If someone is medically able to be vaccinated but denies the virus and refuses the vaccine, should people who have more critical needs take priority?

Should refusers be allowed to threaten public health and safety as possible infection spreaders and disease carriers?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 08:35AM by anybody.

We will be very sorry if we go down that terrible path.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We will be very sorry if we go down that terrible
> path.

Yes. Thank you. That the question is even asked shows just how far down that road we’ve already gone. The following poll from Rasmussen is very troubling:

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated

Snippet:

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.

The hippocratic oath exists for a reason.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The hippocratic oath exists for a reason.

And it has served us very well.


One of the first ethical principles of any MD is to refrain from blaming the patient for their symptoms. You treat the patient. You’re not their priest. You don’t blame the addict, the type2 diabetic, the drunk who crashed their car or the daredevil who skied into a tree, for the symptoms that brings them to the doctor.

So basic, like the principles of free speech; yet…

Interestingly enough, some people get type 2 diabetes for hereditary reasons, not simply because their diet is poor or they are overweight. So, that is a really good instance of assumption that the victim is to blame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 09:53AM by Devoted Exmo.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interestingly enough, some people get type 2
> diabetes for hereditary reasons, not simply
> because their diet is poor or they are overweight.
> So, that is a really good instance of assumption
> that the victim is to blame.

Took the words out of my mouth. It is definitely "victim-blaming" when people scoff at others who are living with Type 2 diabetes. It's a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Yes, some lifestyle factors can lead to the development of diabetes in some people but so too do genetics.

From NIH:

"As in type 1 diabetes, certain genes may make you more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. The disease tends to run in families and occurs more often in these racial/ethnic groups:

African Americans
Alaska Natives
American Indians
Asian Americans
Hispanics/Latinos
Native Hawaiians
Pacific Islanders

"Genes also can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by increasing a person’s tendency to become overweight or obese."

-----

Too, people who are not obese can also develop Type 2 diabetes. In any case, it's not as simplistic as rattling off uninformed and judgemental opinions such as that people should just push themselves away from the table.

Also, poverty factors in as it's difficult for many among us to enjoy a healthy diet for economic and other social reasons.

The genetics lottery is a win/win for some folks and not so much for others. Don't be smug about it is my plea.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 12:35PM by Nightingale.

Well, Human, that's inflammatory and all, but it's not quite on topic.

Anybody asked "if someone . . . refuses the vaccine, should people who have more critical needs take priority?" She was asking about rationing. If there is a shortage of medical resources, who gets help first? That's a real problem and one for which there are procedural principles in place.

But it is radically question from the absurd notion that people should be fined or imprisoned if they "publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines . . ." No one in a position of authority or with an IQ over 100 believes that.

The question is rationing under extreme circumstances. Healthcare providers have to do that on occasion. What "anybody" asked is how limited resources should be apportioned in a crisis. Do you have any thoughts on that?

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If someone is medically able to be vaccinated but
> denies the virus and refuses the vaccine, should
> people who have more critical needs take
> priority?

People with more critical needs already take priority. Anyone walking into an ER with a sore throat will wait behind every person that comes through with chest pains.

Are you meaning to ask whether some sort of downgrade should be applied to the unvaccinated regardless of how close to death they are? Based on what, spite?

I learned a long time ago that we all do stupid things and hold weird ideas. We're all wrong some of the time. If we deny basic needs to those who we think are beneath us, we egoistically deny our own failings. It's a rather self important, socially hurtful, proposal.

Thanks, Humberto, for putting it like that. That helped me rearrange some thoughts that I don't like having.

I have had some--not sure what to call it---annoyance/vexation/exasperation/anger just short of rage at anti-vaxxers. The emotion changes depending on the circumstances ranging from their ignorance, confusion, hesitation to the outright venom spewed by some anti-vaxxers who are making hospital staff lives miserable.

In the end, the doctors and nurses and staff should do what they can always feel good about having done. My heart is with them. The anti-vaxxers, like everyone, are responsible for their own actions and responsible for their own deaths and suffering. Many other innocent people needing care have suffered because of them. So my feelings are a big mixed bag.

Seems that what is at the core of all this isn't anything about medicine but instead is a deeply engrained "need to be right" without actually being right. So far, the facts are on the side of the vaccinated, however.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many other innocent people
> needing care have suffered because of them. So my
> feelings are a big mixed bag.

This is the part I struggle with too, D&D. I don't think there's anything evil or wrong about having mixed feelings about all the challenges in this extremely trying episode in human history. In the ER or ICU it comes down, as it always has, to whoever has the greatest need at any instant in time. The fact that the triage process helps some and demands that others wait is the way it's always been and the way it makes sense to practice medicine.

I've mentioned before that a family member is waiting way past time to get in for a semi-urgent procedure. Even if it upgrades to being urgent, delays still occur unless you come to need ICU, in which case there's a shortage of beds there too and you may be moved to some faraway place in search of care or you may not get the bed you need, depending on your condition, among other factors that medical staff must constantly consider. The delays add immeasurably to the stress of waiting for the outcome of investigations and surgery. This is happening to patients and their loved ones all over the damn place. That's one of the main causes for the negative feelings towards unvaxxed people who need urgent care when they contract the virus, and they get it, but thereby pushing out others who are also in need of care.

I do think we need to use this experience with the pandemic to rethink our priorities and resources. It has highlighted the reality that we always run at disadvantages - not enough room, beds, equipment, staff at the best of times, and the burning imperative that it's way past time to rethink our standard operating procedures. Preparation, iow. I hope once it's over we don't just go back to the way things were but rather that we use this experience to make needed adjustments, that were apparent even before COVID.

Yep, refuse medical treatment for them.
Also those who are tobacco users.
Then those who use illegal drugs of any type.
Alcohol abusers as well.
Car wreck - no seat belt - crawl away and die on your own. No Dr. Visit for you and no insurance coverage for the vehicles.
Big soda pop users - no medical or dental because all that sugar is a health hazard.

Lets just refuse to treat anyone a Doctor doesn't like? Why not - everyone eventually dies anyway.

Supposedly, there are protocols that steer a patient toward milestone events that trigger government reimbursements to the hospital. These protocols culminate in death. Whether there is bias toward unvacs receiving this protocol that is an ATM for hospitals remains unprovable.

As always, follow the money to find something near to the truth.

As Devoted Exmo said: "the hippocratic oath exists for a reason."

The doctors and nurses don't get to pick and choose who they will treat, based on whether or not they like the patient.

Our son and daughter worked together in the same ICU for 2 years.
Every so often, there were prisoners who needed to be in the ICU.

While our son and daughter had their opinions of some of them, they had to remain neutral and treat them. Some of them were extremely disrespectful and verbally abusive, while others tried to attack them or the guards who were with them.

Thanks to the Hippocratic Oath, emotions are reeled in, and the medical personnel are excellent examples of restraint and professionalism.

It boils down to weather we believe in individual rights, rights to person and property, rights to free speach, to guns. These activists are quick to defend a right of a woman to abortion which actually disregards the infants rights, but are more than willing to disregard rights to the body when its the right of people to not have a vaccine.

They see themselves as the ones chosen to tell the rest of us what to do, they believe they have the vision of the angels and that they can remake the world. Where they will engineer society into a utopian dream, where the group rights trump personal rights, where they yield absolute power. They disregard the enlightenment, the founding fathers, the bible, and America.

If you're inclined toward introspection, you could perhaps ask yourself if analyzing every moral question through the lense of extremist political cliché is a reliable path to an integrous conclusion.

Not all abortions are a simple question of not wanting an infant. And a clump of cells is not an infant. A fetus is not an infant. So, let's turn this back around. If people are free to decide not to get a vaccine, then people who have a medical necessity to get an abortion should be free to make that choice too.

Maca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...they will engineer society into a
> utopian dream, where the group rights trump
> personal rights

Group rights often trump personal rights. There are countless rules and expectations in a civil society. Traffic laws are an obvious example. You may love flying at 200 mph in your shiny new Ferrari but you don't have the right to ignore speed limits, make intolerable noise, drive drunk, cause accidents or hog the road.

You are also not free to spread disease, thereby harming fellow citizens. This is the primary intent of the mandates implemented due to COVID-19 and its variants.

It is just so basic a concept that even my friend's 5 yr old comprehends it. He was thrilled to recently receive his vaccine as he knows that now it is safer for him to visit his beloved grandma. Older folks should surely be able to grasp the simple principles of cause and effect, including infection control, for the good of all.

If you don't want to be vaccinated, fine. But then you must bear the consequences. Your freedom does not extend to being free to spread contagion far and wide.

The 5 yr old gets it.

. . . it's above physician pay-grade.

Docs treat whoever shows up, as best able.
In extreme circumstance - a mass casualty event for example - you save who you can, comfort and last rites for the dying.
But everyone gets care.

Recent circumstances of overwhelmed medical capacity approximates the mass casualty scenario and is why limited resource is dedicated to those most likely to survive (remember, with this virus, it is a fight to the death: you kill the virus, or the virus kills you)

This is really a resource distribution question for philosophy (branch of ethics) law, theology, and governance (politicians - heaven help us). But no doctor or nurse will deny care based on how the disease was incurred, or the responsibility of the patient. It is not relevant to the here-and-now of it. Way too busy to work that out.

Now on transplants, say, a heart: "First Do No Harm" is the maxim.

Problem with a say, heart transplant, is the patient's own immune system - standing army ready to fight invaders - will interpret the strange heart as "invader" and attack it, destroying the heart. To prevent this the recipient is dosed with immunosuppressants which essentially "liquor up" the army and put it to sleep.

So the problems of transplant:
1. There has been already a massive load on the body from the mechanics of transplant itself, making the patient vulnerable;
2. Immunosuppressants render the patient unable to mount any defense at all against a virus, and if covid shows up, we have not only a dead patient but a lost heart that might have saved a life years into the future.

Vaccination readies this army to fight against this specific covid virus, so a vaccinated transplant patient has a modicum of hope in fighting off the virus. An unvaccinated patient simply cannot mount a defense.

This easily segues into the "socialized medicine" question, which also is above doctor pay grade, as all society is impacted.

Medical-types just wanna help, maan

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Medical-types just wanna help, maan

Yes, and thank you for that. Very much.

professor from when she was in college is her good friend. This friend had COVID and she has comorbidities. They wouldn't give her monoclonal antibodies as she was told they are reserved in Utah for those who aren't vaccinated.

At the same time, I don't have any issues with someone who isn't vaccinated. I chose to as I was scared to death of getting COVID. I have many comorbidities. Weight, type 2 diabetes (my father had it, my mom's mother had it, my brother has it, and my sister has it--and my brother who is the most overweight and is disabled doesn't have it and we are thrilled that he doesn't--my dad's sister who were quite overweight didn't have it). I don't do that well with my diabetes. I have high blood pressure and no longer high cholesterol. But I also have rheumatoid arthritis, which my mother had. I couldn't do anything about not catching that. It just took them 3 to 5 years to diagnose it and I'm finally not in constant pain and able to work without pain.

My doctor would not like me to not come in. It is hard to get enough patients these days. She works a 3-day weekend at the ER once a month to earn more money. The doctors here are begging for patients. It doesn't mean we shouldn't care about our health. I'm not so sure why sometimes. I'm rather tired of the effort in life.

But I keep trying. I started gaining weight when they put me on Prozac when I found out my husband was cheating and then he left. My dad worked harder than anyone I've ever known, taught school in the day and farmed in the evenings. He was overweight.

I'd never tell someone who is unvaccinated they can't have medical help. I type up people everyday who have horrible health. And it is true about ERs. In fact, about 1 in 10 need to be at the ER. The rest use it as a clinic. A lot of waste. So I guess we should tell them to go find a doctor. They can get health care "free" from an ER as hospitals can't turn them away.

Vaccine cannot prevent infection, but greatly limits it.

An analogy:

You own a paradise tropical island with sunny beaches. Sweet, eh?

Margaritaville chill.

Vaccinated is like having a standing army ready to fight off would-be-invaders. Unvaccinated state is no standing army.

Doesn't matter, army or no, an invader can hit your beaches.

-- if do not have an army (no vaccination) have to quick-quick from scratch raise and arm and train an army to fight off invaders, hopefully before the island is overrun.

-- if do have a standing army (vaccinated) invaders can still hit the beach and even get a little inland -- but with the standing army ready-to-go those invaders are very likely to be quickly pushed back into the sea.

So having the standing army does not mean the beaches won't be hit; it does mean less severe illness than no-army state.

Vaccines (mRNA types) are actually very interesting, these get our body to produce spike proteins -- the ones on the surface of the actual virus. The immune system learns to 1. Recognize the virus as foreign and 2. Builds that army to respond specifically to this specific virus. It's like getting the questions and answers to an exam beforehand. It's laudable cheating essentially.

Unimmunized, covid actually sneaks in a long ways because the body does not recognize it as an invader, until pretty late -- and then the massive immune response itself at that point can be catastrophic, like the proverbial "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Wow. Excellent analogy.

I'm going to steal it. :)

This is what gets me going. The antivaxxers end up in the hospital and demand the very very expensive monoclonal antibodies and get them while others can't. So a lot of them sail through snubbing their nose at medical science while demanding to be saved by it. It is hard to digest that.

It does seem like a rather unfair choice.

Tyson

For me it's a bitter pill to swallow and I haven't swallowed it yet.

those of us who were vaccinated. I don't know if they were just giving them to us or if unvaccinated were getting them. At that time, they had a big supply, but I had to be approved by a group of physicians from SLC. They got my e-mail and I heard right back and had an appt the next day. I didn't try the second time as I didn't have very many symptoms.

Now that does make me angry as if unvaccinated are getting them, then vaccinated should, too.

Like I said on another thread I believe--my son isn't vaccinated, but he is 36. He has mental health issues that create a difficult dynamic. He had it and had few symptoms.

My mother, who was fully vaccinated and boostered, contracted a complicated UTI. Her doctor tried to treat her at home as long as possible while the local hospitals were swamped with omicron patients. The antibiotics he put her on didn't do the trick, and she should have been admitted and put on IV antibiotics sooner.

When she died of sepsis in the ICU - because we weren't allowed in due to Covid protocols - we were too late to see her by about 10 minutes.

My mother might not have survived the infection, but she sure as hell would have had a better chance, if she could have gotten in to get treatment sooner.

Tyson, bitter

She should have been hospitalized from what I've typed in my 35 years of doing medical transcription. UTIs in the elderly are very serious. I type some rehab centers and from what I type, she is one who would have been admitted to the hospital and then to rehab.

Actually, my mother died from going septic, but she had made it to the nursing home after hospitalization and had been there a few days when she died alone, but I believe that was her desire. My dad died alone, too. I think I wrote that. Both of them within minutes of one of my disabled brothers going in their room. I have been glad my parents are dead since COVID started. They never would have survived it.

My aunt and uncle are 91 and 85 and somehow, some way, they've avoided it even with many of their kids and grandkids getting it. They both had a "cold" recently and it wasn't COVID.

I'm so sorry, Tyson. That is a tough one indeed.

That sounds similar to what happened with my beloved mom. When I took her to ER the MD said she needed IV antibiotics urgently and if she could last for 48 hours she had a good chance of recovery. She was unconscious by then due to a previously undiagnosed systemic infection. She made it for 36 hrs. I was sitting there counting off the time and expecting her to wake up on my birthday morning. That would have been the best gift I could have ever received. She had had three MD visits in the previous two weeks, two different drs, and neither had diagnosed her or even done any investigations. I couldn't help but blame myself because I'm a nurse and "I should have known". I have to keep reminding myself that the MDs hadn't picked up on it and they should have known better than I did. It felt like those two drs just didn't care. Like they threw her away. It was so obvious she was ill, even if they didn't have a precise diagnosis. Instead of celebrating my birthday by seeing Mom open her lovely green eyes, I was seeing her taken down to the hospital basement, and calling the funeral home. Undoubtedly, the knowledge that things weren't handled as well as they should have been prolongs the grief unbearably.

We also didn't get a chance to say goodbye, although we could at least sit with her (a few months prior to the onset of CV). That, at least, was of some comfort to us. I think it would have been excruciating to be saying our final good-byes but so is it not to have had that chance. So painful, either way.

They say time heals but yeah, sometimes it is a long time coming. I wish you peace, Ty, eventually at least.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 01:57PM by Nightingale.

That doesn't mean that they deserve to die,

The choice to get vaccinated to “secure the compound” seems like a good choice, but, you have to feed them, house them and take care of all their needs whether or not you get invaded.

Will they use up all of the resources on your island, causing you to starve and die a slow lingering death?

Choices ain’t easy.

If you vax though, you can’t change your mind. Your in it for the duration. If you don’t vax, you can decide to get vaxxed any time you feel comfortable enough to do it.

Jimmy Buffet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don’t vax, you can decide to get vaxxed any time you feel comfortable enough to do it.

If you get the chance (by avoiding infection until you decide). Now we know that one bout of the virus does not confer lifelong immunity to it. And also, that for many people, they get one bout and it kills them. They don't get the chance for a do-over.

I see the usual suspects have set up a straw man and successfully chopped it down. Well done.

No, medical care for covid will not be denied based on vaccination status any more than lung cancer care will be denied to smokers.

However, suppose the hospital is overwhelmed, and can't treat all the patients coming in. Should vaccination status be a factor to decide who gets care and who doesn't? Whether or not they have a family, particularly children, is a factor. Likelihood of surviving is a factor.

The situation that occurred when monoclonal antibodies were in short supply was that vaccination status did figure in to whether a patient got monoclonal antibodies. Those who were vaccinated did NOT get them, based on the medical likelihood that they would recover without them. I believe that decision applied in Tennessee (maybe Kentucky, don't remember location for sure)

So vaccinated people went to the back of the line. Was that ethical? And if it was, then why would there not be circumstances where it would be equally ethical to use vaccination status as one factor in deciding whether a patient goes to the back of the line?



BTW, "moral" seems like an awkward word in this context. It is a question of medical ethics.

That was my point above. Human derailed the discussion and then others flew off on his tangent. Its the usual substitution of emotion for rationality.

Fun, though!

I saw so many posts that had changed the question to "should unvaccinated people be denied medical care" that I forgot that was not the original question. I went back and reread the OP after I posted, and realized I did little more than revert back to the original question.

I missed your comment what with the blizzard of posted pearl clutching about how the Final Solution was being suggested for the unvaxxed. I am obviously in complete agreement with you. The issue is how to ration limited resources.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 02:51PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw so many posts that had changed the question
> to "should unvaccinated people be denied medical
> care"

I'm getting confused now. Is that not the question asked by the OP? "Should We Not Treat Vaccine Refusers?"

Yes, but the subject got distorted into "should we punish those who disfavor vaccines?" If you look through the comments you'll see that the two topics are muddled together in a way that obstructs logical discussion.

"Should We Not Treat Vaccine Refusers?" was the subject line, and it was a confusing choice of words. The question stated in the body of the post was about how do we set priorities, not about punitive denial of care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 02:59PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Went over my head, you two. I think I'm just generally muddled these days. And I responded from emotion.

One of my pet peeves is subject lines where the writer deliberately does not tell you the subject to manipulate you into clicking the post to find out what it is about. I generally don't click, because it annoys me to be treated like somebody's trained monkey.

I think the subject line should give me enough information to decide whether I am interested in investigating further. As a side benefit, I will be able to remember that I have already looked at the thread if it has a decent sub line.

"I have a question" is an awful subject line. It tells me nothing about the actual subject.


That wasn't the case here, but the wording was confusing. That happens sometimes to any writer. First drafts and all that.

"How should vaccination status be considered when rationing healthcare" would have fit.

That's what I tried to do as well.

anybody wrote a good question. It was not sufficiently tabloid, however, so the usual suspects altered it to tilt the answer toward their favored political position. You and I have both tried to steer the discussion back to the original subject.

The thread is another case study in manipulative rhetoric, something we must avoid if we want to reach meaningful conclusions.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what I tried to do as well.
>
> anybody wrote a good question. It was not
> sufficiently tabloid, however, so the usual
> suspects altered it to tilt the answer toward
> their favored political position. You and I have
> both tried to steer the discussion back to the
> original subject.
>
> The thread is another case study in manipulative
> rhetoric, something we must avoid if we want to
> reach meaningful conclusions.

You got it, LW.

I don't know where they are getting this idea about imprisoning people. I never said that.

It does tell me that this entire denial/resist thing has nothing to do with facts or science and has everything to do with unsubstantiated fear.

A young teen girl was after me in line when I went to get #3. She was extremely distressed, yelling, screaming, and having a panic attack -- even though she had just seen other people including myself get vaccinated without incident. It was just too much for her and she ran out of the room.

anybody: Could you expand this thought, stated in the OP:

"Should refusers be allowed to threaten public health and safety as possible infection spreaders and disease carriers?"

If someone says no, they should not "be allowed to" spread infection/carry disease, what is the alternative, or the outcome?

I think it's understandable that readers would respond in the ways we have. I don't usually notice, or judge, a poster's apparent underlying motives. Mostly because I'm no good at it, I guess.

+1 from me.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anybody: Could you expand this thought, stated in
> the OP:
>
> "Should refusers be allowed to threaten public
> health and safety as possible infection spreaders
> and disease carriers?"
>
> If someone says no, they should not "be allowed
> to" spread infection/carry disease, what is the
> alternative, or the outcome?
>
> I think it's understandable that readers would
> respond in the ways we have. I don't usually
> notice, or judge, a poster's apparent underlying
> motives. Mostly because I'm no good at it, I
> guess.


Well, it depends.

The threat is not as great as bubonic plague or pre-antibiotic era typoid, so I'm not advocating "locking people up" or "quarantine forever" like Typhoid Mary.

I do favor vaccine mandates. If you don't want to be vaccinated, then you should be willing to submit to testing and wear a mask -- especially in the workplace or crowded public venues like theatres and stadiums. I think this is what was mandated by President Biden but the Supreme Court overruled it. So now it's up to individuals and the private sector. I'm still wearing a mask at the store or at work and wiping things down, wearing disposable gloves at the gas pump, etc -- and I've had all three shots.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thread is another case study in manipulative
> rhetoric, something we must avoid if we want to
> reach meaningful conclusions.

If it's too subtle I miss it.

OTOH, in general, I'm accustomed to seeing discussions on these threads meander. It's usually just due to people coming from their own POV in how they read the sub line and thinking of their own experiences as well as choosing a piece of the OP or a response according to their own area of interest, experience or expertise.

I'm fairly hopeless at discerning manipulative techniques. I'm going to partially Blame it on America because it's a different country. {{jk}}

I saw some of them on the news this morning and they were saying the same denial conspiracy Trumpist stuff the crazies in the USA are saying -- it doesn't exist, it's a hoax, isn't not that bad, the vaccines are unsafe and experimental, nanites/"microchips" to track people, "freedom," and other sundry wacky stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 03:27PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw some of them on the news this morning and
> they were saying the same denial conspiracy
> Trumpist stuff the crazies in the USA are saying
> -- it doesn't exist, it's a hoax, isn't not that
> bad, the vaccines are unsafe and experimental,
> nanites/"microchips" to track people, "freedom,"
> and other sundry wacky stuff.

The question of the century for me. One day the world just went mad. Or so it seems.

To me, the advice of the MDs from Day 1 of this bloody pandemic has been understandable, reasonable and necessary, not to mention rooted in scientific knowledge and medical principles. At first it seemed that the vast majority agreed and were compliant (as goes the general impression of Canadians any time). We are over 80% vaxxed (ages 12+) and over 50% with the third/booster dose. Then you hit the remaining hesitant or anti folks and we are stuck at those numbers.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, the "Freedom Convoy" sprung up two weeks ago, with huge trucks and other vehicles showing up from across the country (and outside the country) to block roads in Ottawa (our nation's capital city) and cause unbearable noise with their constantly blaring horns as well as to try to shut down daily life for residents and workers and businesses.

And so we come to today, with blockades at two crucial border crossings between Canada and the US, paralyzing industries and causing worker layoffs already as well as enormous economic consequences to both countries. It started out being called a trucker blockade but has rapidly morphed into something more. Ostensibly the original cause was to protest mandates such as vaccinations, vax passes, masking and business closures (i.e. banquet halls that have vast crowd capacity, not allowed). The protests are supposedly to demand that all federal and provincial mandates be removed immediately (no matter what's happening with the pandemic).

The blockades are taking place in Alberta and Ontario, so far, with rumblings of more to come. In Ottawa, Ontario the blockade is outside our Parliament Buildings, which also happens to be a residential area. The trucks are blaring their horns day and night (x 2 wks now) and people can't sleep and it is being reported that the din is even affecting mental health. (I can't stand the noise of it just over the newscasts).

The Ottawa police chief is calling this an "unlawful occupation" and asking for more resources (from the feds). He states that there are many unlawful offences occurring and police are busy doling out tickets for various infractions.

We had the appalling spectacle last week of protestors losing all civility by defacing a statue of a Canadian hero (I mentioned this in a previous post) and even desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier by dancing on it, "decorating" it and urinating on it. One commentator tried to remind them that the Tomb is actually a burial plot. Clueless idiots who would do that.

Too, as there are few or no washroom facilities for them, the protestors are causing public health concerns by defecating in the streets.

Do I even need to mention the issue about crowds and the spread of COVID?

Also, they are causing fire risks by having open fires and BBQs in city streets as well as walking around with jerrycans full of fuel.

Some protestors display defaced Canadian flags and even Confederate flags. I've never seen that in Canada before. Bizarrely, there are even Nazi symbols in evidence.

Alarming and most unwelcome features that have come to light include the opportunity for radical elements to infiltrate the protest as well as millions of dollars being donated from unsavoury sources. Many commentators are now saying that with the foreign funding and the proof of foreign agitators infiltrating the protest it is no longer a "trucker convoy" but has morphed into something far different and more sinister.

The reason the words and phrases and slogans and demands sound like what you've heard in the US is because they are. Maybe you've heard that millions of dollars were raised through a public funding drive to support the protests but the donations weren't dispensed to the organizers or protestors after police stated that the protest was now considered an illegal occupation. Also, there was a question about the sources of some of the funds. The $$$ will be refunded to the donors.

Yes, indeed, I've never heard protestors in Canada shouting about "freedom", "hoax" and "microchip" among other familiar "anti" words and phrases, wrt any issue, ever.

The police chief is saying as we speak that this is an "unprecedented demonstration" with "significant levels of fundraising, coordination, communication", "they have command centres established here and across this country and beyond this country."

Protestors are also jamming 9-1-1 lines so emergency calls can't get through. Absolutely unforgivable.

The irony is that truckers as a group reportedly are over 90% vaxxed. So it's not about that. Trucker convoy? Not so much.

PM Trudeau is being criticized for ignoring many calls to send in the troops. I can understand that he wouldn't like the optics of the military descending on citizens exercising their right to protest (as some see this demo). Kind of a no-win for him.

Another time to cry Oh Canada. Definitely.

Meanwhile, our ICUs are still full. Of COVID patients.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 04:38PM by Nightingale.

I suppose I read the questions - there were three of them - differently.

I disagree with you on the first one, the title of the post. It is "tabloid", as you put it, and tainted the remainder.

The second was banal, for reasons I explained previously.

The third merits discussion. But I think it's a bit past it's time - the unvaccinated are running free, and no one seems to be able to persuade them to be cautious.

The meandering of this post was ensured by how the questions were posed.

> I disagree with you on the first one, the title of
> the post. It is "tabloid", as you put it, and
> tainted the remainder.

In retrospect, I concur. The phraseology is imprecise, although most people who follow anybody's posts closely would probably give her the benefit of the doubt and hence understand what she's asking.


-------------------
> The second was banal, for reasons I explained
> previously.

Agreed. But the anti-vaxxers keep insisting that people want to discriminate against them, so the subject is not yet answered in the public mind.


-------------------
> The third merits discussion. But I think it's a
> bit past it's time - the unvaccinated are running
> free, and no one seems to be able to persuade them
> to be cautious.

Yes, but there will be more pandemics. So the subject will arise in slightly different contexts.


-------------------
> The meandering of this post was ensured by how the
> questions were posed.

Yes.

This is how I see things:

We could have shut down the virus two years ago, but we didn't. We tried, but it wasn't enough and you-know-who made it worse and started all of the trouble.

We could have shutdown the virus with vaccinations, but we didn't -- again, because of he-who-shall-not-be-named and other conspiracy theory crazies. It wasn't just him. There's an entire industry behind it and sadly, making money off of people playing russian roulette with their lives.

So, now it's everyone out for themselves. We don't have any kind of uniform response, so you have to protect yourself. It's going to be months at least if not another year or two before I'll feel safe not wearing a mask inside a public building.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 04:53PM by anybody.

Out of everybody you answered your own questions the best, anybody. Nailed it as far as I can see.

I'm sending you a virtual gold star for your forehead.

Installing "the mark of the beast", are you now.

;)

Yeah, the message I heard from Day 1 was that if we could quickly reach herd immunity we could prevent development of variants and that was the purpose of the vax campaigns. But buy-in was slow and incomplete.

So here we are.

And bizarrely, antis can circle it around to still blame officials and medics, and not themselves, because of where we've ended up.

Too many also miss the concept that even though a variant is termed "milder" compared to the original virus or other variants it's still not desirable to contract it (understatement).

Also missed by too many is the fact that circumstances change so directives are updated to keep pace with evolving situations. They interpret that to be a fumble when really it's trying to be a touchdown.

I've never experienced this spectacle of countless lay people deciding they know better than scientists and medical experts.

It's OK to ask questions and express doubts. Not so much to decry and ignore the advice of trained specialists. Especially in the face of ample evidence that their expertise is effective.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2022 05:16PM by Nightingale.

Decry, ignore and outright rebel against. It has been a ghastly exhibition of human irrationality.

I was at the San Diego zoo last summer. The orangutans were playing, teasing, cuddling with blankets. It was easy to see myself in them. We haven't strayed from the treetops as far as some people think we have and often, those who think we're the most separated, those who think that the universe was created specifically for them, are the ones who are behaving most primitively.

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was at the San Diego zoo last summer. The
> orangutans were playing, teasing, cuddling with
> blankets. It was easy to see myself in them. We
> haven't strayed from the treetops as far as some
> people think we have and often, those who think
> we're the most separated, those who think that the
> universe was created specifically for them, are
> the ones who are behaving most primitively.

I agree totally (and have been thinking these thoughts since I was in elementary school).

A lot of people know they are right. And more importantly those same people are not shy about noting that anyone whose own observations lead them to a different conclusion are unequivocally wrong.

Thus is our modern life.