I get your point but what we are told is those numbers are coming from 10% unvaxxed and 90% vaxxed so more people are in the hospital percentage wise from the unvaxxed ............Still why cant the vaxxed get back to normalIn hospital but not the ICU
Unvaccinated cases
Partially vaccinated cases
Fully vaccinated cases
783
194
2079
Dataset - Ontario Data Catalogue
covid-19.ontario.ca
Anti-Vaxxers Finally Changing People's Attitudes
- Thread starter shack
- Start date
Cases have never been higher because the omicron variant is so much more contagious.
The vaccinated needing hospitalization are those we expect to need urgent care, the elderly and those with comorbidities. On the otherhand, the unvaxxed in hospital are largely young and otherwise healthy individuals. That is what should make you go hmmmmm. Scratch that, that should make anyone go "Now I get it, vaccines truly do work!"
Without the vaccine a large portion of that 2079 vaccinated in hospital would be dead. Instead they are needing hospitalization. Further proof of the efficacy of vaccines.
Dudette! In the past two people presenting in the same condition at the same time would never get prioritized. The point is that now, for the first time, some practitioners believe that this golden standard should maybe not apply to anti-vaxxers.
"The core fundamental principle of clinical ethics tells us that once a person enters the hospital as a patient, whatever got them there is no longer part of the equation," said Vardit Ravitsky, who teaches bioethics at the Université de Montreal and Harvard Medical School.
"The most extreme example I have ever seen was when I lived in Israel and a suicide bomber detonated on a bus, killing and injuring civilians around him. Somehow he was not killed by the explosion and he arrived at the hospital with his victims.
"Once they entered the hospital, everyone was treated equally. There was no sense of prioritizing the victims in relation to the person who caused the injury."
That is the standard that has always been in place.
But for the first time:
"If we have two patients with the same level of clinical need, same age, same context, but one is vaccinated and one isn't, could we de-prioritize the patient who is unvaccinated by choice? There is a minority of bioethicists who are becoming more accepting of this logic at this point in time."
Dr. Vipond acknowledges it's a hard pill to swallow when people who claim to distrust the medical establishment, and refuse to get vaccinated against COVID, show up demanding medical treatment.
A) THIS had not been discussed. It is a new discussion. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that? And,
B) It took the anti-vaxxers to get this discussion started and seriously considered.
I never said that there is any topic at all that should not be discussed. It was the article that pointed out that for the most part, this particular aspect hadn't been discussed and if it had it was largely dismissed out of hand because of bioethics. This is not so readily dismissed now when it comes to anti-vaxxers in spite of current bioethical standards. As the title says, the anti-vaxxers are changing people's attitudes.
A) This is not the first time this type of question as been discussed. This is the first time it has been discussed about vaccines and the vaccinated, I never said differently but this is not the first time prioritizing treatment has been discussed. It has been the general opinion to NOT prioritize. How do you think that decision came about? Because they had a discussion about it many many moons ago but make no mistake a discussion was had.
Discussions about past or current behaviour changing the priority of receiving Treatment has happened as well because alcoholics still drinking can’t get liver transplants. No matter how far on deaths door they are.
So discussion of both prioritizing and past behaviour effecting treatment have both happened before. This is not new. The only thing new is the added issue of vaccination status.
So yes these discussions have happened before.
B) as explained above - no it did not take anti-vaxxed to create this discussion, it just brought it back to the table with a new twist.
Lastly and the point you have missed. They HAVE to have this conversation. That is what bioethics is all about. It would be stupid of them not to. I don’t get what you don’t get about that.
Now if they CONCLUDE that treatment should be different THEN you can say anti-vaxxed have changed peoples minds and not for the better but you are putting the cart before the horse because your narrative needs you too. Hell you even pulled the changing of the title of the article to a different title on the thread to suit your narrative. A classic move and one you have shit on when the “amigos” do it.
Oh and I read the article. I read it a few days before you posted it here. You don’t need to keep quoting it.
You are fuelling something that you have taken out of context to once again suit your narrative. Just like the “amigos”. Remember, I’m not anti vaxxed. I’m shot up three times. I’m not anti COVID or don’t believe it is real. You can’t use these things on me. I’m just anti-hypocrisy and you show it in spades
Quote me back if you like but I’m done with you for today Shack. I’m not feeding your need to carry with your hypocrisy all the time. You don’t have to agree with me or my opinion about this. Clearly I don’t agree with your take on it. You not agreeing is not going to bother me none. Mine shouldn’t bother you to the point it apparently does. But I get people don’t like being called out. I’ll take a break for a bit.
Laters.
Last edited:
That's fine. But this is the first time that it is not just being discussed but being seriously considered let alone even advocated by some within the profession.
Nothing else to discuss because that is what the purpose of the article was. To let us know that attitudes in the profession are changing and some are advocating different levels of care for the first time.
But your title in the thread is showing your hypocrisy to further your narrative. That was my point. You get pissed
I never disputed this discussions purpose or outcome. Never once. Remember I admitted this was the first discussion about vaccines and treatment. I Only said that a discussion of this nature has been had before regarding other things - which you denied, used the article out of context and now admit that the conversation as happened in the past, so thank you.
We can finally move on.
The vaccine may help the vaccinated not dying... TRUE. But it only protect from spread/contagion at a 30% for 2 dose, 70% for 3 doses (after 12 weeks this % lower gradually) when it comes to Omicron variant. Those are facts. The reality is even with 100% of the population vaccinated, we would STILL not be back to normal because our health care systems are CRAP and can't handle a few thousands. There would be still BS excuses from govs that we need to protect the others and blablabla.
Ultimately the ratio of peoples catching Covid in the 20-30 and 40 and ending in hospital is SMALL, very small. The equivalent IN THAT AGE GROUP of getting vaccinated is basically walking the street with a bullet proof vest. It may be usefull one day, you could end up being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but nobody will dress with this all his life in case it happen. They aknowledge the risk...
Do they acknowledge the risk to others or of extending the pandemic and the restrictive measures that come along with that?
I also wonder if we could have had the same death and hospitalization numbers for any other year? People do die from the flu thousands every year. We did not lockdown in 2003 with Sars , hospitals made it mandatory to wear a mask........but that was it, we did not have people dropping dead in the streets. I believe this "Pandemic" was on par with the Sars virus and we blew it out of proporation
except the vest is a huge nuisance and vaccine is free and weighs nothing and let’s you go places. It should be a no brainer. Wait, it is.
That's like saying "water has been safely prescribed millions of times around the world over the years." Just because something is safe doesn't mean that it has any efficacy.
If the rightie anti-vaxxers keep spreading lies, then the truth bears repeating as many times as necessary. Get me another horse if need be.
Elon Musk champions Canadian truckers as anti-vaccine mandate convoy rolls on
Eccentric billionaire Elon Musk has inexplicably joined the chorus of digital "freedom fighters" applauding the actions of Canadian truck d…
www.blogto.com
The government is the one doing this. We could cut the majority of measures and be fine. Keep the mask in public transport/hospital maybe, don't allow big events in small rooms (like music shows with moshpits etc) and thats about as much as you need to do at the worst. The current measures like curfews, vax passeport and keeping so much stuff like cinema or gym closed are just smoke show to try to convince peoples they are "doing something".
Guess we will just forget about myocarditis and bell's palsy risk and that we have no idea about potential long term effects. Or that when you start taking the vaccine you pretty much sign up for a "Pfizer fidelity card". Maybe at 8 dose you get a free meal?
How many degrees in immunology do you have Dr.?
Or you can forget the convenient fact that there's a higher risk of myocarditis from covid than there is from the vaccine.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I wish people would stop using that line.
1: I don't have any formal training in immunology and I know he is out to left field.
2: There are people with Phds and medical degrees that put out false information like
Doctor Oz [cardiologist] [At one point half the stuff he pushed had no evidence and 1/6 of everything he pushed, the evidence was against it.
Doctor Mercola who pushed AIDS denialism back in the day and is a big league plague enthusiast aka anti vaxxer and pushes all sort of nonsense.
Jason Fung [Kidneys] misrepresents or doesn't understand studies, backed up Paltrow and her Goop bullshit and doesn't even understand the basics of loose skin from weight loss
When you go, where is your training herp derp you are just begging them to find that isolated outlier of a doctor who has gone out to lunch.
One can find doctors who will even recommend homeopathy and not just to get rid of a stupid patient.
Much like with studies, one should be more concerned with consensus of the field than one or two outliers.
If as an outsider you follow that consensus when there is one, you are doing better than some quack who uses his training to push bullshit.
Unless wokeness is involved, much like Trumpism it is where truth goes to die.
