but the second shot rolled her socks for 18 hours and she thought she was going to die — James Riley

Right, yeah, the day-after-downtime is common enough I think, often after the 2^nd vaccination. It's usually advertised by those administering the vaccinations.

Actually, I think trying to round up medical conditions is standard procedure; maybe frank or someone knows. — jorndoe

Yes, definitely.

Don't mind James. I think he is roleplaying as his avatar, Travis Bickle - a man stuck in a hero fantasy that he himself undermines through his propensity for violence.

It seems to me a moral person would champion universal, single payor health care for 8 billion people and then calculate how much kit and how many health care workers would be required to respond to a pandemic that makes covid look like an inconvenient pimple. — James Riley

As noble as that may sound, that universal healthcare is paid for by forcing individuals to part with their wealth under threat of violence.

In fact, the majority of political opinions are of this nature - opinions about what one believes governments should force others to do.

I don't believe what constitutes a moral person is whether they have opinions of this nature. As far as I am concerned opinions aren't very important at all in that regard, but such opinions seem to sooner contribute to the immorality of a person.

Let's assume you have perfect knowledge and there are two patients, male, 26-years old, both have COVID, one is vaccinated the other isn't. Both need a vent and there's only one vent. Who gets the vent? Is this an obvious case to you? If not, why not? — Benkei

The further we dive into hypotheticals, the more I am convinced the point of this is allowing you to fantasize of the punishment you would so eagerly apply to people whose choices you disagree with.

Maybe, in such a case as you describe, it is enough to consider it a devilish dilemma that I would not wish upon anyone. To have to make such a choice may haunt someone for the rest of their life, yet here you are treating it like you have all the answers - like it is a game.

The further we dive into hypotheticals, the more I am convinced the point of this is allowing you to fantasize of the punishment you would so eagerly apply to people whose you choices you disagree with.

Maybe, in such a case as you describe, it is enough to consider it a devilish dilemma that I would not wish upon anyone. To have to make such a choice may haunt someone for the rest of their life, yet here you are treating it like you have all the answers - like it is a game. — Tzeentch

Again, the interpretation that I'm looking to "punish" is your own. I don't think what I've described is a devilish dilemma; it's a rather clear hypothetical that people on the other side of the argument seem to refuse to want to answer because the answer seems rather clear - ethically speaking. It just so happens that clear answer contradicts the position you've assumed resulting in enough cognitive dissonance that you prefer to make this about me. That's just a pathetic way of trying to change the subject.

Yes, a very difficult decision in real life that some people actually have to make. Having a protocol at hand if such a situation arises would actually alleviate the burden on people and relieves them from personal responsibility when having to make such decision, which is precisely why - in real life - hospitals use protocols for all sorts of situations.

it's a rather clear hypothetical that people on the other side of the argument seem to refuse to want to answer because the answer seems rather clear - ethically speaking. — Benkei

Everything must seem rather clear if you believe your own perspectice is all that exists. Moral flag-waving is not very convincing when it is done with lack of understanding or utter disregard for other people's viewpoints.

But alas, you are free to believe your contrived hypotheticals of perfect knowledge contribute to anything other than your own satisfaction.

people on the other side of the argument seem to refuse to want to answer — Benkei

You're not really in an ideal position to be complaining about the 'other side' not answering critiques.

You are 'refusing to answer' the fairly simple question about what makes vaccination, as method of avoiding hospitalisation, one worthy of use in triage judgements but not any other method, such as general health, safety precautions, and non-pharmaceutical interventions.

It's not more proximate, nor more closely correlated, nor more prevalent as a cause...so why have you singled it out as the sole arbiter of someone's degree of responsibility taken?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/587458

As noble as that may sound, that universal healthcare is paid for by forcing individuals to part with their wealth under threat of violence.

In fact, the majority of political opinions are of this nature - opinions about what one believes governments should force others to do.

I don't believe what constitutes a moral person is whether they have opinions of this nature. As far as I am concerned opinions aren't very important at all in that regard, but such opinions seem to sooner contribute to the immorality of a person. — Tzeentch

You make the mistaken assumption that it is "their wealth" which we force them to part with under the threat of violence. We could spend time tracing ill-gotten gains and the morality of the laws and actions that allowed for wealth accumulation in the first place, or we could just discuss the morality of making people contribute to the society which allowed them, by our good graces and forbearance, to obtain the wealth they have. Yeah, let's do that.

Side note: I hope NOS and everyone else understands that when we say "beds" we mean the room that the bed goes in and all the kit doc needs to treat, including staff.

Yes, you have opinions about what belongs to who, and use those opinions to justify the use of violence. A system of "might makes right."

Yes, you have opinions about what belongs to who, and use those opinions to justify the use of violence. — Tzeentch

Yes. And? What planet have you been living on?

The simple part is that more or less everyone wants the damn pandemic to be gone, to a reasonable extent, and so sensible people follow protocols to do theirs in whatever ways (mask, sanitize, distance, etc). Vaccinations are a great step forward. Mutations (and the pathogens continuing to find fertile grounds) make for a more bumpy road.

I suppose we might then ask who, if any, ain't doing theirs? Say, are deniers, contrarians, distrust-spreaders, dissidents, conspiracy theorists, etc, guilty in some sense? Failure to learn from history?

^{• Who are the anti-vaxxers? Here's what we know — and how they got there in the first place (Mar 27, 2019)
• After Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News (Mar 19, 2020)
• From students to politicians, many smart people have fallen for dangerous lies spread about the new coronavirus. Why? And how can you protect yourself from misinformation? (Apr 6, 2020)
• Study Finds More COVID-19 Cases Among Viewers Of Fox News Host Who Downplayed Pandemic (May 4, 2020)
• The Anti-Vaccine Movement in 2020 (May 22, 2020)
• The pandemic exposes human nature: 10 evolutionary insights (Jun 9, 2020)
• The Masks Masquerade (Jun 14, 2020)
• Mistrust of the medical profession and higher disgust sensitivity predict parental vaccine hesitancy (Sep 2, 2020)
• Many COVID-19 patients insist ‘it’s not real’ until they die, nurse says (Nov 17, 2020)
• 15 Infuriating Stories About Doctors Who Had To Diagnose A COVID-19 Denier With The Coronavirus (Apr 21, 2021)
• States with low vaccination numbers had Covid-19 case rates last week 3 times higher than others where people are fully vaccinated (Jul 12, 2021)
• The YouTubers who blew the whistle on an anti-vax plot (Jul 25, 2021)
• White Evangelicals Resist Covid-19 Vaccine Most Among Religious Groups (Jul 28, 2021)
• Ben Shapiro’s Advice for Resisting America’s ‘Authoritarian Moment’ (Aug 2, 2021)
• CNN tracked down a super-spreader of Covid-19 misinformation. See how he reacted (Aug 5, 2021)
• Unvaccinated adults driving COVID-19 case increase in Canada (Aug 10, 2021)
• This Woman Secretly Runs One of the World's Biggest Anti-Vax Websites From Her House (Aug 12, 2021)
• Why the Church Keeps Getting Covid Wrong (Aug 16, 2021)
• Parent rips face mask off teacher in confrontation at school, Texas district says (Aug 17, 2021)
• Covid-19: Lockdown not enough to stop Australia’s delta variant crisis (Aug 17, 2021)
• Anti-Vaxxers Go Off the Rails at San Diego County Meeting: ‘Heil Fauci’ (Aug 17, 2021)
• An Alabama doctor watched patients reject the coronavirus vaccine. Now he’s refusing to treat them. (Aug 18, 2021)
• The FDA Is Begging You Not to Take Horse Dewormer for Covid-19 (Aug 21, 2021)
• Almost 5,000 Covid cases linked to Cornish music and surf festival (Aug 23, 2021)}

You are 'refusing to answer' the fairly simple question about what makes vaccination, as method of avoiding hospitalisation, one worthy of use in triage judgements but not any other method, such as general health, safety precautions, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. — Isaac

I think he just wants to punish people for being unvaccinated.

:up:

I think he just wants to punish people for being unvaccinated. — frank

Asked and answered, at least by me.

Say, are deniers, contrarians, distrust-spreaders, dissidents, conspiracy theorists, etc, guilty in some sense? Failure to learn from history? — jorndoe

Despite your cherry-picked press clippings, the group you describe are not one homogeneous legion. Attempts to lump everyone who disagrees with the party line in with the tinfoil hat brigade are just political. There's a convenient bunch of loonies who can be called on to besmirch any view you don't like by association. Should we do the same with climate change? Environmental issues? I could definitely rustle up some seriously dodgy hippies who are all in for those sorts of causes. Shall we make the serious climate scientists look like fools by associating them with a few tree-hugging children of Gaia?

Is this the direction you really want public debate to head?

I think he just wants to punish people for being unvaccinated. — frank

Yes, it seems odd. There was a question a few years back (decades possibly?) about doing a similar thing with smokers and lung cancer - I don't know if you recall, there was a lot of chatter in the medical ethics journals? The call then was to free up resources by refusing to treat smokers who hadn't stopped smoking in spite of doctor's warning them too. It fell by the wayside for much the same reasons - is a fit, recently quit, 20-a-day guy more or less responsible for their condition than an unfit, overweight, 40-a-day guy who gave up ten years ago? The judgements required were just too complicated and prone to abuse.

You are 'refusing to answer' the fairly simple question about what makes vaccination, as method of avoiding hospitalisation, one worthy of use in triage judgements but not any other method, such as general health, safety precautions, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. — Isaac

I have answered it, that you disagree is in no way, shape or form about me avoiding the question. My pretty straightforward questions get ignored or the subject is changed. But for your benefit, let me repeat it. It's about causality. Being fat isn't a conditio sine que non for requiring an IC bed after a COVID infection. But for those people that if they were infected by COVID that then would require an IC bed not getting a vaccination is a conditio sine que non, because they would've avoided the IC bed in 99% of cases.

Especially in light of the fact that healthcare is a privilege and the money that goes into it is rationed and the care itself as a result too, it's perfectly adequate that if the prevailing consensus of practitioners in that system is to get a vaccination that not getting one might have consequences in decisions how to ration care under specific circumstances.

In other words, I would consider it entirely ethical to prioritise care for those people who adhere to generally accepted advice as opposed to those that don't.

Got a fat patient as a result of diet choices and a normal proportioned person? All things being equal, if the choice needs to be made, by all means, go for the normal proportioned person.

And I have discussed this with medical practitioners here in the Netherlands and they aren't averse to the idea. How about treating a 90-year old woman with heart surgery to provide her a new heart valve? She takes up resources too. Do it or not do it?

I'll repeat, healthcare isn't a right, it's a privilege. When deciding who gets that privilege, people's behaviours can be taken into account and I think they should. I've argued we should, under limited circumstances, and think legal jurisprudence has sufficient and detailed enough doctrine in the area of causality and negligence to make a workable protocol for it that results in a fair distribution of limited resources.

There was a question a few years back (decades possibly?) about doing a similar thing with smokers and lung cancer - — Isaac

I hadn't heard of that, but yes, tobacco abuse produces a wide range of problems.

Being fat isn't a conditio sine que non for requiring an IC bed after a COVID infection — Benkei

Neither is being unvaccinated.

But for those people that if they were infected by COVID that then would require an IC bed not getting a vaccination is a conditio sine que non, because they would've avoided the IC bed in 99% of cases. — Benkei

Now you're changing the question.

With obesity it was - of the set {all fat people} do a high enough proportion require a hospital bed upon infection with covid to make being a member of the set a conditio sine que non?

A like question with vaccination should be - of the set {all unvaccinated people} do a high enough proportion require a hospital bed upon infection with covid to make being a member of the set a conditio sine que non?

The answer is clearly no.

You changed it to - of the set {all hospitalised unvaccinated} would their hospitalisation have been avoided had they vaccinated?

The like comparison with obesity would be - of the set {all hospitalised obese} would their hospitalisation have been avoided had they reduced their bmi?

In all likelihood, yes. 90% of hospitalisations are associated with comorbidities, so if this particular patient's comorbidity is obesity there's a very strong chance their hospitalisation would have been avoid without it.

In all likelihood, yes. 90% of hospitalisations are associated with comorbidities, so if this particular patient's comorbidity is obesity there's a very strong chance their hospitalisation would have been avoid without it. — Isaac

Nope, those percentages are much lower than 90% which is why it's not the same and, moreover, these are lifestyle choices that predate Covid, meaning they weren't culpable choices to begin with.

not one homogeneous legion — Isaac

Right, and that wasn't claimed, except there are a few influential voices operating against ...

The simple part is that more or less everyone wants the damn pandemic to be gone, to a reasonable extent, and so sensible people follow protocols to do theirs in whatever ways (mask, sanitize, distance, etc). Vaccinations are a great step forward. — jorndoe

... hence asking ...

I suppose we might then ask who, if any, ain't doing theirs? Say, are deniers, contrarians, distrust-spreaders, dissidents, conspiracy theorists, etc, guilty in some sense? Failure to learn from history? — jorndoe

... which you failed to respond to for some reason.

Forgot to ask if you voted. Please do. (y)


_{• Psychosocial and demographic characteristics relating to vaccine attitudes in Australia (Aug 21, 2018)
• Naomi Oreskes: ‘Discrediting science is a political strategy’ (Aug 21, 2018)
• Religious affiliation and COVID-19-related mortality: a retrospective cohort study of prelockdown and postlockdown risks in England and Wales (Jan 6, 2021)
• How Capitalist Competition Hobbled the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout (Jan 6, 2021)
• Which US demographics are more likely to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine? (Jan 11, 2021)
• Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination (Jan 26, 2021)
• Education is a bigger factor than race in desire for COVID-19 vaccine (Feb 25, 2021)
• Negative Affectivity, Authoritarianism, and Anxiety of Infection Explain Early Maladjusted Behavior During the COVID-19 Outbreak (Feb 25, 2021)
• COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population (Mar 24, 2021)
• New Tool Tracks Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy Rates Across Geographies, Population Groups (Apr 14, 2021)
• COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Demographic Factors, Geographic Patterns, and Changes Over Time (May 19, 2021)
• Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Socio-Demographics, Co-Morbidity, and Past Experience of Racial Discrimination (May 27, 2021)
• KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: Profile Of The Unvaccinated (Jun 11, 2021)
• SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness (Jun 14, 2021)
• Alberta's COVID-19 vaccination rates tied to levels of formal education, data shows (Jun 15, 2021)
• COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Representative Education Sector Population in Qatar (Jun 18, 2021)
• Biden didn't "fall short" of July 4 vaccination goal — he was sabotaged by Republican trolls (Jul 6, 2021)
• EDITORIAL: Vaccine hesitancy cuts across many demographics (Jul 20, 2021)
• As White Evangelical Vaccine Refusal Reminds Us, Sometimes Religion is the Problem (Jul 29, 2021)
• Companies mulling charging unvaccinated employees more for health coverage: report (Aug 14, 2021)
• NBC News poll shows demographic breakdown of the vaccinated in the U.S. (Aug 24, 2021)}

Brief update on risks ...

Original paper: Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study (Aug 27, 2021)

News article: Blood clot risk greater after Covid infection than after vaccination (Aug 27, 2021)

You have to analyze it by demographic. Look specifically at a young woman's risks either way.

Oh, and just in case I'm included in those 'others' who apparently refuse to answer your simple question, the answer is whomever arrived first. Any other choice would put some factor above saving lives as a priority. You try your best to save the life in the situation presented to you, if the first situation means there's no more vents, then those are the new circumstances in which your efforts must be assessed.

Nope, those percentages are much lower than 90% — Benkei

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184?guestAccessKey=906e474e-0b94-4e0e-8eaa-606ddf0224f5&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=042220

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928531

Your sources?

these are lifestyle choices that predate Covid, meaning they weren't culpable choices to begin with. — Benkei

Of course they were. Covid's relationship to obesity is not a surprise. We knew obesity presented an increased risk of hospitalisation in general. What's more, an additional 3% of the American population became obese during the crisis.

which you failed to respond to for some reason. — jorndoe

That was my response. The 'deniers' are not a homogeneous legion so are not either guilty or not as one entity.

Talking of questions unanswered...

Shall we make the serious climate scientists look like fools by associating them with a few tree-hugging children of Gaia?

Is this the direction you really want public debate to head? — Isaac

the answer is whomever arrived first. — Isaac

That's the prevailing idea and it's wrong.

You have to analyze it by demographic. Look specifically at a young woman's risks either way. — frank

Yes. With such a hugely divergent risk profile in this disease, any avoidance of specific cohort studies is negligent.

That was my response. The 'deniers' are not a homogeneous legion so are not either guilty or not as one entity. — Isaac

Except it wasn't a response to the inquiry posed. (n)

Just FYI, I'm not likely to change topics in the middle of this topic (e.g. two wrongs don't make a right). You'll have to open a new post for that. (y)

@Hanover

Could you give your perspective on whether healthcare should be allotted according to the choices a person has made? So that if resources were tight, vaccinated people would be prioritized over non-vaccinated?

Does that sound ethical to you?

That's the prevailing idea and it's wrong. — Benkei

I think you've misunderstood how discussion works. Either the matter of it's wrongness can be established (or at least furthered) dialectically, in which case you need to answer the points I've raised, or it can't, in which case this is little more than an opinion poll and you've already had your go.

it wasn't a response to the inquiry posed. (n) — jorndoe

are deniers, contrarians, distrust-spreaders, dissidents, conspiracy theorists, etc, guilty in some sense? — jorndoe

...was the question asked. So...

The 'deniers' are not a homogeneous legion so are not either guilty or not as one entity. — Isaac

Is exactly an answer to it.

Original paper: Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study (Aug 27, 2021) — jorndoe

That paper seems to be saying that the risk is greater after vaccination and a positive test for covid than it is with vaccination alone. In other words it seems the subjects were all vaccinated individuals. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?