The COVID-19 pandemic

[JoeKW]

I'm not advocating for anything, I'm just saying that it's more complex than it seems. Right now, Ontario shouldn't be denying anyone care. Alberta apparently will triage soon, it's an awful thing but it will happen. There are rules for determining who gets to live and who dies in a triage situation but at the end of the day it's just a bit of guesswork about who has the best chance to live.

[jamincan]

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?

It's not fair that someone might wait for surgery they need because an unvaccinated Covid patient is using a bed in an UCI, but the reality is that in that precise moment, the unvaccinated Covid patient needs the bed more.

I do not want to live in a world where my medical treatment hangs in a balance of my moral worthiness. In a past era, someone might well have argued that gay AIDS patients don't deserve to fill up an ICU because of risky lifestyle choices they made. We might feel moral clarity now, but that clarity rarely stands the test of time. Medical care should *always* be impartial except in the most extenuating circumstances.

Innocent people? Guilty people? No one has broken any laws. This sort of inflammatory rhetoric *is* harmful.

[danbrotherston]

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?

It's not fair that someone might wait for surgery they need because an unvaccinated Covid patient is using a bed in an UCI, but the reality is that in that precise moment, the unvaccinated Covid patient needs the bed more.

I do not want to live in a world where my medical treatment hangs in a balance of my moral worthiness. In a past era, someone might well have argued that gay AIDS patients don't deserve to fill up an ICU because of risky lifestyle choices they made. We might feel moral clarity now, but that clarity rarely stands the test of time. Medical care should *always* be impartial except in the most extenuating circumstances.

Innocent people? Guilty people? No one has broken any laws. This sort of inflammatory rhetoric *is* harmful.

I am not necessarily arguing for a particular side. But my point remains, to say they are the same I think is ridiculous.

That being said, your example is not correct...we're talking triage right now. Two people who need an ICU bed equally at that very moment, but there is only one bed, should it go to the patient who chose not to get vaccinated and has thus endangered innocent people--perhaps the very person that they are competing for the bed.

That being said, as others have pointed out, I believe the situation is unique. AIDS was a terrible epidemic, but as far as I'm aware, it never resulted in triage in our hospitals, nor has obesity, nor smoking, nor any other "moral failing" real or imagined. A good comparable example was the one I laid out earlier would be a mass casualty event that overwhelms local hospitals, caused by a wilful and knowing perpetrator, say, a mass shooting, if that shooter is shot by police, and needs an ICU bed, should they get one instead of one of their victims?

I fully agree that medical care should be impartial except in extenuating circumstances...well...I argue that a worldwide pandemic causing triage conditions in our hospitals is extenuating cirumstances.

As for innocent and guilty, we're all well aware those words have meaning beyond the legal sense. It is not a reasonable position to take that someone cannot be "guilty" unless they are legally guilty, and that's before you even broach the subject of the inherent bias in our laws (few dangerous and clearly lawbreaking distracted drivers will ever be found guilty of their crime, to say nothing of the difference between stealing 5 dollars from someones unlocked car at night vs. stealing 5 dollars from a min wage employee by underpaying them).

[ijmorlan]

Bottom line, the cure for Covid is vaccination, period.

By not getting vaccinated, people are choosing not to be treated for Covid. People don’t have the right to choose the most expensive treatment on the taxpayers’ dime. They especially don’t have the right to reject doctors and science when it comes to choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, then suddenly trust in doctors and science when they become infected. Maybe if they’re paying for their own health care.

If there happens to be spare capacity then fine, don’t deny care. But it’s totally absurd to prioritize fixing someone’s bad decision that they made on their own over the needs of someone else who isn’t responsible for their own trouble.

As to why this same logic doesn’t apply to other behaviours, the fact that we’re in a pandemic is the real difference. People will always do foolish things and we are a sufficiently wealthy society that we can and should afford to maintain a health care system which can clean up a certain amount of these messes. But we can’t suddenly expand capacity enough to clean up after all the anti-vaxxers.

[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.

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?

Yeah, that is what I am saying. Perhaps do some research as it appears you can't. Do some critical reading. Stop using emotion for your viewpoints. Because you are going down one dangerous slippery slop, you really are.

And to be clear, you're OK with rejecting health services for people that rejected the vaccine.

Remember, it's just not 'anti-vaxxers' that harm innocent people. And as I said, likely not many in the ICU are anti-vaxxers. I would love to be proved otherwise, other than xx% were unvaccinated (because, anti-vax and unvaccinated are NOT the same thing).

And speaking from personal experience, my dad had a pre-mature death, just 61 years old. He started having chest pain, went to St. Mary's and had the battery of tests, and they found that a lot of his arteries were clogged. However, as a non-smoker, as a person that didn't drink a lot, and as a person who had a healthy BMI, his surgery was put off by about 6 weeks. He died a week after his tests, of a heart attack. Why did this happen? Because smokers, heavy drinkers, and fat asses will have their health taken care of first, when in a similar circumstance. By and large, my dad was innocent, and unhealthy literally caused his death.

As I said, a slippery slop.

I keep getting the feeling that people here really do no research in what's happening.

I'll keep posting legitimate links, everyone else can post blogs and opinion pieces.

[danbrotherston]

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?

Yeah, that is what I am saying. Perhaps do some research as it appears you can't. Do some critical reading. Stop using emotion for your viewpoints. Because you are going down one dangerous slippery slop, you really are.

And to be clear, you're OK with rejecting health services for people that rejected the vaccine.

Remember, it's just not 'anti-vaxxers' that harm innocent people. And as I said, likely not many in the ICU are anti-vaxxers. I would love to be proved otherwise, other than xx% were unvaccinated (because, anti-vax and unvaccinated are NOT the same thing).

And speaking from personal experience, my dad had a pre-mature death, just 61 years old. He started having chest pain, went to St. Mary's and had the battery of tests, and they found that a lot of his arteries were clogged. However, as a non-smoker, as a person that didn't drink a lot, and as a person who had a healthy BMI, his surgery was put off by about 6 weeks. He died a week after his tests, of a heart attack. Why did this happen? Because smokers, heavy drinkers, and fat asses will have their health taken care of first, when in a similar circumstance. By and large, my dad was innocent, and unhealthy literally caused his death.

As I said, a slippery slop.

I keep getting the feeling that people here really do no research in what's happening.

I'll keep posting legitimate links, everyone else can post blogs and opinion pieces.

To be clear, I haven't advocated ANY position in this statement, I have merely claimed that you classifying these two groups as the same is "bold", to which I meant, really quite ridiculous in my mind.

You can accuse me of "not doing my research" all you want, I have been very explicit in my statements, your dad's situation is not analogous, while you have my condolences for your father, you have not explained why his surgery was "put off by 6 weeks"...what caused it to be put off? Certainly if they scheduled it for 6 weeks, this was not a triage situation as we are facing now. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming that the surgery was scheduled as soon as possible, but within a timeframe that the doctors felt was acceptable. In this case they were proven wrong, and I am sorry about that, but there is no guarantee that he would have been seen sooner if cigarettes didn't exist. Long term wait times are a function of funding, if cigarettes didn't exist, it's entirely likely that funding would be lower and the wait times would be the same, the short term triage situation Alberta is facing right now is different from that. But again, it's your anecdote, so if that's not the situation, then correct me.

[jeffster]

But as far as I'm aware, it never resulted in triage in our hospitals, nor has obesity, nor smoking, nor any other "moral failing" real or imagined. A good comparable example was the one I laid out earlier would be a mass casualty event that overwhelms local hospitals, caused by a wilful and knowing perpetrator, say, a mass shooting, if that shooter is shot by police, and needs an ICU bed, should they get one instead of one of their victims?

But Dan, this is where you are wrong, as I posted in my previous comment (above this). Triage take into consideration a persons current health state -- that is, if two people come into a hospital, one is a heavy smoker and is obese, when doesn't smoke and has a healthy body weight, and they both have a similar health issue, triage addresses the least healthy one first. In my dads case, it is what killed him. Had he been a overweight smoker, he'd would not have left the hospital that day. But rather, the doctors, looking as his weight and lifestyle, sent him home -- to die -- literally, because 'triage' suggests he could live longer without help than the other patients. That is our reality. And people die at home, all the time, awaiting surgery. Their crime? Having a healthier lifestyle.

As for your example, which I underlined, shows a complete ignorance on how our health system works. Those that spend 10's of thousands to go to school, and spend years learning medical arts, have 1 job, and it's to treat the most critical first. If that's the shooter, it's the shooter. The doctors don't make that judgement call. It goes against their sworn oath. You, me, nor the police can make that call on who survives and who doesn't. So it's a horrible example to bring up, and shows a total lack of understanding on how our medical system works.

In the case of my dad, he's dead because of our triage system. Most likely, in an open market like the US, he'd be still alive today.

I am not faulting our system. It works pretty good most of the time, but it doesn't always work right. It doesn't work with so-called 'justice' in mind.

But, you are 100% wrong when saying that smokers, obese people, alcoholics, etc., don't cause enough chaos in our healthcare system that other 'innocent' people die.

Maybe I triggered you because you are a smoker. Maybe you have a poor diet. I don't know. And that makes you uncomfortable with the idea that perhaps you or someone you love may not be prioritized due to their lifestyle choice (such as smoker, vaping, drug use, alcohol use, etc).

As for anti-vaxxers themselves, I still want to see some evidence that they are clogging the system. I keep asking, and no one has shown proof. Yes, we hear about right-wing whacko conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts getting sick and dying, which we see the far left wing nuts laughing and giggling about when they choke, but other than that, crickets.

And to that, the shame on our governments for allowing anti-vax propaganda to fester on social media and for allowing kids to go unvaccinated for many illnesses because, for the most part, that had basically been eliminated (though measles, right?). Perhaps fining these people every time they protest isn't a bad idea.

And thank God that someone like you isn't in charge of making medical decisions for the province, for the country. Because your thinking just isn't right. I think about people that might be like my daughter, who I basically force, bribed and scared her into getting a shot. And legally, I could do that. Thousands of others, like her, hiding away wherever they are. Homeless people. Marginalized people. Immigrants. If you had it your way, none would get help if they got sick.

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13937

[jeffster]

Current 7-day Covid-19 cases per 100k

• Chatham-Kent Public Health 102.5
• Windsor-Essex County Health Unit 83.6
• Brant County Health Unit 66.4
• City of Hamilton Public Health Services 48.5
• Niagara Region Public Health 45.1
• Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health 44.9
• Southwestern Public Health 37.4
• Ottawa Public Health 36.9
• York Region Public Health 36.1
• Peel Public Health 36.0

• Region of Waterloo Public Health and Emergency Services 32.7

• Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health 16.5
• North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit 15.4
• Hastings Prince Edward Public Health 13.1
• Grey Bruce Health Unit 13.0
• Northwestern Health Unit 12.5
• Renfrew County and District Health Unit 11.0
• Algoma Public Health 9.6
• Porcupine Health Unit 8.4
• Thunder Bay District Health Unit 4.0
• Timiskaming Health Unit 0.0

• TOTAL ONTARIO 34.1

[ac3r]

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.

Same. Anyone suggesting the unvaccinated or simply careless people in society who are infected and have a severe case of this disease does not deserve treatment is a psychopath. I hate seeing this sort of rhetoric online or in person.

To be frank, this thread has turned to shit with this endless arguing. I can tell most of you have never once studied even the most elementary of moral philosophy. Whether you like it or not, we live in a society where each life matters (it's why we house the most violent, abhorrent criminals and don't execute them). It doesn't matter if it's an anti-vaxxer slowly dying in an ICU or a violent pedophile that was stabbed in prison and is then suffering in the trauma ward of an emergency room. We treat all lives equally (at least until we reach a critical point and must triage, but we have not and very rarely have ever faced such a situation). We don't provide health care based on subjective moral interpretations. When we do that, that's when we find ourselves on the same railroad track that permitted eugenics. Anyone who believes we should act that way ought to get the fuck out of this country.

[danbrotherston]

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.

Same. Anyone suggesting the unvaccinated or simply careless people in society who are infected and have a severe case of this disease does not deserve treatment is a psychopath. I hate seeing this sort of rhetoric online or in person.

To be frank, this thread has turned to shit with this endless arguing. I can tell most of you have never once studied even the most elementary of moral philosophy. Whether you like it or not, we live in a society where each life matters (it's why we house the most violent, abhorrent criminals and don't execute them). It doesn't matter if it's an anti-vaxxer slowly dying in an ICU or a violent pedophile that was stabbed in prison and is then suffering in the trauma ward of an emergency room. We treat all lives equally. We don't provide health care based on subjective moral interpretations. When we do that, that's when we find ourselves on the same railroad track that permitted eugenics. Anyone who believes we should act that way ought to get the fuck out of this country.

Nobody has said this, and nobody is even remotely talking about eugenics.

EVERYONE has repeatedly explained that the objection here is that in a triage situation that anti-vaxxers would get treatment INSTEAD of their victims.

Now I'm tired of explaining this, if you folks refuse to understand what that means, I can't fix it, but this is a pretty offensive response.

[jeffster]

Bottom line, the cure for Covid is vaccination, period.

By not getting vaccinated, people are choosing not to be treated for Covid. People don’t have the right to choose the most expensive treatment on the taxpayers’ dime. They especially don’t have the right to reject doctors and science when it comes to choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, then suddenly trust in doctors and science when they become infected. Maybe if they’re paying for their own health care.

If there happens to be spare capacity then fine, don’t deny care. But it’s totally absurd to prioritize fixing someone’s bad decision that they made on their own over the needs of someone else who isn’t responsible for their own trouble.

As to why this same logic doesn’t apply to other behaviours, the fact that we’re in a pandemic is the real difference. People will always do foolish things and we are a sufficiently wealthy society that we can and should afford to maintain a health care system which can clean up a certain amount of these messes. But we can’t suddenly expand capacity enough to clean up after all the anti-vaxxers.

One thing, we need a better vaccine, before we can call it a cure. That said, there is plenty wrong here.

1) People have the right to choose or not to choose medical procedure (which a vaccine shot is). This is constitutional.
2) As I explained in another post, we never have had 'spare capacity' so that we don't deny care to those lower in the 'triage' list. I know this all to well with my dad dying at 61, because triage was fixing smokers and fat people first, with same condition.
3) Therefore, the logic does apply to other behaviours. Our healthcare system is always strained. People are bumped down constantly on the priority list due to others who are either reckless or don't take care of themselves (like smokers, alcoholics, gluttons, etc). Any many times these people who are bumped down end up with life altering issues, including death (something that can't be undone). If we had a 'wealthy society' we could afford expensive Rx/treatments for children born with certain conditions rather than deny. Where is this money tied up? Certainly enough is being used on people that make poor decisions when it comes to their health.

Anyway, here is some light reading:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/de...canada.pdf

On the bright side, we're not as bad as the USA. But we could do a lot better.

While it is 100% true that the vaccine is significantly safer than the potential of getting very sick with Covid-19, and dying from it -- would anyone here take be willing to take the fall if someone got the vaccine and died?

When it comes to covid-19, I know of 2 people that have gotten sick with it. My employer has close to 2,500 employees, and zero covid-19 cases so far (because we've been told so many times -- social distance, masking, wash hands, etc, that we do it away from work as well) I know of one person (family friend) that died from the Astra-Zeneca shot. He was in his 70's and probably would have died anyway had he gotten Covid. But my thinking of forcing people to take the shot is wrong, because it's still not zero risk.

[JoeKW]

I think this debate has run it's course.

[jeffster]

I'm not advocating for anything, I'm just saying that it's more complex than it seems. Right now, Ontario shouldn't be denying anyone care.  Alberta apparently will triage soon, it's an awful thing but it will happen. There are rules for determining who gets to live and who dies in a triage situation but at the end of the day it's just a bit of guesswork about who has the best chance to live.

What's going on in Alberta is horrible and it's all because of a stupid government listening too much to the demands of their people.

As for triage -- please read my post regarding my dad. He died because of 'triage'. In a world of no triage, he'd be alive today. But because of people with more co-morbid's, they get treated first. It's not a matter of triaging who lives or dies, but who is most likely to die or live.

I remember watching this series on TLC, and it was a real life series, dealing with hospital triage. Two people came in, a drunk guy who wrapped his car around a pole, and a girl that had some food poisoning. So at first, the guy was close to death, and the girl was recovering quite fast. The next day, the guy is put into a coma to stop swelling in his brain from the hematoma, meanwhile, the girl is place into the unit for outgoing patients. A few hours later, the guys swelling goes down, however, the girl start filling sick again. By the time the next day rolls around, the guy is out of his coma, and is starting to talk. The girl now is throwing up constantly, has a fever of 103º. She never made it through the night, and died of shock. He did a full recovery and got out.

Triage made the right decision in the way they cared for both individuals. They, however, had no idea that her food poisoning was significantly worse than they realized, and that she was going to die without proper treatment (because it was never given). A couple more tests would have revealed something serious. But their time and energy was being used on some drunk that wrapped his car around a pole -- it literally was 'all hands on deck' for him.


It's funny looking back, in a sad way, how much this province changes things constantly. Though I was really surprised when Andrea Horwath spoke against mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers and educators.

[jeffster]

EVERYONE has repeatedly explained that the objection here is that in a triage situation that anti-vaxxers would get treatment INSTEAD of their victims.

Clarity Dan, because this is confusing as hell.

What I posted: Ontario, and indeed most of Canada, are not short on ICU beds. What I have asked: how many anti-vaxxers are in the ICU. And, WHO are their victims?

I have said a lot of things, but you don't address any counter-claim that I make. Zilch.

And you have been crystal clear in peddling the idea of not treating unvaccinated people, regardless of reason.

But please do provide the link of anti-vax population in the ICU in Ontario -- and we can discuss those consequences.

I also stand by my comment, -- ticket these anti-vax protestors.

And hell, why not fine EVERYONE that doesn't want to get a vaccine? WE have at least 1,000,000 left that will never get a vaccine, charge them $1,000. If they get sick, and need a hospital, you have $1 billion to draw from and not take away from anyone else.

[jeffster]

Yeah, that is what I am saying. Perhaps do some research as it appears you can't. Do some critical reading. Stop using emotion for your viewpoints. Because you are going down one dangerous slippery slop, you really are.

And to be clear, you're OK with rejecting health services for people that rejected the vaccine.

Remember, it's just not 'anti-vaxxers' that harm innocent people. And as I said, likely not many in the ICU are anti-vaxxers. I would love to be proved otherwise, other than xx% were unvaccinated (because, anti-vax and unvaccinated are NOT the same thing).

And speaking from personal experience, my dad had a pre-mature death, just 61 years old. He started having chest pain, went to St. Mary's and had the battery of tests, and they found that a lot of his arteries were clogged. However, as a non-smoker, as a person that didn't drink a lot, and as a person who had a healthy BMI, his surgery was put off by about 6 weeks. He died a week after his tests, of a heart attack. Why did this happen? Because smokers, heavy drinkers, and fat asses will have their health taken care of first, when in a similar circumstance. By and large, my dad was innocent, and unhealthy literally caused his death.

As I said, a slippery slop.

I keep getting the feeling that people here really do no research in what's happening.

I'll keep posting legitimate links, everyone else can post blogs and opinion pieces.

To be clear, I haven't advocated ANY position in this statement, I have merely claimed that you classifying these two groups as the same is "bold", to which I meant, really quite ridiculous in my mind.

You can accuse me of "not doing my research" all you want, I have been very explicit in my statements, your dad's situation is not analogous, while you have my condolences for your father, you have not explained why his surgery was "put off by 6 weeks"...what caused it to be put off? Certainly if they scheduled it for 6 weeks, this was not a triage situation as we are facing now. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming that the surgery was scheduled as soon as possible, but within a timeframe that the doctors felt was acceptable. In this case they were proven wrong, and I am sorry about that, but there is no guarantee that he would have been seen sooner if cigarettes didn't exist. Long term wait times are a function of funding, if cigarettes didn't exist, it's entirely likely that funding would be lower and the wait times would be the same, the short term triage situation Alberta is facing right now is different from that. But again, it's your anecdote, so if that's not the situation, then correct me.

I missed this post:

Regarding my dad, he had 94% blockage in the worse artery. Normally, you wouldn't leave the hospital with arteries that are that block. This diagnose March 29, he died April 5, his surgery was scheduled May 10. Our family doctor was surprised that it was put off, especially after seeing his health report and also the autopsy. The reason why it was put off was that there were several other people who had tests that week, and while none of them had the blockage my dad had, they all were had one or more co-morbid. Smoking, overweight, sedentary lifestyle. My dad, didn't smoke, had good weight, and walk 5 or 10 miles a day (up to the point of is test), so they figured that 95% blockage for him was less serous than a 400 pound smoker with less blockage. And plenty of others that had less blockage, but more noticeable co-morbid's.

According to our doctor, though, he should have had emergency when they saw the blockage. Anything above 70% is considered severe. Obviously with people perhaps coming out of their houses again after winter, certain health conditions pop up, like a sore chest after being stuck inside all winter.

And to be completely honest, I think the family should have sued the hospital. Everything I've read regarding his blockage shows that he should haven't come home after the stress test.

I had a school friend that was in a car accident, years ago. The driver was more seriously injured, so more time was spent on him. My friend BP crashed, and he went into cardiac arrest en route. The drive, while he looked horrible, didn't sustain internal injuries. My friend, first couple BP checked out a-okay.

Plenty of stories where the victim (literally) dies.