Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?

[farleigh]

An example was the priory given to a liver transplant patient. Two people one an alcoholic and the other with a damaged liver for another reason. You choose.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t treat them but if there is a choice to treat an anti-vaxxer v another person in a high pressure environment then the anti-vaxxer loses.

Personally, if the choice was shut the pubs or treat anti-Vaxxers then it’s the pub for me!

You would expect the NHS to be able to treat all of the people who need it. The fact that it struggles to do so is the issue.

And keep the pubs open.

 

[brad465]

With the unvaccinated taking an unreasonable amount of space in Covid wards I think that we are at a stage whereby if someone like Piers Corbyn turns up at A&E with a “bad cough” then he only gets treatment if there are spare staff available….

Be careful what you wish for - in Austria the far right Freedom Party are trying to speak for all those against vaccine mandates who all other parties and mandate supporters are effectively marginalising. If we marginalise/ignore others we disagree with, we risk radicalising them and/or enabling populists to exploit their grievances in pursuit of power, and history shows that doesn't end well.

 

[The Ham]

Be careful what you wish for - in Austria the far right Freedom Party are trying to speak for all those against vaccine mandates who all other parties and mandate supporters are effectively marginalising. If we marginalise/ignore others we disagree with, we risk radicalising them and/or enabling populists to exploit their grievances in pursuit of power, and history shows that doesn't end well.

Indeed, by all means highlight the significant cost that someone in ICU costs tax payers (about £1,500/day) and how if you compare numbers from the end of November between last year and this there's about 1/6th the number of people in hospital per 10,000 daily cases and about 1/15th the number of people per 10,000 daily cases dying each day with the associated cost savings to government (and therefore less need to tax us).

 

[MikeWM]

An example was the priory given to a liver transplant patient. Two people one an alcoholic and the other with a damaged liver for another reason. You choose.

You're right, but the reason there is that the *outcome* is likely to be different, because the alcoholic - assuming they are still an alcoholic - is likely to go back to drinking and potentially damage the new liver too. Given limited resources it is acceptable - indeed necessary - to prioritise those more likely to have a more favourable outcome.

But it is *not* morally acceptable to prioritise based on previous history that is unrelated to outcome.

Now, *if* there is evidence that given a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person, equally ill with covid and all other things being equal too, the vaccinated person is more likely to make a better recovery, then I would agree they should be prioritised if resources are stretched. But I don't think we have any evidence whatever that this is the case.

Personally, if the choice was shut the pubs or treat anti-Vaxxers then it’s the pub for me!

That's very much a false choice though.

 

[johnnychips]

I don’t normally reply on this thread but I am really very annoyed by some of the ideas put forward. People should be treated by their medical needs, not what they have or haven’t done in the past.

 

[Cowley]

I don’t normally reply on this thread but I am really very annoyed by some of the ideas put forward. People should be treated by their medical needs, not what they have or haven’t done in the past.

Well exactly.

 

[The Ham]

I don’t normally reply on this thread but I am really very annoyed by some of the ideas put forward. People should be treated by their medical needs, not what they have or haven’t done in the past.

Indeed, and the problem comes as to who decides what is the justification for who gets treated/not treated.

If it's someone like you who allows you to be treated that's fine, however what if it's someone who thinks that what you've done isn't acceptable.

The problem is that there's likely to be several justifications why some may not be "worthy" of treatment, be that not getting the vaccine, where they live, how well educated they are, who they love, taxes paid, religion, if they have children, if they don't have children, or any reason you could think of.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not at all but things get desperate then the medics may have to prioritise.

I don’t see why that should be done on the basis of vaccination status or how good a person we think they are, though.

 

[Eyersey468]

I don’t see why that should be done on the basis of vaccination status or how good a person we think they are, though.

I agree it shouldn't be done on that basis, in my opinion if it has to be a choice between treating one person over another whoever has the best chance of a positive outcome should get the treatment.

 

[nedchester]

https://twitter.com/politicsforali/status/1473603936145874945?s=21

| NEW: Tony Blair: "If you're not vaccinated and you're eligible, you're not just irresponsible, you're an idiot."

Via @TimesRadio

Blair is spot on

 

[MikeWM]

https://twitter.com/politicsforali/status/1473603936145874945?s=21

Blair is spot on

'Oh dear, Tony Blair has called me an idiot, must be time to change my mind'

 

[brad465]

https://twitter.com/politicsforali/status/1473603936145874945?s=21

Blair is spot on

If you want to convince people to take a vaccine who haven't already done, Tony Blair is the last person who should be criticising those who haven't. If anything those who haven't received a vaccine will entrench their beliefs that they're right not to take because a suspected war criminal claims they're wrong.

 

[nedchester]

If you want to convince people to take a vaccine who haven't already done, Tony Blair is the last person who should be criticising those who haven't. If anything those who haven't received a vaccine will entrench their beliefs that they're right not to take because a suspected war criminal claims they're wrong.

War Criminal - yawn!

Best Prime Minister in my lifetime. At least the NHS was looked after.

 

[brad465]

War Criminal - yawn!

Best Prime Minister in my lifetime. At least the NHS was looked after.

He did a lot of good stuff yes, but in our increasingly tribal society many will loathe him and immediately disagree with him. The world doesn't revolve around your thinking.

 

[Lampshade]

No one with the blood of 100,000 innocent people on his hands has the moral authority to be criticising anyone for anything.

 

[nedchester]

No one with the blood of 100,000 innocent people on his hands has the moral authority to be criticising anyone for anything.

It’s “trendy” to have a pop at Blair isn’t it?

 

[brad465]

It’s “trendy” to have a pop at Blair isn’t it?

You are not going to win an argument on this forum, or in a lot of other places, blindly defending Blair and his views. Therefore I suggest you use your energy elsewhere for more productive matters, such as trying to find out why exactly people haven't taken the vaccine, and it won't all be for one reason.

Examples include those under 12 haven't taken it because they're not eligible; being concerned about safety of the vaccines; wondering what the point is if restrictions are not going away; and of course, conspiracy theories on the internet. To these I propose the following solutions: make it eligible for under 12s if the evidence supports them taking it, present comprehensive evidence of safety to those not yet convinced, stop using NPIs like we are, as if vaccines don't do anything, and in general work on more hospital capacity and staff numbers and pay. For conspiracy theories better media regulation is needed.

I would also add Portugal has vaccinated 89% of its population, but they are still bringing in restrictions now in response to rising cases, as if those vaccines do nothing. In my opinion this is what will undermine vaccines most, and makes any Government behaving in such a way the biggest anti-vaxxers going. We are not going to get 100% support for vaccines, because nothing in life ever gets 100% support; if society can collapse because of as little as 11% doing/not doing a certain act, we either have too high expectations, or society doesn't have sensible resilience in place.

 

[MikeWM]

If you want to convince people to take a vaccine who haven't already done, Tony Blair is the last person who should be criticising those who haven't.

And while I have a great number of things I could say about Blair, he's not stupid and I suspect he's well aware of that. I doubt there is a single person in the country who is suddenly going to go and get vaccinated because Blair has called them idiots.

So what *do* his comments achieve? Well, once again, they divide the population by 'othering' a part of it. A deeply unpleasant thing to be doing at any point, but in the Christmas season in particular. A truly awful person.

 

[greyman42]

Personally, if the choice was shut the pubs or treat anti-Vaxxers then it’s the pub for me!

I would keep the pubs open. The anti-vaxxers are idiots.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2021 ==

'Oh dear, Tony Blair has called me an idiot, must be time to change my mind'

I would say so, yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2021 ==

'Oh dear, Tony Blair has called me an idiot, must be time to change my mind'

I would say so, yes.

War Criminal - yawn!

Best Prime Minister in my lifetime. At least the NHS was looked after.

Blair was the last time i voted for Labour and i certainly will not be voting for the current locktavist.

 

[TPO]

No justification to deny treatment to "unvaccinated" persons.

Especially now that the definition of "unvaccinated" is rather a moving feast.

Are you "vaccinated" if you've had the initial 2 jabs but not the booster?

Are you vaccinated if you have had the 2 jabs and a booster but not the next booster? Or the one after? Or the one after that?

As Boris (and the Labour/SNP devolved administrations) take the NHS into being a COVID-vaccination administration service only, frustrations mount when people cannot get NECESSARY healthcare. It may in the end be enough frustration to allow Boris to do what many moneyed people would like and destruct the NHS.

Be careful what you wish for.........

TPO

 

[TPO]

Indeed they are not.

However the current regime is showing us in real time how easy it is to whip up the mob into persecuting a "heretic" [insert relevant term of abuse here] and shouting "burn them."

I can only think that being one of the righteous must fulfil some primal urge to belong to the group.

Much as I dislike bringing up the lessons from Europe/USA in the 1930's, we must recognise that "racial hygiene" and eugenics was once very acceptable amongst medical persons, linked with public health and the "health of the nation." It's a very short step from refusing "anti vaxxers" treatment to then refusing treatment to others who fulfil some other criteria (weight... age..... mental capacity..... usefulness to society.....) ..... and the slippery slope is embarked upon.

As soon as someone is saying "I know what's good for you" or "I know what is good for the health of the nation so must be mandated" then you need to start being very, very concerned and skeptical. History tells us that these things grow legs and run really quickly, and rarely end well.

TPO

 

[TPO]

How do you define "unvaccinated?"

Two jabs but no booster?

No jabs?

Fully in compliance with a rolling 6 monthly jab?

Does age count or is a 20 year old who has has 2 jabs but no booster count as "unvaccinated" even though the likelihood of them needing medical care is likely to be far far lower than a 75 year old who is overweight and has badly controlled diabetes who has had the current 3 jabs requirement?

TPO

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s “trendy” to have a pop at Blair isn’t it?

Thankfully it’s not trendy to suggest triaging people by how deserving or moral they are. Blair might not get a look in if we did that.

 

[MikeWM]

I think the point is that if hospitalisations rise and deaths rise amongst mainly the unvaccinated then steps (restrictions) may be put in to protect those people.

I'm sure we've been making the same point for almost a year now - I think you'll find that the vast majority of those who have chosen to be unvaccinated at this point were among those most opposed to restrictions in the first place. Like myself. (I would say this forum is unusual on the whole in being very anti-restriction almost since the start but also being very pro-vaccination - most other places and people either seem to be pro-restriction 'until there is a vaccine' so now have become more anti-restriction, or pro-restriction even now that there are vaccines, or anti-restriction *and* ambivalent and/or negative about *these specific* vaccines).

This is just the latest in a long line of false choices we've been continually presented with. Just because someone in the government or media says we only have two choices, that doesn't make it true.

Perhaps my going to the pub / travel etc is more important than protecting those who chose to not to protect themselves.

I want to carry on doing those things too. They shouldn't be conditional on NHS capacity issues, except perhaps in the most extreme and unforseeable circumstances - and 21 months into this, I don't see how anyone can justify that the current conditions are extreme or unforseeable.

 

[nedchester]

I'm sure we've been making the same point for almost a year now - I think you'll find that the vast majority of those who have chosen to be unvaccinated at this point were among those most opposed to restrictions in the first place. Like myself. (I would say this forum is unusual on the whole in being very anti-restriction almost since the start but also being very pro-vaccination - most other places and people either seem to be pro-restriction 'until there is a vaccine' so now have become more anti-restriction, or pro-restriction even now that there are vaccines, or anti-restriction *and* ambivalent and/or negative about *these specific* vaccines).

This is just the latest in a long line of false choices we've been continually presented with. Just because someone in the government or media says we only have two choices, that doesn't make it true.



I want to carry on doing those things too. They shouldn't be conditional on NHS capacity issues, except perhaps in the most extreme and unforseeable circumstances - and 21 months into this, I don't see how anyone can justify that the current conditions are extreme or unforseeable.

I am pro vaccine and anti restrictions but realising that I’m the real world restrictions may come through a rise in hospitalisations which looking at the data is made worse by those choosing not to be vaccinated.

As a result there is an inevitable divide and rule from this due to those resenting that they may be restricted by fools that refuse to be vaccinated.

 

[TPO]

I am pro vaccine and anti restrictions but realising that I’m the real world restrictions may come through a rise in hospitalisations which looking at the data is made worse by those choosing not to be vaccinated.

As a result there is an inevitable divide and rule from this due to those resenting that they may be restricted by fools that refuse to be vaccinated.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Govt using the excuse that vaccines not effective for Omicron so need more restrictions whilst also saying to get your extra dose of same vaccine to prevent Omicron.

They want control so will do both things if they can, even if 100% were vaccinated they would find an excuse to bring restrictions in.

Crying "antivaxxers" is just to deflect the mob away from the real protagonists.

The problem with the data is that it is aggregated so we don't know how many of the rising hospitalizations are caused by COVID or are merely with COVID and caused by something else, eg a condition such as heart disease undetected until too late thanks to 18 months focus on COVID to the exclusion of much else.

TPO

 

[nedchester]

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Govt using the excuse that vaccines not effective for Omicron so need more restrictions whilst also saying to get your extra dose of same vaccine to prevent Omicron.

They want control so will do both things if they can, even if 100% were vaccinated they would find an excuse to bring restrictions in.

Crying "antivaxxers" is just to deflect the mob away from the real protagonists.

The problem with the data is that it is aggregated so we don't know how many of the rising hospitalizations are caused by COVID or are merely with COVID and caused by something else, eg a condition such as heart disease undetected until too late thanks to 18 months focus on COVID to the exclusion of much else.

TPO

Funny how a few days ago the tin-hatters were saying “show me the proof that there are more anti-vaxxers” in hospital and when you do they come up with some other conspiracy nonsense.

I suppose you can’t heal stupid……

 

[brad465]

I thought this was a forum where differing views are discussed. Blair is spot on and if he’d been PM over the last two years we’d be in a much better place.

I'm sure generally we would have been in a better place, although at the same time there are many PMs we could say that about given how low Johnson seems to have set the bar.

As a result there is an inevitable divide and rule from this due to those resenting that they may be restricted by fools that refuse to be vaccinated.

You rightly highlight a divide and rule problem here, but at the same time your last bit is only going to inflame that division.

What I would add is this: if covid vaccines were comparable to MMR ones, where one only needs 1-2 doses to be protected for life pretty much, then there would be some merit in mandatory vaccination, although I'd also like to think it wouldn't be necessary as the covid stats would suddenly look so good once the current share got vaccinated. However, unlike the MMR vaccines, covid ones are nowhere near as good at reducing transmission and preventing any form of illness, and in particular the repeated need for boosters would make a vaccine mandate unfeasible. We do not have the healthcare capacity to issue the entire population with boosters 2-3x a year, as evidenced by GPs being ordered to postpone many appointments to make space for the latest booster drive.

 

[TPO]

Funny how a few days ago the tin-hatters were saying “show me the proof that there are more anti-vaxxers” in hospital and when you do they come up with some other conspiracy nonsense.

I suppose you can’t heal stupid……

It amuses me when people, like you who cannot refute the points being made resort to name calling and petty insult. And remember it's the stupid kids in the playground resorting to name calling when they lose the argument based on reason.

Your premise is that "antivaxxers" are the cause of restrictions, yet you have not even defined what you mean by such and you also overlook the facts of the govts constant inconsistent messages and shifting goalposts. Nor can you answer a perfectly valid question about aggregation of the data which is highly relevant as correlation and causation are not the same, and disaggregation of the data will be required to make any such distinction.

Still, you can believe what you wish,.

TPO

 

[farleigh]

A rare situation and they’re not the people I’m talking about. I am not keen on needles myself but have been willing to have all three Covid vaccines and the flu vaccine.

Well done.

Do you see that as a sacrifice on other people's behalf or did you do it to protect yourself or to gain access to travel abroad?

A genuine question and I am not judging you or calling you an idiot.