What I was saying is that NHS services are rationed based on various factors, there will never be enough money for the NHS. I'm not saying we should deny alcoholics treatment, but if somebody continues to abuse alcohol after a transplant (or even after a second one) we have to draw the line somewhere, when there are other people waiting for a transplant.
The point I was making about unvaccinated people wasn't that they should be denied treatment purely because of it, but if it came to having to make difficult decisions on allocating NHS resources I wouldn't have a problem with it being one of the factors taken into consideration.
If you are making a point then why not state it clearly from the start.
I disagree totally with the points you are making. So, let’s try a thought experiment.
Vaccinated Vince unfortunately catches Covid and requires a ventilator. Hesitant Henry also catches Covid and requires a ventilator. There’s only one ventilator. Now by your reasoning, Vaccinated Vince gets the ventilator, is that right?
Here’s the twist. Vaccinated Vince is an alcoholic who has had several liver transplants and doesn’t stand much of a chance of surviving, whereas Hesitant Henry is t-total and is highly likely to survive. Now who would you give the ventilator to?
If you don’t like that scenario, how about if Vaccinated Vince is a convicted mass murderer and Hesitant Henry is a law abiding citizen. You seem keen to allocate treatment based on decisions that people have made, so who would you choose this time?
I think in the first example, that probably is an example where triage would answer ‘let’s treat Henry’. Do you agree?
I think the second example illustrates a very slippery slope. I suspect many people would choose the law abiding citizen over the mass murderer, but how far do we take that? Supposing the murderer is now a reformed character?
