Covid-19 #40: Hoping for Endings

[Zorral]

21 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

I am of the opinion that the coronavirus infection is very much seasonal. Last year the US was about 3 weeks after the EU regarding the winter wave. I think this will repeat itself now.

 

the Europeans who are coming are fully vaccinated AND have also a fresh PCR test when they are boarding the airplane. I think they are safer than some of your (unvaccinated and untested) neighbours?

 

 

I hope this is true!  But people lie and finangle and I have no faith in either the airlines or anyone who is checking these proofs.  They'll keep back people who should be allowed in -- like vaccinated passengers meeting up with family after 20 long months -- and let in drunk non-vaxxed hooligans.  At least the way things have gone in the past, including none of the Europeans did the required quarantine either.   As for seasonal the Delta surge overwhelming the Rocky Mountain stretch of states, along with North Dakota, has been going on since the end of this past spring and shows no let up. Though yes, if we paid attention to all the protocols and got vaccinated, it would be seasonal, one suspects.

[Heartofice]

56 minutes ago, Week said:

point especially - with that. There may still be education and access issues with the vaxx but that's not what we're talking about here.

Not really, you are still determining who gets medical treatment based on their own life choices, apportioning blame for their own lack of health onto the patient. That simply isn't a way to run a medical system.

If someone runs into the road because they believe that cars should stop instead of crashing into them, you wouldn't decide to not treat them because they had foolish and inaccurate beliefs and were endangering others.

[Week]

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really, you are still determining who gets medical treatment based on their own life choices, apportioning blame for their own lack of health onto the patient. That simply isn't a way to run a medical system.

If someone runs into the road because they believe that cars should stop instead of crashing into them, you wouldn't decide to not treat them because they had foolish and inaccurate beliefs and were endangering others.

You've made an already bad argument worse. 

One choice (not vaxxing) - is a greater danger to yourself and others, prevents society from regular function, is low/no cost, readily available, and arguments against it lack any credible support.

Other choices (drinking, smoking, obesity (? Not a choice), have been historically encouraged within society, are often safe in smaller doses, and abuse is often a result of poverty, education, genetics, and access to better goods. None of which are relevant factors with respect to the COVID vaccine.

Also, to be clear, I didn't and don't advocate for medical triage to deprioritize the unvaxxed -- I was pointing out flaws in your poor argument. I do believe that the unvaxxed should be barred from most of public life as they are a danger to themselves and others. Schools, work, concerts, and any other regular gathering of more than a small number of people are a danger and cannot function normally without widespread vaccination. In effect, we are punishing and endangering the vaxxed, disabled, immunocompromised, etc. by allowing the unvaxxed into these areas.

For regular hospital triage, from a place of total ignorance, it seems to me that we need to modernize our system to separate COVID patients (potentially other very transmissible airborne disease) from regular trauma, cancer, etc. treatments. It doesn't seem reasonable or feasible to deny trauma care based on vaxx status. Though, and I've seen it happen in the US, vaxx status should absolutely be used for decisions like transplants. To be a viable liver transplant recipient you need to be sober, vaxxed, and a number of other factors which is eminently reasonable IMO.

[Filippa Eilhart]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

But people lie and finangle and I have no faith in either the airlines or anyone who is checking these proofs.

I’ve flown twice this year and it’s really quite meticulously checked. People were denied boarding for not filling in locator forms etc.

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The sermons for "exact same treatment" for the willfully unvaxxed keep conveniently ignoring that U.S. tobacco users are already getting hit with higher premiums under some group insurances.

I made a comment a long time ago that, while not a fan of the US medical "system", ironically it may lead to increased vaccination because of insurance premiums.  Now, maybe it has, but given the vaccination rate, its not particularly visible.

2 hours ago, Week said:

One choice (not vaxxing) - is a greater danger to yourself and others, prevents society from regular function, is low/no cost, readily available, and arguments against it lack any credible support.

Other choices (drinking, smoking, obesity (? Not a choice), have been historically encouraged within society, are often safe in smaller doses, and abuse is often a result of poverty, education, genetics, and access to better goods. None of which are relevant factors with respect to the COVID vaccine.

.In fairness, while you are correct that there are obvious differences betwen these choices, you don't disagree with the essential point of HoI's argument (regarding access).  Comparisons are always open to debate because they are never perfect.  But this one seems ok.  It gets a point across.

We are naturally drawn towards comparisons (to make sense of things).  I generally don't like them but in my head, I'm still comparing all this to the Law and Order debate.  Zero tollerance etc.  Highlight some shocking criminals and shout "lock them up", "lock them all up".  And then not so subtely suggest that if you are against that approach, you are "soft on crime".  Think of the children!  This comparison has clear holes in it but it has been bouncing around in my head for the last 72 hours.  And I kept being reminded about it as I read this thread.

42 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

I’ve flown twice this year and it’s really quite meticulously checked. People were denied boarding for not filling in locator forms etc.

I think you are right on this.  European airlines desperately want the transatlantic skies to remain open.  They can't afford to be seen to be lax on this issue.  People's eyes will be on them.

[Week]

24 minutes ago, Padraig said:

In fairness, while you are correct that there are obvious differences betwen these choices, you don't disagree with the essential point of HoI's argument (regarding access).  Comparisons are always open to debate because they are never perfect.  But this one seems ok.  It gets a point across.

The differences are clearly sufficient to make the comparison invalid.

If it gets a point across it's that we continue to misunderstand and vilify people for negative health outcomes that are often out of their control (genetic predilection for obesity or addiction, access to education, access to healthy food, etc).

Again, as opposed to getting another vaccination (in addition to the myriad that we safely receive over the course of our lives) that allows for society to live without people scarred, paralyzed, or killed by measles/polio/small pox/COVID/etc.

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The sermons for "exact same treatment" for the willfully unvaxxed keep conveniently ignoring that U.S. tobacco users are already getting hit with higher premiums under some group insurances.

The industry work around is usually presented as they aren't being hit with higher fees, they are simply being disqualified for the "discounted rate".

It's a game of semantics already.

I think in an insurance-based health system it may well make sense to increase premiums. However, living in a health care system whose guiding principle is to be free at the point of use I don't want us to start doing things the way they are done in the US health care system.

[Kalbear]

There is also a difference between 'having to pay more for health coverage' and 'being denied health coverage by health providers'. The latter is illegal in US law; everyone can get treated regardless.

I'm absolutely 100%  in favor of our fucked up stupid system charging people more for their personal choices like this one, though that is also a very slippery slope that can also suck. But I'm not in favor of denying them the ability to get healthcare just because of said choices.