calling them out.

720,000 is a big deal. It’s not a big enough deal to warrant shutting down schools, business, and effectively turn our country upside down. Do NOT mischaracterize what was said. Do not mince words into “720,000 dead as no big deal” without the rest of the context. There is a HUGE distinction to be made here, and you’re the one that “brushed off” the context.

 

[taxi1]

Do NOT mischaracterize what was said.

To quote someone else here..."People die. A lot of those people would be dead now anyway." There are others. Your post is more nuanced.

 

[Python]

To quote someone else here..."People die. A lot of those people would be dead now anyway." There are others. Your post is more nuanced.

As nuanced as it may or may not be, you decline to directly address it’s premise and perspective over and over. I thought this was supposed to be a conversation.

As an aside, while the “People die. A lot of those people would be dead now anyway” quote may lack the nuance you desire, I’m 100% confident when I say that the intention of that post was to have the exact same premise as mine. So for now, just work with the assumption that they are so aligned.

 

[Hair Warrior]

With so many dead, it’s almost as if this virus was engineered to cause more harm. But we sure are told that isn’t the case - a bat and a pangolin had sex in a Wuhan wet market, way more plausible.