COVID-19 / Coronavirus Outbreak

[princeofcarthage]

My parents haven't even gotten 1 vax yet.

Why?

[fightinfrenchman]

My parents haven't even gotten 1 vax yet.

Why?

Probably afraid of needles

[XeeleeFlower]

My parents haven't even gotten 1 vax yet.

Why?

My mom has factor V (grandma does too, but she got vaxxed) so she's nervous about it and my dad is worried he's allergic because he was allergic to the emergency covid treatment in the hospital. They both got covid unsurprisingly.

That's their reasons, anyway. I feel Fox is the reason. It's been a thing between us

[RefluxSemantic]

I want them to kick unvaccinated people out of the hospitals. If you don't care about public interest, the public facilities shouldn't care about you either.

[Mr_Bramboy]

I want them to kick unvaccinated people out of the hospitals. If you don't care about public interest, the public facilities shouldn't care about you either.

What about fat people, smokers, people who drink alcohol, people who eat red meat, people who eat meat in general, people who don't exercise 2-3 times a week, people who recklessly get into an accident, etc?

People make decisions that are bad for their health. Denying them medical care for that reason goes against everything that any doctor and nurse stand for. The reality is that this virus is going to be with us for a while and that our current leadership lacks any semblance of long-term vision.

[RefluxSemantic]

If people not wearing a seatbelt would cause a lockdown because they are clogging up the ICU (and thus the government decides that we need to stay at home every single winter because of them), then I'd totally be in favor of throwing them out of the ICU. Well, that or forbid them from driving without wearing a seatbelt, and if that wouldn't work, throw them out of the ICU. Oh wait, it's already illegal to drive without wearing a seatbelt and fortunately the few morons that don't wear a seatbelt aren't causing many problems.

That's the thing with this analogy, it's a false analogy. The examples you mention don't cause hundreds, if not thousands of people to be in the ICU for 2-3 weeks, completely sucking up all medical capacity. If they did, I would want the government to take away as many freedoms from these morons as possible. Their freedom isn't worth the restrictions of the freedom of the innocent people.

[RefluxSemantic]

Tbf, in hindsight PrinceofCarthage was right (for all the wrong reasons of course) about needing a 'cure'. We need a 'cure' because some morons don't want the existing cure until it's too late for them to get that one.

[edeholland]

Rather have mandatory vaccins, lockdown only for non vaccinated people, or giving non vaccinated people the lowest priority at the ICU?

[RefluxSemantic]

Rather have mandatory vaccins, lockdown only for non vaccinated people, or giving non vaccinated people the lowest priority at the ICU?

I think mandatory vaccins would be great tbh

[Dolan]

Rather have mandatory vaccins, lockdown only for non vaccinated people, or giving non vaccinated people the lowest priority at the ICU?

I think mandatory vaccins would be great tbh

Basically a final solution for the unvaxxed



Maybe health fascism could work.

[Mr_Bramboy]

I don’t have the numbers on hand but if I recall correctly smoking is correlated with the overwhelming majority of lung cancer patients. Do you think the tax payer should wear the burden of treatments for these patients?

[Dolan]

No, I think it would be a good idea to make those whose illnesses are clearly caused by lifestyle foot the bill themselves.
There shouldn't be any free healthcare for those who stuffed themselves for years then got diabetes and expect the taxpayer to pay for treatment.
But then not all behaviours have a clearcut individual cause, for example the obese might overeat to compensate for some mental illness caused by social pressure, rejection, etc. Same for people who become alcoholics.

So then how do you establish true causality and individual share of responsibility in a way that is actionable through policy, if these are also results of a society with broken or dysfunctional social bonds.

[RefluxSemantic]

I think seatbelts are a better comparison than smoking (where there are some nuanced details). I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt. Actually I recall a story of some painter that wanted to paint on top of a building; insurance told him he had to wear a safety harnass. He didnt and ended up falling down, with the result that his insurance didnt cover the medical expenses. That was always something that seemed reasonable to me.

Edit: dont smokers effectively pay for their medical costs through how ridiculously expensive smoking is?

[Dolan]

That's an easy one, because you can easily map action to effect (painting building -> falling -> uninsured risk, or not using a seatbelt -> accident -> uninsured risk).
But if the health effect is the result of multiple actions taking place at different points in time, over the years, creating an accumulated negative effect on health, it's more difficult to pin down individual fault.

The insurance company would have to monitor how many excess calories someone eats per day or how much alcohol they drink. Not so doable without mass surveillance.
It would have to be some kind of health totalitarianism, in which the state would monitor how much you're eating, drinking and how much you're exercising. Then if they notice the formation of a bad habit over the years, they could send you a message: 'we won't pay for any treatment if you keep going with this lifestyle'.

This might be doable actually. In Romania, for example, we have free medical checkups every year, which cover stuff like blood tests. If, after you take your yearly tests, the doctor detects a negative trend that can only be the result of unhealthy habits, you could get your health insurance score downgraded. If next year, the trend persists, you get another downgrade until you lose free healthcare for some kinds of services. I'd be OK with that. Lots of fatsoes, smokers and alcoholics would get kicked out of the system and they would have to work their way back in, next year, by making lifestyle changes.

Edit: dont smokers effectively pay for their medical costs through how ridiculously expensive smoking is?

Don't drivers pay for whatever accidents could happen by just having an insurance? Not sure if anyone can establish if you didn't have a seatbelt on or if it malfunctioned.

[pecelot]

On one hand, I'm a strong opponent of passive smoking, but on the other, I always wonder how far it should extend — climate change, dirty air via burning rubbish, Covid, or even just breathing on other people?

[fightinfrenchman]

I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt.

This is a bad outcome to want, because not wearing a seatbelt is a bad decision but it doesn't hurt anyone else, and the person has already been punished by being injured. Why also ruin them financially? Who does that benefit

[pecelot]

they were punished by being injured because of what? because of their reluctance to use one of the most basic and least uncomfortable means of protection available inside a vehicle?

[edeholland]

I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt.

Who does that benefit

Everyone who wears a seatbelt.

[harcha]

I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt.

This is a bad outcome to want, because not wearing a seatbelt is a bad decision but it doesn't hurt anyone else, and the person has already been punished by being injured. Why also ruin them financially? Who does that benefit

a person who doesn't wear a seat belt will additionally injure everyone around them when in a crash

[princeofcarthage]

It depends on how crash happened. In some cases seatbelt might be harmful rather than helpful.

[Goodspeed]

I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt.

This is a bad outcome to want, because not wearing a seatbelt is a bad decision but it doesn't hurt anyone else, and the person has already been punished by being injured. Why also ruin them financially? Who does that benefit

Safety in general, since people will be even more incentivized to wear seatbelts, and the insurance company's profits which, as long as the industry is competitive, would lead to slightly cheaper insurance for everyone else.

[princeofcarthage]

I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt.

This is a bad outcome to want, because not wearing a seatbelt is a bad decision but it doesn't hurt anyone else, and the person has already been punished by being injured. Why also ruin them financially? Who does that benefit

Safety in general, since people will be even more incentivized to wear seatbelts, and the insurance company's profits which, as long as the industry is competitive, would lead to slightly cheaper insurance for everyone else.

Thoughts on high speed driving

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

I wouldnt mind them taking away insurance from people that got injured in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt.

This is a bad outcome to want, because not wearing a seatbelt is a bad decision but it doesn't hurt anyone else, and the person has already been punished by being injured. Why also ruin them financially? Who does that benefit

Safety in general, since people will be even more incentivized to wear seatbelts, and the insurance company's profits which, as long as the industry is competitive, would lead to slightly cheaper insurance for everyone else.

Thoughts on high speed driving

It's fun

[fightinfrenchman]

The pandemic is over, if you want it to be

[pecelot]

I want it to be