The COVID-19 pandemic

[ijmorlan]

I’m just going to put this here:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...-children/

[jeffster]

I’m just going to put this here:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...-children/

Not sure if I agree or not, as same can applied to: smokers, illicit drug users, heavy drinkers/alcoholics, dangerous/drunk/speeding drivers, those who have shitty diets, etc. All of those end up having people in ICU. All take up way too many beds. And all 100% preventable.

While I agree that every adult should be vaccinated UNLESS they have medical reasons not to, I don’t think it would be right to prevent those from being medically treated.

There is one difference between anti-vaxxers, good or bad, vs those in the other high risk groups that I mentioned: there is risk to the vaccine, and we know that. The risk is 100x smaller than the risk of the virus itself. However, for those clogging up hospitals in the other high risk groups, there is ZERO risk for those that don’t decide to smoke, use drugs, get drunk, drive like an asshat, or eat artery clogging foods.

We’re supposed to have universal healthcare. If we did decide to eliminated health care for those that reject the vaccine, we’d have to also reject those coming into the hospital for drug overdoses, bypass surgeries, high speed traffic accidents (the one that caused it, not the victims), cancer care (due to lifestyle), etc.

Why? Because those people are murdering children too. More importantly, some are murdering their children directly by there actions (what you feed your kids, if you smoke around them, if you drive them around while drunk, etc).

A few years ago I worked with this guy, who was about 18 or 19 at the time. He started to get really skinny, and ended up in the hospital. Turned out he had lung cancer. Really bad. He never smoked a day in his life. However, both his parents were chain smokers. And healthcare provider and x-rays determined that the lungs were that of someone that smoked heavy for 20 years (about his age).

So while I don’t actually disagree with everything they said, we’d want to make sure we’d not be hypocrites about it in the end.

[tomh009]

FRIDAY 2021-09-17

Waterloo Region reported 20 new cases for today (9.6% of the active cases) and none fewer for yesterday for 35; 173 new cases for the week (-11 from yesterday and +8 from last week), averaging 12.4% of active cases. 206 active cases, +8 in the last seven days.

An average of 883 tests/day for the past 7 days, for a positivity rate of 2.80% -- back down to "normal" range after last week's low test numbers.

Seven-day vaccination average is at 1,184 doses/day (previous week was 1,325). 75.56% of total regional population vaccinated (+0.60% from 7 days ago), 70.25% fully vaccinated (+0.84% from 7 days ago).

Ontario reported 795 new cases today with a seven-day average of 724 (-8), compared to 729 a week ago. 680 recoveries and five (new) deaths translated to an increase of 110 active cases and a new total of 6,239. +116 active cases and 34 deaths for the week. 33,763 tests with a positivity rate of 2.35%. The positivity rate is averaging 2.73% for the past seven days, compared to 3.11% for the preceding seven.

169 people in the ICU, +2 from yesterday and +16 over the past week.

Seven-day vaccination average is at 31,477 doses/day (previous week was 32,352). 75.15% of total provincial population vaccinated (+0.63% from 7 days ago), 69.68% fully vaccinated (+0.87% from 7 days ago).

Cases/100K by regional health unit:

• 26 cases in Chatham-Kent: 24.5 per 100K
  
• 16 cases in Brant: 11.8 per 100K
  
• 21 cases in Eastern Ontario: 10.4 per 100K
  
• 27 cases in Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph: 9.9 per 100K
  
• 60 cases in Durham: 9.3 per 100K
  
• 36 cases in Windsor-Essex: 9.3 per 100K
  
• 15 cases in Southwestern Ontario: 7.5 per 100K
  
• 9 cases in Lambton: 6.9 per 100K
  
• 64 cases in Ottawa: 6.4 per 100K
  
• 71 cases in York: 6.4 per 100K
  
• 25 cases in Middlesex-London: 6.2 per 100K
  
• 38 cases in Waterloo: 6.2 per 100K (based on provincial reporting)
  
• 33 cases in Hamilton: 5.7 per 100K
  
• 166 cases in Toronto: 5.7 per 100K
  
• 77 cases in Peel: 5.6 per 100K
  
• 29 cases in Simcoe-Muskoka: 5.4 per 100K
  
• 7 cases in Grey Bruce: 4.3 per 100K
  
• 19 cases in Niagara: 4.2 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Huron Perth: 3.1 per 100K
  
• 10 cases in Sudbury: 2.6 per 100K
  
• 2 cases in Northwestern: 2.3 per 100K
  
• 10 cases in Halton: 1.8 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Leeds, Grenville & Lanark: 1.8 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Kingston Frontenac: 1.5 per 100K
  

[taylortbb]

Not sure if I agree or not, as same can applied to: smokers, illicit drug users, heavy drinkers/alcoholics, dangerous/drunk/speeding drivers, those who have shitty diets, etc. All of those end up having people in ICU. All take up way too many beds. And all 100% preventable.

I hear this comparison a lot, but I think it ignores the really different circumstances the two occur in. We don't normally de-prioritize anti-vaxxers for medical care, but in the middle of a pandemic, when ICUs are being overwhelmed due to them, it's a different situation. We're not in a drunk driving pandemic.

[danbrotherston]

I’m just going to put this here:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...-children/

Not sure if I agree or not, as same can applied to: smokers, illicit drug users, heavy drinkers/alcoholics, dangerous/drunk/speeding drivers, those who have shitty diets, etc. All of those end up having people in ICU. All take up way too many beds. And all 100% preventable.

While I agree that every adult should be vaccinated UNLESS they have medical reasons not to, I don’t think it would be right to prevent those from being medically treated.

There is one difference between anti-vaxxers, good or bad, vs those in the other high risk groups that I mentioned: there is risk to the vaccine, and we know that. The risk is 100x smaller than the risk of the virus itself. However, for those clogging up hospitals in the other high risk groups, there is ZERO risk for those that don’t decide to smoke, use drugs, get drunk, drive like an asshat, or eat artery clogging foods.

We’re supposed to have universal healthcare. If we did decide to eliminated health care for those that reject the vaccine, we’d have to also reject those coming into the hospital for drug overdoses, bypass surgeries, high speed traffic accidents (the one that caused it, not the victims), cancer care (due to lifestyle), etc.

Why? Because those people are murdering children too. More importantly, some are murdering their children directly by there actions (what you feed your kids, if you smoke around them, if you drive them around while drunk, etc).

A few years ago I worked with this guy, who was about 18 or 19 at the time. He started to get really skinny, and ended up in the hospital. Turned out he had lung cancer. Really bad. He never smoked a day in his life. However, both his parents were chain smokers. And healthcare provider and x-rays determined that the lungs were that of someone that smoked heavy for 20 years (about his age).

So while I don’t actually disagree with everything they said, we’d want to make sure we’d not be hypocrites about it in the end.

Nothing is 100%, but it is absolutely clear right now that anti-vaxxers are causing our healthcare system to fail. Alberta is a clear example, the US even clearer.

And no, we absolutely CAN choose to blame the overwhelming and immediate problem of anti-vaxxers RIGHT NOW without also talking about smokers. There is no reason for me, ijmorlan, or society at large to agree with your particular logical gotcha.

[jeffster]

Not sure if I agree or not, as same can applied to: smokers, illicit drug users, heavy drinkers/alcoholics, dangerous/drunk/speeding drivers, those who have shitty diets, etc. All of those end up having people in ICU. All take up way too many beds. And all 100% preventable.

I hear this comparison a lot, but I think it ignores the really different circumstances the two occur in. We don't normally de-prioritize anti-vaxxers for medical care, but in the middle of a pandemic, when ICUs are being overwhelmed due to them, it's a different situation. We're not in a drunk driving pandemic.

Here’s the thing: we already de-prioritize people in general to take care of those that are careless/reckless regarding their health. It’s been going on for years, and we accept that, because we don’t have unlimited money to take care of every medical issue out their (such as, costly Rx to take care of rare health conditions). A child born with a rare condition that requires $250,000/year Rx isn’t getting it. Money isn’t there. Why? Because we spend $100,000 on a person with lung cancer due to smoking, because we spend $500,000 reconstructing a person that hit a bridge support at 150kph and somehow survived. We *don’t* take care of those that are most innocent first, due to cost, and due to money being spent elsewhere. We’re always behind on elective surgeries (AKA, life improving surgeries) all due to costs associated with reckless/careless people.

So yeah, limit healthcare for those that are anti-vax, let them die in peace at their homes or in the hospital hallway. But start doing the same for all those other reckless/careless people. I personally don’t view them any differently in regard to our healthcare.

It might be a popular idea. But not sure that legally or even morally it’s the right thing to do. And once we cross the bridge, there is no turning back. The public at that point will demand similar consequences for other reckless people.

Keep in mind also that: many unvaccinated people are low-income, visible minority, low education levels, homeless, drug addicts, marginalized, etc. Someone going into the hospital with Covid-19 and unvaccinated likely isn’t going to admit they are anti-vax and it would be simply wrong to let those people that I just mentioned die because of their situation. The anti-vax folks are a very small minority.

[danbrotherston]

I hear this comparison a lot, but I think it ignores the really different circumstances the two occur in. We don't normally de-prioritize anti-vaxxers for medical care, but in the middle of a pandemic, when ICUs are being overwhelmed due to them, it's a different situation. We're not in a drunk driving pandemic.

Here’s the thing: we already de-prioritize people in general to take care of those that are careless/reckless regarding their health. It’s been going on for years, and we accept that, because we don’t have unlimited money to take care of every medical issue out their (such as, costly Rx to take care of rare health conditions). A child born with a rare condition that requires $250,000/year Rx isn’t getting it. Money isn’t there. Why? Because we spend $100,000 on a person with lung cancer due to smoking, because we spend $500,000 reconstructing a person that hit a bridge support at 150kph and somehow survived. We *don’t* take care of those that are most innocent first, due to cost, and due to money being spent elsewhere. We’re always behind on elective surgeries (AKA, life improving surgeries) all due to costs associated with reckless/careless people.

So yeah, limit healthcare for those that are anti-vax, let them die in peace at their homes or in the hospital hallway. But start doing the same for all those other reckless/careless people. I personally don’t view them any differently in regard to our healthcare.

It might be a popular idea. But not sure that legally or even morally it’s the right thing to do. And once we cross the bridge, there is no turning back. The public at that point will demand similar consequences for other reckless people.

Keep in mind also that: many unvaccinated people are low-income, visible minority, low education levels, homeless, drug addicts, marginalized, etc. Someone going into the hospital with Covid-19 and unvaccinated likely isn’t going to admit they are anti-vax and it would be simply wrong to let those people that I just mentioned die because of their situation. The anti-vax folks are a very small minority.

Before COVID virtually nobody was not given treatment for medical conditions because of lack of capacity. It didn't happen.  Yes, we didn't always immediately adopt experimental treatments, but that isn't for lack of capacity, it's for lack of evidence of efficacy.

Now with COVID there are real people really dying of things they wouldn't have 2 years ago, for one reason, and one reason only, people who have chosen not to vaccinate.

Because of the flood of people in ERs and ICUs around the US and Alberta, we are needing to perform triage...something we didn't do outside of isolated disasters before.

Those are the simple facts, and it's those facts that make it VERY hard not to support a moral component that those who are CAUSING this disaster not go in front of people who are not.

Honestly, I don't always agree, but I fully see the minority and I don't think its equivalent to the other examples you give.

In fact, if you want an equivalent example, take an isolated disaster...a shooting, a shooter shoots hundreds (or even thousands) of people in an area. All those patients in need of immediate care end up overflowing the hospital, they can't save everyone, they have to triage the patients that are most likely to survive. Now...the police shoot the gunman, he has serious but survivable wounds...does he get triaged same as the rest?

[JoeKW]

I agree that there are profound moral and ethical implications with this but it is disingenuous to compare general 'reckless/careless' with antivaxers who are actually causing a triage situation

[jamincan]

I'm very firmly pro-vaccines and I support vaccine passports. I do, however, think that allowing vaccine status to alter how we treat people in the medical system is unconscionable and is a line I do not want us to cross.

[danbrotherston]

I agree that there are profound moral and ethical implications with this but it is disingenuous to compare general 'reckless/careless' with antivaxers who are actually causing a triage situation

The people who are causing this triage situation are all the people who are choosing not to get vaccinated. Whether they are motivated by full on delusions about microchips, or whether they are motivated by laziness, carelessness, selfishness, ignorance is irrelevant.

The motivation is irrelevant, the effect is what is matters.

[JoeKW]

I mostly agree but it's more complicated than that. A scenario to ponder is:
ICU's are filled with mostly covid patients who refused to get vaccinated
As a result, surgeries are cancelled because there is no room in the ICU's for them
As a result, tumors continue to grow and some people will no longer be eligible for surgery and will die.

This is also unconscionable, and wouldn't even be solved by deprioritizing antivaxers in triage situations.

[jeffster]

I agree that there are profound moral and ethical implications with this but it is disingenuous to compare general 'reckless/careless' with antivaxers who are actually causing a triage situation

People who are reckless with their health (whichever way they do it) cause issues with our hospitals. We simply don't see it because it's always been that way. We don't think about it, and it's all built into the system, as we know how many beds we need for various reasons.

To add, we don't know the amount of anti-vaxxers that are actually sick and in the hospital. We hear of specific cases, especially if it's a known person who is a far-right conspiracy theorist. But as for individuals who are in the hospital, we don't know how many of them are actual anti-vaxxers, how many of them have been in these marches, etc.

To give you insight on why some might not want to get the vaccine, one that hit my own household. My daughter (20) has severe social anxiety, OCD, selective mutism, autism along with a major phobia towards needles. It looks everything I had, plus a couple hundred dollars (she's on ODSP), just to get her out of the house, to her her needle.

1) Her social anxiety basically prevents her from going to busy places. Most vaccine clinics were crowded. This makes it a hard no.
2) Her OCD also prevents her from going out to many places, as she views these things a filthy.
3) Obviously her fear of needles also makes it that much more difficult.

Luckily, she has a supportive dad (me), who was willing to do research to figure the best way to get her shot (I chose a pharmacy). Also, since I am her power of attorney (both medical and financial), I can do all of the paperwork and talking.

Now, my daughter is far from the last person in this region with these mental health issues. There are a lot of other people just like her. These same folks might not have a supportive family. They might not come from a household with enough money to hire a lawyer to do the paperwork required to create a power of attorney, because, once they are 18, they can't request anyone to do their work. And really, for some, their fear of needles far exceeds the fear of getting sick with covid (and in many cases, their risk is very tiny). And unlike my daughters case, likely many can't be bribed and coerced into getting their shot with cold hard cash.

While my daughter did get both vaccines, there are many like her that won't. And they are not anti-vax.

Now, if we live in a country that now wants to punish those that didn't get a vaccine, like what that blog said, then this isn't a country I want to be part of anymore. It's a shitty country with shitty people. A country that no longer has empathy, compassion, or anything. And a country that is hypocritical to boot.

[jeffster]

To add: I had talked to someone, unrelated to covid, regarding how some people can go very far to the right of the political spectrum, and some will got very far to the left of the political spectrum -- and quite often, this is where two ends meet.

To those that say we should not service those who refuse to vaccine, you're no better than those than refused to do so. And perhaps take some history lessons and study our constitution.

[danbrotherston]

To add: I had talked to someone, unrelated to covid, regarding how some people can go very far to the right of the political spectrum, and some will got very far to the left of the political spectrum -- and quite often, this is where two ends meet.

To those that say we should not service those who refuse to vaccine, you're no better than those than refused to do so. And perhaps take some history lessons and study our constitution.

Wow...this is a pretty bold statement.

Those who are actually harming innocent people are just as bad as those who wish to see innocent people get helped before guilty people? This is what you actually believe?

[jeffster]

I mostly agree but it's more complicated than that.  A scenario to ponder is:
ICU's are filled with mostly covid patients who refused to get vaccinated
As a result, surgeries are cancelled because there is no room in the ICU's for them
As a result, tumors continue to grow and some people will no longer be eligible for surgery and will die.

This is also unconscionable, and wouldn't even be solved by deprioritizing antivaxers in triage situations.

However, they are not. Current ICU in all of Canada is 721, 194 of that is in Ontario.

https://canadiancriticalcare.org/COVID-19-Case-Counts

According to this old data set (2015), Canada had roughly 3,200 ICU beds:

https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/track/...0852-6.pdf

That said, I do agree that under no circumstance should important surgeries be cancelled. And we need to remember that any influx of patients into an ICU unit isn't just due to vaccination status, but also social rules in place. A government and business can mitigate many issues by keeping certain restriction in place, and by adding some, such as vaccine passports.

To put into a different perspective: imagine a scenario where everyone is vaccinated, but no one is social distancing, no one is masking, and everyone is hanging around, for long periods of time, inside a building. Some get sick, some end up in the ICU. Do we have the same feelings towards them as we might someone who's refused a vaccine?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/c...-1.4670229

This is where we're headed. And it will be our reality.

So ask yourself the question -- is this a road we want to go down, not treating certain covid patients? Because, if vaccinated people are being put into an ICU, most likely they contributed to their situation.