S/o Sick Shaming

[MEmama]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I don't think that is the case.
At the university where I work, the instructions for students moving into the dorms state that the college accepts proof that they have recovered from Covid within the last 90 days as an alternative to proof of vaccination.
I have seen similar statements in a variety of other situations.

That’s true for international travel, too. Proof of recovery within a certain timeframe is considered equal to being vaccinated.

[Meriwether]

26 minutes ago, MEmama said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-want-the-covid-19-vaccine-then-pay-the-full-cost-if-you-land-in-the-hospital-11628206594
 

Article raising the idea of increasing the amount non vaccinated patients pay.

I'm particularly interested in the idea that an antivaxxer not receiving treatment before those who are vaxxed (or medically can’t be, of course) is *consistent with their beliefs* about Covid. I'm curious for the couple people here who still think Covid is no big deal and boast about never getting vaccinated would feel if/when they find themselves in a literal life or death situation and get passed over because of their choice to remain unvaxxed. Do you agree that would be consistent, or do you think that you should be eligible for care *instead* of a vaccinated person? 

Do you feel that the rate people pay for medical care should be a reflection of their lifestyle choices in general?

[hshibley]

2 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

Do you feel that the rate people pay for medical care should be a reflection of their lifestyle choices in general?

Some health insurance is already that way. You get a healthy “discount” for having your BMI in a certain range not smoking etc. 

[MEmama]

6 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

Do you feel that the rate people pay for medical care should be a reflection of their lifestyle choices in general?

I think it’s a fascinating, ethical dilemma during a pandemic.

I have no cut and dry opinion in regards to your question. 
 

[Dmmetler]

3 minutes ago, hshibley said:

Some health insurance is already that way. You get a healthy “discount” for having your BMI in a certain range not smoking etc. 

As I mentioned above, the plan my husband has through work requires a pretty involved set of biometric measurements, and you get a "discount" if you fall in the good range on enough of them. It's pretty easy at 25 unless you smoke, harder at 50, and the older you get, the more likely you are to fall in a range which your doctor says is pretty good for your age, but falls on the "bad" side of the biometric screening, essentially making it an extra fee for being older. 

[hshibley]

4 minutes ago, Plum said:

discounts are a far cry from denying service at the hospital. 

Meriwether was asking about the rates people pay for medical care

Edited August 6, 2021 by hshibley
Spelling

[Corraleno]

58 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Because people do whatever mental gymnastics are needed to remain in denial that Covid is real. If it just says "pneumonia", I can pretend the pneumonia wasn't caused by a Covid infection and can keep up the delusion that Covid is not real. 

The most ironic, funny-not-funny part of the Missouri coroner story was that after excluding covid from the death certificates at the families' requests, he said some of the families later asked him to put it back on after they discovered they could get FEMA money to cover burial expenses for covid-related deaths.

 

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

Do you feel that the rate people pay for medical care should be a reflection of their lifestyle choices in general?

I am not the poster you asked, but this is a great and important question, and my answer is no.

Because that is a very slippery slope to go down to. Some answers seem easy (vaccination, non smoking). Then it gets trickier (exercise is good, but maybe not skiing or soccer or rock climbing). Then it gets into territory fraught with ethical questions: childbirth is a choice, so should a woman with tubes tied have to pay smaller premiums since she cannot become pregnant? Or, giving birth to a child with a prenatal diagnosis of a disability, or knowingly passing on a genetic illness? - These are choices, too, and expensive ones.
I do not wish to live in a society that penalizes parents for giving birth to these children.

I am for universal health coverage and for society collectively taking care of the sick. And yes, it feels unfair that that means spending money on a smoker's lung cancer - but I do not like the alternative one little bit.

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

The most ironic, funny-not-funny part of the Missouri coroner story was that after excluding covid from the death certificates at the families' requests, he said some of the families later asked him to put it back on after they discovered they could get FEMA money to cover burial expenses for covid-related deaths.

OMG, I had not seen this. That takes the cake.

[MEmama]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The most ironic, funny-not-funny part of the Missouri coroner story was that after excluding covid from the death certificates at the families' requests, he said some of the families later asked him to put it back on after they discovered they could get FEMA money to cover burial expenses for covid-related deaths.

 

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[Innisfree]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The most ironic, funny-not-funny part of the Missouri coroner story was that after excluding covid from the death certificates at the families' requests, he said some of the families later asked him to put it back on after they discovered they could get FEMA money to cover burial expenses for covid-related deaths.

 

Oh.my.goodness.

People are really... something.

 

[ktgrok]

Regarding the border situation:

It also specified that “all enforcement and detention decisions shall be guided by DHS’s ability to conduct operations and maintain custody consistent with applicable COVID-19 protocols.”

For ICE, those protocols, which were in effect when Biden took office, include testing all detainees upon arrival and then keeping them quarantined for 14 days while monitoring for COVID-19 symptoms. “New arrivals who have negative test results and remain symptom free can join the general detained population after the 14-day intake period. Detainees who test positive for COVID-19 receive appropriate medical care to manage the disease,” according to the agency’s guidance, which was last updated Aug. 12, 2020.

Also, the ICE manual for dealing with COVID-19 says that high-risk detainees must be tested before being released into the community.

CBP is supposed to limit its detentions to 72 hours and, according to a spokeswoman who answered our questions by email, officers “conduct initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19 and consult with onsite medical personnel, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or local health systems as appropriate. Onsite medical personnel can provide basic assessment and supportive treatment, but suspected COVID-19 cases are referred to local health systems for appropriate testing, diagnosis, and treatment.”

Again, this was the existing protocol when Biden took office.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/biden-hasnt-reduced-covid-19-testing-at-the-border/

[Jean in Newcastle]

52 minutes ago, Plum said:

I mean that sounds like every lifelong smoker, every drug addict, every obese person.....you get the point. We prioritize when it comes to transplants but unless you need a transplant, everyone is treated. Are we going to start tracking social scores now? Make sure you are a "good person" before we treat you?

I don’t think that anyone WANTS to deny anyone care. At least I don’t. But the reality in an overwhelmed hospital system is that choices have to be made because there simply aren’t enough beds or oxygen or ventilators or whatever. Even in good times hospitals do triage to get the sickest people in first. But what if they are all needing immediate care?  Is it first come, first served?   By potential diagnosis?  By vaccination status (with the presupposition, I suppose that the vaccinated are trying at least to be proactive with regards to this illness?). 
 

I am not promoting any of those by the way. I would hope that perhaps it might be possible to redeploy hospital ships, field hospitals etc but if there is a shortage of trained medical personnel (as I have been told) then setting up beds without enough doctors and nurses to treat the people in the beds, it’s meaningless. 

[I talk to the trees]

1 hour ago, Meriwether said:

Do you feel that the rate people pay for medical care should be a reflection of their lifestyle choices in general?

My health insurer offers incentives for annual checkups, tobacco avoidance, and a bunch of other stuff. Also, State Farm offers this app which tracks your driving habits through your phone and gives you a discount for safer driving behaviors. I’m actually fine with both. I figure somebody is always watching 😉 so I may as well get a discount for it! 

[Melissa Louise]

Triage shouldn't be by perceived proactivity. That's a recipe for treating by class ( with wealthier, more educated people perceived as more proactive) and is profoundly unfair, given poorer, less educated people have many aspects of their health behaviours socially determined ( as indeed do the wealthy/educated, but in a positive direction).

Triage should be by clinical need until that is no longer possible.

When resources must be rationed, then it should be by clinical assessment of ability to respond to treatment, regardless of any other status. 

Of course it's maddening and unfair that the unvaccinated may be driving the overwhelm. And if I were a health professional, I'd be very angry at the perceived selfishness of the unvaccinated. I'm sure that even the most professional of professionals will have a bias towards the vaccinated and against the unvaccinated, and that is absolutely understandable. 

But once we allow health treatment to be withheld on the basis of something other than clinical assessment, despite an individual presenting for, requesting and being willing to accept care, without running it past an ethics committee...well...the other E word starts to come to mind. It was fashionable on the left once; let's not make it so again.

Of course, it may be that the unvaccinated are disproportionately represented among those less likely to benefit from treatment, during periods of rationing. I'm not sure what could be done about that. 

 

 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, MEmama said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-want-the-covid-19-vaccine-then-pay-the-full-cost-if-you-land-in-the-hospital-11628206594
 

Article raising the idea of increasing the amount non vaccinated patients pay.

I'm particularly interested in the idea that an antivaxxer not receiving treatment before those who are vaxxed (or medically can’t be, of course) is *consistent with their beliefs* about Covid. I'm curious for the couple people here who still think Covid is no big deal and boast about never getting vaccinated would feel if/when they find themselves in a literal life or death situation and get passed over because of their choice to remain unvaxxed. Do you agree that would be consistent, or do you think that you should be eligible for care *instead* of a vaccinated person? 

There is no way for the healthcare industry to decide who isn't vaxed due to legitimate concerns or difficulties, vs. who is just being anti.

And it also makes no sense because many vaccinated people need Covid health treatment too.  My vax guarantees exactly nothing.

But many of us vaxed only to protect people who are in poorer health, often because of their own choices.  I am happy to stay on this side of the hospital doors, thank you, God willing.

Mostly, it makes no sense to blame individuals for a pandemic.  Especially low-power, low-knowledge individuals.

And since when do we withhold healthcare due to bad decisions?  Does the ambulance leave people to die at a crash site if alcohol was involved, or if the injured wasn't wearing a seat belt?  Does the fire engine turn around and go back to the station if they find out the fire was caused by a poor choice?  Do we not allow smokers health care because they should know cigarettes cause health problems?  Or overeaters for that matter?  I mean we have discussed things like this years ago.  Like why do young, healthy people have to pay health insurance premiums that cover all kinds of things they have almost no risk of ever needing?  Anyone saying such things was viewed as a selfish, short-sighted person.

And yes, the hospitals have always been full of people whose choices put them there, while people making different choices are less likely to use the healthcare system.  Seems that's always been a given until now.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Regarding the border situation:

It also specified that “all enforcement and detention decisions shall be guided by DHS’s ability to conduct operations and maintain custody consistent with applicable COVID-19 protocols.”

For ICE, those protocols, which were in effect when Biden took office, include testing all detainees upon arrival and then keeping them quarantined for 14 days while monitoring for COVID-19 symptoms. “New arrivals who have negative test results and remain symptom free can join the general detained population after the 14-day intake period. Detainees who test positive for COVID-19 receive appropriate medical care to manage the disease,” according to the agency’s guidance, which was last updated Aug. 12, 2020.

Also, the ICE manual for dealing with COVID-19 says that high-risk detainees must be tested before being released into the community.

CBP is supposed to limit its detentions to 72 hours and, according to a spokeswoman who answered our questions by email, officers “conduct initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19 and consult with onsite medical personnel, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or local health systems as appropriate. Onsite medical personnel can provide basic assessment and supportive treatment, but suspected COVID-19 cases are referred to local health systems for appropriate testing, diagnosis, and treatment.”

Again, this was the existing protocol when Biden took office.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/biden-hasnt-reduced-covid-19-testing-at-the-border/

From what I've read about what's actually happening in practice, thousands of people are being released into the community with Covid.  Not being political, but I could see it being true, because where are you going to put thousands of new homeless people?  And their families, who may or may not be Covid+.

Right or wrong, I don't think there's any question that this is contributing to the spread in states where these migrants are going.

[Jean in Newcastle]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

From what I've read about what's actually happening in practice, thousands of people are being released into the community with Covid.  Not being political, but I could see it being true, because where are you going to put thousands of new homeless people?  And their families, who may or may not be Covid+.

Right or wrong, I don't think there's any question that this is contributing to the spread in states where these migrants are going.

Migrants =|= homeless. Many migrants have families that they are trying to join. 

[Kanin]

2 hours ago, Plum said:

I'm so confused.

 

About what?

[Corraleno]

19 hours ago, Plum said:

Upthread there were posts about vaccinating migrants when that article is saying only a limited number have and the plan isn’t even place yet. Am I reading this wrong? 

Until recently there was not a coordinated federal effort to vaccinate migrants, because DHS/CBP were leaving it up to individual states to order vaccines for detention facilities, many of which are private/for-profit. So depending on the state, and the individual facility, some migrants were getting vaxed but many were not. Now the administration is trying to develop a coordinated plan to handle the situation instead of leaving it up to states, who weren't on top of it.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Corraleno

[Kanin]

19 minutes ago, Plum said:

Upthread there were posts about vaccinating migrants when that article is saying only a limited number have and the plan isn’t even place yet. Am I reading this wrong? 

I'm not sure - I read it like, currently, they're vaccinating only a limited number of migrants, but a new plan is in development to offer more vaccines. I was actually wondering about what was happening at the border and if migrants were being offered vaccines. Good to know a plan is at least in the works!

[Pen]

5 hours ago, MEmama said:

Oh I’m all for universal health care. Too bad it will unlikely ever come to be in the US. 

I'm mostly curious whether an anti vaxxer believes they are entitled to care, despite vaccine refusal, despite boastfully not taking precautions, over someone who did vaccinate. Who, when push comes to shove, “deserves” medical treatment more? Sadly, because of a reluctance by far too many to take personal responsibility, there are hospitals in our country making this decision everyday. It’s a terrible ethical dilemma. 

there’s lots that could be explored there...

How about obese people who didn’t use the last year to get their weight under control? how about people who consume sugar which is a depressor of immune function? How about people who refused to bring their vitamin D levels up to optimum level?  
 

I think ptb  refusing to provide or in many cases even allow what was found to help in terms of prophylaxis and early home treatment or early out patient treatment largely as well, should be considered criminal,  snd that if such treatment were provided it would hugely reduce the strain on hospital and other systems 

[Moonhawk]

2 hours ago, Plum said:

Upthread there were posts about vaccinating migrants when that article is saying only a limited number have and the plan isn’t even place yet. Am I reading this wrong? 

 

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Until recently there was not a coordinated federal effort to vaccinate migrants, because DHS/CPB were leaving it up to individual states to order vaccines for detention facilities, many of which are private/for-profit. So depending on the state, and the individual facility, some migrants were getting vaxed but many were not. Now the administration is trying to develop a coordinated plan to handle the situation instead of leaving it up to states, who weren't on top of it.

Tangential to this: some counties along the border are vaccinating legal border crossers. Border communities are integrated and so the localities are treating the reality and are vaccinating Mexican nationals since their health is our health. An example of a University of Arizona initiative:

"Thompson said the University of Arizona was working with the U.S. Border Patrol to set up clinics so Mexican border residents can drive across to the U.S., get their shots and then return home with little inconvenience.

The county does offer vaccinations to Mexicans who come across the border for work to protect the border communities and the county from the spread of COVID–19, she noted."

https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/cochise_county/no-vaccination-incentives-to-be-offered-in-cochise-county/article_db7e0510-d064-11eb-92d2-c76d8103c301.html

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

I think ptb  refusing to provide or in many cases even allow what was found to help in terms of prophylaxis and early home treatment or early out patient treatment largely as well, should be considered criminal,  snd that if such treatment were provided it would hugely reduce the strain on hospital and other systems 

Now it’s criminal for healthcare providers to not act on misinformation and conspiracy theories? We certainly have been living in an upside down world for the last five years.

[KSera]

10 hours ago, rebot said:

This comment refers that I would rather knowingly expose myself to Covid and develop natural immunity than to get the shot before it has long term data.

You may pass it on to others who pass it on to others, and you might get sick enough to need medical care, contributing to hospital overload. That could happen to any of us, but doing it on purpose doesn't makes sense to me. Even less so after having seen many video clips of people suffering badly with covid, because that's not something I want to experience, if I can help it. On the other hand, having the vaccine means you're very unlikely to need any medical care for covid, thus not only do you get the benefit of that, but you also don't contribute to the hospital overwhelm.

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

You may pass it on to others who pass it on to others, and you might get sick enough to need medical care, contributing to hospital overload. That could happen to any of us, but doing it on purpose doesn't makes sense to me. Even less so after having seen many video clips of people suffering badly with covid, because that's not something I want to experience, if I can help it. On the other hand, having the vaccine means you're very unlikely to need any medical care for covid, thus not only do you get the benefit of that, but you also don't contribute to the hospital overwhelm.

But if we could knowingly catch it, we could safely quarantine ourselves and our families, and afterwards, we would be much less likely to unknowingly catch and spread it.  The risk to me is statistically way lower than the risk to my parents, church members, etc. should I unknowingly contract a stealth case.

I really wish it were practical to do this.

[KSera]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

But if we could knowingly catch it, we could safely quarantine ourselves and our families, and afterwards, we would be much less likely to unknowingly catch and spread it.  The risk to me is statistically way lower than the risk to my parents, church members, etc. should I unknowingly contract a stealth case.

I really wish it were practical to do this.

If someone was going to expose themselves and then quarantine and not be around family or anyone else, I guess that's one thing, but I still think the chances they will need hospital care are too high for that to be a responsible choice. There are way too many young, healthy people being hospitalized for it to seem like anyone can feel secure that they won't be one of them. For those that aren't vaccinated though, and think this would be a better option than being vaccinated, the statistics really don't work out in that direction at all. I agree that for someone vaccinated, the chance of hospitalization for someone with no risk factors is incredibly low.

eta: I saw a graphic earlier I wanted to share from a governor's press conference today. I think it was Louisiana. It showed that in that state they have given over 2 million covid vaccines and had 8 serious vaccine reactions, where serious means a hospital stay was required. They have had no vaccine reactions that resulted in death. They have had 11,162 covid deaths.

Edited August 7, 2021 by KSera

[Bootsie]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

From what I've read about what's actually happening in practice, thousands of people are being released into the community with Covid.  Not being political, but I could see it being true, because where are you going to put thousands of new homeless people?  And their families, who may or may not be Covid+.

Right or wrong, I don't think there's any question that this is contributing to the spread in states where these migrants are going.

I have a relative who is a health care practitioner who works in these faciltities.  When I asked about the situation his response was "we haven't had any time to think about COVID we are so busy dealing with massive outbreaks of TB."  

[kiwik]

On 8/5/2021 at 4:11 PM, Ellie said:

Would you like to talk to my friend who was vaccinated, got Covid anyway, and was hospitalized? The same friend whose dh was vaccinated, got Covid anyway, and died? I'm sure she would have some choice words for you.

No vaccine is full proof.  People who get the flu vaccine sometimes still get the flu and sometimes still die.  It reduces the deaths though.

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, Pen said:

there’s lots that could be explored there...

How about obese people who didn’t use the last year to get their weight under control? how about people who consume sugar which is a depressor of immune function? How about people who refused to bring their vitamin D levels up to optimum level?  
 

I think ptb  refusing to provide or in many cases even allow what was found to help in terms of prophylaxis and early home treatment or early out patient treatment largely as well, should be considered criminal,  snd that if such treatment were provided it would hugely reduce the strain on hospital and other systems 

If you have universal healthcare it is universal - you don't decide who deserves it more except when apportionment things like organ transplants.  Some countries in the current pandemic have had to choose who gets ICU here which has been a major injury to their systems.  

[frogger]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

But if we could knowingly catch it, we could safely quarantine ourselves and our families, and afterwards, we would be much less likely to unknowingly catch and spread it.  The risk to me is statistically way lower than the risk to my parents, church members, etc. should I unknowingly contract a stealth case.

I really wish it were practical to do this.

 How would you know you won't get it again?

I know lots of people who are on round 2. The efficacy of a natural infection seems even lower than the vaccine and three people (in the same family) have a bit of a runny nose and one has a sore throat and that is it. They were asymptomatic to begin with and don't feel sick really.  I don't see how it kept them from contracting a stealth case.

Edited August 7, 2021 by frogger

[Kanin]

23 hours ago, SKL said:

But many of us vaxed only to protect people who are in poorer health, often because of their own choices.  I am happy to stay on this side of the hospital doors, thank you, God willing.

Did you really get vaxxed solely to protect others? You're not at all comforted by perhaps getting milder symptoms if you do get infected? 

[Kanin]

15 hours ago, SKL said:

But if we could knowingly catch it, we could safely quarantine ourselves and our families, and afterwards, we would be much less likely to unknowingly catch and spread it.  The risk to me is statistically way lower than the risk to my parents, church members, etc. should I unknowingly contract a stealth case.

I really wish it were practical to do this.

I see what you mean, but even if that were possible, you could still contract a stealth case later on...

[ktgrok]

21 hours ago, Plum said:

Upthread there were posts about vaccinating migrants when that article is saying only a limited number have and the plan isn’t even place yet. Am I reading this wrong? 

It's complicated. There are different protocols for ICE vs Border Patrol. There are private vs public detention centers. Refugees vs visa holders vs workers vs all sorts of other not documented immigrants. So different programs/responses. 

20 hours ago, Pen said:

I think ptb  refusing to provide or in many cases even allow what was found to help in terms of prophylaxis and early home treatment or early out patient treatment largely as well, should be considered criminal,  snd that if such treatment were provided it would hugely reduce the strain on hospital and other systems 

Things like antibody treatments are not going to be home treatment or likely outpatient - there can be serious reactions. Things like steroids ARE being prescribed as home treatment. 

 

[ktgrok]

Wanting Covid instead of the Covid Vaccine because the vaccine doesn't have long term safety info implies that Covid does. 

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Genuinely I am curious....100 average people, across the US, under the age of 50 diagnosed with covid.......................how many do you think will likely end up requiring hospitalization?

I would have to look to see what that’s currently looking like with Delta, but my best guess before looking would be somewhere between 1 to 5%. And I’m talking about for people on the adult end of that spectrum. The age of people on this forum – – someone in their 30s or 40s, with the risk being higher for the latter than the former.

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Things like antibody treatments are not going to be home treatment or likely outpatient - there can be serious reactions. Things like steroids ARE being prescribed as home treatment. 

I assume her reference to "prophylaxis and early home treatments" that the "criminal" powers-that-be won't allow = things like HCQ, ivermectin, and various "protocols" that can be found online

Edited August 8, 2021 by Corraleno

[SKL]

18 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Wanting Covid instead of the Covid Vaccine because the vaccine doesn't have long term safety info implies that Covid does. 

Covid does have longer info than the vax, and also, it is a virus, so it is not exactly ridiculous to think it might act like viruses act.

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Covid does have longer info than the vax, and also, it is a virus, so it is not exactly ridiculous to think it might act like viruses act.

Cause all viruses act the same?

And although the virus has been around a matter of months longer than we've been doing vaccine trials, the vaccine has been around significantly longer than the most recent Covid Variant. 

[Pawz4me]

15 hours ago, SKL said:

But if we could knowingly catch it, we could safely quarantine ourselves and our families, and afterwards, we would be much less likely to unknowingly catch and spread it.  The risk to me is statistically way lower than the risk to my parents, church members, etc. should I unknowingly contract a stealth case.

I really wish it were practical to do this.

I don't think I'd have any objections to that as long as anyone who intentionally tried to get themselves infected would sincerely commit to totally isolating to avoid infecting anyone else, and would sincerely commit to not doing anything to overwhelm the medical system. IOW, be prepared to die alone at home. I assume if the reasons for wanting to get it are truly rooted in an unselfish concern for others, then the person would also be unselfish enough to not add to already overburdened hospitals or risk infecting any first responders or hospital staff. Maybe have an attorney draw up a waiver refusing medical care in advance, properly execute it according to your state's laws, give it to your next of kin and post it on your front door. 

[Shoeless]

A vaccine is a quick thing that can dramatically reduce your chances of severe illness, hospitalization, and death. 

Someone that weighs 300 lbs is probably going to have to lose 75-100+ lbs to get into a lower Covid risk category. That's going to take a heck of a lot longer to accomplish than getting a vaccine. 

 

[Matryoshka]

10 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Cause all viruses act the same?

And although the virus has been around a matter of months longer than we've been doing vaccine trials, the vaccine has been around significantly longer than the most recent Covid Variant. 

Yep.  Most coronaviruses, in fact, do NOT give long-term, and certainly not life-long protection.  This is NOT the chicken pox - neither in length of natural immunity (much shorter) or virulence (much higher).  The only similarity it now has with cpox is transimissability, sadly.

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I don't think I'd have any objections to that as long as anyone who intentionally tried to get themselves infected would sincerely commit to totally isolating to avoid infecting anyone else, and would sincerely commit to not doing anything to overwhelm the medical system. IOW, be prepared to die alone at home. I assume if the reasons for wanting to get it are truly rooted in an unselfish concern for others, then the person would also be unselfish enough to not add to already overburdened hospitals or risk infecting any first responders or hospital staff. Maybe have an attorney draw up a waiver refusing medical care in advance, properly execute it according to your state's laws, give it to your next of kin and post it on your front door. 

You'd feel better if I caught a stealth case and spread it all over and killed old people, because I didn't do that on purpose.  Very logical.

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes that's correct, it is somewhere between 1% and 5%.   And yes, the closer to the "50" end of the spectrum is, the closer to the 5% that person is.   Also, the more pre-existing conditions a person has the closer to the 5% a person is.

 

Generally however, for someone like me...............43, not obese, no high blood pressure, NO other preexisting conditions, I don't take a single medication for ANYTHING............that means my risk of hospitalization is not only close to 1%......it's less than that.   And in actual reality, that played out exactly like the statistics said it would.  Random colds have made me more ill.  Pre-covid, had I had a job, I would have gone to work because I just wasn't that sick.  Migraines....................AND the Relpax side effects were worse.

 

Now, as you know, I am very well aware that that is not the same for everyone.

 

But if someone, individual, is in a similar situation to me......middle age or younger, no pre existing conditions, looks at those stats and says.....hmmm....over 99% of people like me come out just fine...............................................can you see how they would find it reasonable to feel like infection and subsequent quarantine could be a better choice for them? 

 

 

Well, for me, a 1% risk of hospitalization that is easily avoided does not seem a reasonable risk to me. If it was 1 in 10,000? That would seem more reasonable. (And incidentally, after looking it up, I’m finding that currently most countries are saying delta looks to about double hospitalization risk across all age groups.)

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

How much difference is there between

"Gosh, he probably should have gotten the vaccine, he probably wouldn't have needed to be in the hospital right now"

 and

 

"Gosh, he probably should have worked to lose some weight so he wasn't 300lbs when he got sick, he probably wouldn't have needed to be in the hospital right now."

To me the difference is that the former is extremely easy for the vast majority of people in this country, and free to boot, and the latter is not nearly so. Lots of people work hard to lose weight, but struggle to do so. Others have barriers to even working at it. The latter scenario is still accurate, and doing those things would be for the best and would likely have prevented that person’s hospitalization. Like when you have a relative who smokes ends up with lung cancer or emphysema—you wish they hadn’t done that.

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

You'd feel better if I caught a stealth case and spread it all over and killed old people, because I didn't do that on purpose.  Very logical.

LOL. That's an exceedingly lame attempt at moving the goal post. 

ETA: Or gaslighting. I'm guessing that's a more accurate description.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Pawz4me

[SKL]

Just now, Pawz4me said:

LOL. That's an exceedingly lame attempt at moving the goal post.

Well your post wasn't exactly a serious response to mine either.

[SKL]

Guess the Narcan program in the USA is on its way out, since we don't believe in saving people who got themselves into the mess they're in.

[Pawz4me]

Just now, SKL said:

Well your post wasn't exactly a serious response to mine either.

Believe me, as the spouse of someone with a serious disease--through no fault of his own--who requires lots of medical care I was being absolutely serious. I have zero tolerance for anyone who does anything to further overburden our health care system during a pandemic. Zero tolerance.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

Believe me, as the spouse of someone with a serious disease--through no fault of his own--who requires lots of medical care I was being absolutely serious. I have zero tolerance for anyone who does anything to further overburden our health care system during a pandemic. Zero tolerance.

OK so you are who this whole thread is about.

Edited August 7, 2021 by SKL

[Pawz4me]

Just now, SKL said:

OK so you are who this whole thread is about.

More gaslighting. It's tiresome.