Stockton's season tickets suspended due to his defiance of McCarthey mask mandate

[tinfoilzag]

And there it is

Man Can’t Get Heart Transplant Because He’s Not Vaccinated Against COVID

A man being denied life saving treatment not because of something he did, but because of something he won't do. If this stands, we'll start to see other lifesaving services denied.

It started with attending public locations, then moved to private dwellings (churches), then people lost their businesses and livelihoods and now it could be their lives.

Not long from now we could see 911 calls not being responded to until they can verify the individual in the emergency has been treated for covid. Some will argue that it is justified.

[LongIslandZagFan]

And there it is

Man Can’t Get Heart Transplant Because He’s Not Vaccinated Against COVID

A man being denied life saving treatment not because of something he did, but because of something he won't do. If this stands, we'll start to see other lifesaving services denied.

It started with attending public locations, then moved to private dwellings (churches), then people lost their businesses and livelihoods and now it could be their lives.

Not long from now we could see 911 calls not being responded to until they can verify the individual in the emergency has been treated for covid. Some will argue that it is justified.

You get that a whole slew of vaccines are required including COVID, right?. Organs are in short supply and they need to make decisions on who gets them based on the probability of survival. Not having key vaccines lowers your potential of survivability. If he didn’t have measles shot and refused it… same result.

[tinfoilzag]

"Survivability" doesn't matter. Anything data published will support the decision. If you control scope, metrics, and standards, you can produce any result you want.

A group of doctors and administrators had a meeting (probably with their legal council present) and decided this man was not worthy of treatment.

[zagfan24]

And there it is

Man Can’t Get Heart Transplant Because He’s Not Vaccinated Against COVID

A man being denied life saving treatment not because of something he did, but because of something he won't do. If this stands, we'll start to see other lifesaving services denied.

There is no practical difference between doing something and not doing something when it comes to health and determining organ recipient status. Not exercising or not taking prescribed medication are just a valid of reasons to not use a finite resource (organ) as things you "do" like substance use.

This isn't "treatment." It's a donated organ that has to be triaged for maximum benefit.

[zagfan24]

I don't doubt that once patients show up, we can treat them and analyze generic data. I have also read that outfits like 23 and Me are doing interesting work analyzing the covid experiences of those in their customer base who answer surveys on the topic.

My question was different. Before they contract the virus and show up for treatment, how do you identify those who are more at risk because of comorbidities in the population at large to do this focused preventive medicine approach while those of us without the comorbidities go about our merry way? How do you know who these people are from a public health perspective? Obviously once diagnosed they self-identify in emergency rooms and in ICUs. But I thought the proposal was to let the rest of us roam free while focusing the preventive efforts on them.

Sounds good.

How do you do it?

It's impossible. What variables do you use? Age? Weight? Sex? What medical conditions are included? Cancer? Sickle Cell Disease? Asthma? Diabetes? Beyond the privacy concerns you mentioned, the reality is that "vulnerability" is not a binary variable.

When the Clay Travis's of the world wanted, even in the beginning of the pandemic, to "isolate the vulnerable" they never really could articulate what that would look like. They never said how doctors or nurses or caregivers and parents and siblings of the vulnerable would fit into that picture.

Come to think of it, there IS one binary variable that predicts risk of serious illness due to COVID. It's vaccination status.

[tinfoilzag]

There is no practical difference between doing something and not doing something when it comes to health and determining organ recipient status. Not exercising or not taking prescribed medication are just a valid of reasons to not use a finite resource (organ) as things you "do" like substance use.

This isn't "treatment." It's a donated organ that has to be triaged for maximum benefit.

What is the metric for "maximum benefit"? Do you think people make decisions based on logic or based on emotion and then justify their action with reasons? This power will be abused because there is so much power.

Negative rights are the core of the constitution. It says what can't be done not what has to be done. I don't know if there is a bigger difference between being told what not to do to receive care and being compelled. Being told what not to do in order to live is called guidance, being told what you have to do, or die, is extorsion.

[RenoZag]

If the respectful give and take of this thread were the norm in the old Online Crosby Center ( OOC ), the S-R wouldn't have shut it down.

Thanks to all for the DEBATE.

Be careful out there.

[zagfan24]

What is the metric for "maximum benefit"? Do you think people make decisions based on logic or based on emotion and then justify their action with reasons? This power will be abused because there is so much power.

Negative rights are the core of the constitution. It says what can't been done not what has to be done. I don't know if there is a bigger difference between being told what not to do to receive care and being compelled. Being told what not to do in order to live is called guidance, being told what you have to do, or die, is extorsion.

As a psychologist who has completed close to 100 pre-bone marrow transplant evaluations, I can tell you without a doubt there is a lot of logic put into these decisions. Now, BMT's are a bit different because it's more about donor risk vs. the finite resource of a solid organ, but there is still a set of medical and cognitive/behavioral criteria that need to be met prior to proceeding with a transplant.

Maximum benefit is defined differently based on urgency, medical benefit, etc. But there are objective criteria that need to be meet in any instance. The "abuse of power" is often removed because there are multiple levels of oversight in this complex process.

I cannot more strongly disagree with your negative rights distinction. Action and inaction are two sides of the same coin.

[tinfoilzag]

I cannot more strongly disagree with your negative rights distinction. Action and inaction are two sides of the same coin.

I think we hit bedrock on this point.

Do you know how excited insurance companies are at the thought of the money that can be made if they can refuse payment based on what people haven't done or could do better? In China, it's called the social credit score.

The pharmaceuticals won't be cut out. They want quarterly "immune boosters". This will be a regular "immune boost" (which doesn't make you immune to anything), it just revs up your immune response. It's immunity-as-a-service and its the holy grail. They will classify the boosts as a "vaccine" for legal protection.

All the pharmaceuticals have to do to make it happen is propagandize the public through media ad dollars, lobby some senators to have it government funded, and they quadruple their revenues.

[katman50]

You are spot on, Tinfoil.

[zagfan24]

I think we hit bedrock on this point.

Do you know how excited insurance companies are at the thought of the money that can be made if they can refuse payment based on what people haven't done or could do better? In China, it's called the social credit score.

The pharmaceuticals won't be cut out. They want quarterly "immune boosters". This will be a regular "immune boost" (which doesn't make you immune to anything), it just revs up your immune response. It's immunity-as-a-service and its the holy grail. They will classify the boosts as a "vaccine" for legal protection.

All the pharmaceuticals have to do to make it happen is propagandize the public through media ad dollars, lobby some senators to have it government funded, and they quadruple their revenues.

Ok, I have no love for health insurance companies. But ALL insurance companies have always credited and incentivized both action and inaction.

My health insurance used to have a "surcharge" for tobacco smokers. Now it's a discount for not smoking.
They also give a "credit" if you have a gym membership. Our hospital affiliate has a healthy rewards program that provides financial incentives for exercise goals being met.
My auto insurance gives a safe driving discount for avoiding accidents and tickets and such (all inactions). They also give credits for actions that are correlated with safe driving.

To use a sports analogy, action and inaction are often mistaken as separate things when people talk about officiating. "Don't let officials decide the games" by blowing the whistle late. But a missed call has when there was a foul has the same impact as a bad call when there wasn't one.

The reality is, being vaccinated SIGNIFCANTLY reduces your likelihood of being seriously ill and needing a five to six digit dollar stay in an ICU. As long as we have the horrid system we have in place for our medical coverage, why wouldn't insurance companies incentivize vaccination?

But again, that's about insurance. Your original post was about organ donation. The practice of determining recipient health and the likelihood of the organ thus serving its purpose as long as possible has been going on for a LOT longer than COVID-19. And health, both physical and mental, is just as much about what we don't do as what we do. I don't know how you can see those constructs as separate, and I don't know how on earth the people making determinations about recipient health could only consider things a person has done and not consider what they haven't done.

ETA: Again, this is not about "receiving care." Everybody should and does receive care (if hospitals have room) regardless of vaccination status. But organ donation is an entirely different animal. It's a finite resource with a huge pool of potential recipients vying for limited available organs.

[jazzdelmar]

And there it is

Man Can’t Get Heart Transplant Because He’s Not Vaccinated Against COVID

A man being denied life saving treatment not because of something he did, but because of something he won't do. If this stands, we'll start to see other lifesaving services denied.

It started with attending public locations, then moved to private dwellings (churches), then people lost their businesses and livelihoods and now it could be their lives.

Not long from now we could see 911 calls not being responded to until they can verify the individual in the emergency has been treated for covid. Some will argue that it is justified.

And this is wrong how?

[jazzdelmar]

I fear this thread has descended into creeping meatballism, turkey on one side, beef on the other. Any attempt at reasoned nuance from either cuisine is ignored or excoriated. Mods, thanks for the meal, it was tasty for a while, but right now please pass the Brioschi.

[LongIslandZagFan]

I fear this thread has descended into creeping meatballism, turkey on one side, beef on the other. Any attempt at reasoned nuance from either cuisine is ignored or excoriated. Mods, thanks for the meal, it was tasty for a while, but right now please pass the Brioschi.

Turkey????



If it isn't a mix of beef and pork sausage you are doing it wrong.