• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Covid-19 miscellany

Is that ethical? I’m down with it, but is it medically ethical?

Yes. When the medical personnel simply have no choice but triage who can be saved and who cannot due to simply not having enough beds and equipment, there must be a criteria for making choices. There is no graceful way to do this.

“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.”

― Robert Heinlein
 
Alabama is out of ICU beds. O-u-t. Perfect justice would be to ship new patients to Mar-a-Lago and chasing out the golfers and Trumpsuckers. Since that won't happen, can't the governors of the surge states issue orders that no one in the state have a heart attack or stroke? DeSantis, what are you waiting for?
 
If there are no ICU beds "available" they should definitely start triaging COVID cases in un-vaccinated people for being an avoidable choice.
Nobody chooses to get in a car crash or have a heart attack. People have had 6 months to see this coming and do something about it.

“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out ..
R Heinlein*

*and thanks to Cheerful Charlie for bringing up that quote!
 
https://www.rawstory.com/texas-mask-mandate-2654729940/

...
The Texas Supreme Court dealt a stinging blow to GOP Gov. Greg Abbott's ban on local mask mandates.
"The Texas Supreme Court has left in place a Travis County judge's TRO (that blocked [Gov. Abbott's] ban on mask mandates in Austin), apparently because the State did not first seek relief from the intermediate court of appeals,"
....

Finally, some good news out of Texas over covid-19 mandates.
 
If there are no ICU beds "available" they should definitely start triaging COVID cases in un-vaccinated people for being an avoidable choice.
Nobody chooses to get in a car crash or have a heart attack. People have had 6 months to see this coming and do something about it.

“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out ..
R Heinlein*

*and thanks to Cheerful Charlie for bringing up that quote!

Probably less than 1-2% of people not vaccinated have legitimate super high risk vaccination problems.

If I knew someone in that position I would have them gather legitimating documents (lab work, records of severe reactions with lab numbers and not just testimonials) to this as to avoid being put into the same triage bucket of non-allergic/autoimmune related vaccine refusers.

Now what to do about doctors who will unethically write notes exaggerating vaccine risks for their patients?

Also, anyone who had a nasty reaction (very few) to the first dose and did not get a second, I hope they kept their records on the matter. If it was not bad enough to go the hospital, should they be lumped with the anti-vaxxers?
 
You don't have to be anti-vax to wonder about the possible long term side effects of a vaccine that's been rushed through the process of testing. Sure, catching 'long covid' may well be worse than possible long-term side effects of the vaccine. It seems like a balancing act using opposing sets of inadequate information.
 
You don't have to be anti-vax to wonder about the possible long term side effects of a vaccine that's been rushed through the process of testing. Sure, catching 'long covid' may well be worse than possible long-term side effects of the vaccine. It seems like a balancing act using opposing sets of inadequate information.

The immunologists say that vaccine side effects typically show up in the first few weeks after getting a vaccine. Even I the production was "rushed" we now have millions upon millions of people who have been vaccinated for months and months, so there should be good data out there about the potential side effects.
 
You don't have to be anti-vax to wonder about the possible long term side effects of a vaccine that's been rushed through the process of testing. Sure, catching 'long covid' may well be worse than possible long-term side effects of the vaccine. It seems like a balancing act using opposing sets of inadequate information.

The immunologists say that vaccine side effects typically show up in the first few weeks after getting a vaccine. Even I the production was "rushed" we now have millions upon millions of people who have been vaccinated for months and months, so there should be good data out there about the potential side effects.

Typically so, but given the possibility of long term effects, it has happened in the past, and Murphy's Law, things are not always typical. That element of uncertainty can cause hesitancy in people who are not anti-vax. That's all I'm saying.
 
Have there been vaccines which appeared fine initially but then had long term effects?

There have been vaccines with long term side effects, which may drive hesitancy regardless of anything else. It's a matter of perception and possibility, not necessarily reality. Plus there have been side effects, clotting, etc, albeit with minimal risk to date.

So, rightly or wrongly, the mere possibility of long term harm may be enough to drive hesitancy for some people. Which is clearly the case.
 
Have there been vaccines which appeared fine initially but then had long term effects?

There have been vaccines with long term side effects, which may drive hesitancy regardless of anything else. It's a matter of perception and possibility, not necessarily reality. Plus there have been side effects, clotting, etc, albeit with minimal risk to date.

So, rightly or wrongly, the mere possibility of long term harm may be enough to drive hesitancy for some people. Which is clearly the case.
Do you have an example?
 
Today I'm hearing that anti-vaxers might be getting some just desserts:
"with vaccines readily available, many patients are once again on the hook for deductibles and co-pays, which could make remaining unvaccinated a lot more expensive"

In other news, Louisiana is discovering that people who were previously infected with COVID and were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms, are not well protected against the Delta variant.
(Another right wing trope that has served as an excuse to forego vaccination, bites the dust.)
In that state, pediatric infection rates have also risen exponentially, from 4% testing positive to 24% in just a few months.

When are we going to recognize the truth, and re-name it the Trump virus?
 
Have there been vaccines which appeared fine initially but then had long term effects?

There have been vaccines with long term side effects, which may drive hesitancy regardless of anything else. It's a matter of perception and possibility, not necessarily reality. Plus there have been side effects, clotting, etc, albeit with minimal risk to date.

So, rightly or wrongly, the mere possibility of long term harm may be enough to drive hesitancy for some people. Which is clearly the case.

The issue is more that likely brain damage and chronic respiratory damage are much worse. I would take "literally rots an arm or leg off" over "brain damage".
 
In other news, Louisiana is discovering that people who were previously infected with COVID and were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms, are not well protected against the Delta variant.
(Another right wing trope that has served as an excuse to forego vaccination, bites the dust.)
In that state, pediatric infection rates have also risen exponentially, from 4% testing positive to 24% in just a few months.
Can you please cite the Louisiana claim?
 
Have there been vaccines which appeared fine initially but then had long term effects?

There have been vaccines with long term side effects, which may drive hesitancy regardless of anything else. It's a matter of perception and possibility, not necessarily reality. Plus there have been side effects, clotting, etc, albeit with minimal risk to date.

So, rightly or wrongly, the mere possibility of long term harm may be enough to drive hesitancy for some people. Which is clearly the case.
Do you have an example?

Long term effects are very rare, but I do remember when I worked as a public health nurse, giving people a list of possible long term effects that they had to read and sign before they or their children received their vaccines. I think that some of these risks have now been debunked, but I did find a list of vaccines that previously caused problems. Sometimes it was a fuck up during while the vaccine was being made.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

For example:

In 1955, some batches of polio vaccine given to the public contained live polio virus, even though they had passed required safety testing. Over 250 cases of polio were attributed to vaccines produced by one company: Cutter Laboratories. This case, which came to be known as the Cutter Incident, resulted in many cases of paralysis. The vaccine was recalled as soon as cases of polio were detected.

The Cutter Incident was a defining moment in the history of vaccine manufacturing and government oversight of vaccines, and led to the creation of a better system of regulating vaccines. After the government improved this process and increased oversight, polio vaccinations resumed in the fall of 1955.


There's a lot more examples in the link, and you can click on each vaccine listed for more detailed information. The one that most of us older adults remember is the swine flu vaccine in 1976.
 
Is that ethical? I’m down with it, but is it medically ethical?

Like a liver transplant patient that refuses to quit drinking? They're not going to get that new liver.

They won’t?
No. While my sister was on the liver transplant list, they tested her for alcohol and drugs frequently. When she fell off the wagon, they removed her as a potential liver recipient. She died at 48 from liver failure a couple years later.
 
Back
Top Bottom