Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[TrainsOfDisney]

Smokers aren’t filling up hospitals causing others to be denied care. You need to own the consequences of your excuses.

I’m making no excuses. I support the rights of people to make medical choices for themselves.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m making no excuses. I support the rights of people to make medical choices for themselves.

If it is okay to be unvaccinated, if that is a position to be respected, then that means being okay with people being denied care.

Just because people can chose doesn’t mean there isn’t a wrong choice.

 

[Disney Analyst]

FYI you likely won't get a choice and get Moderna. Nothing wrong with that! But Pfizer is supply constrained in BC currently.

As a 30ish year old who got a rogue dose of AZ, it's all good.

Ooh, Moderna on Sunday you think? I guess that’ll make my decision for me. This 30 year old is going rogue!

 

[Lilofan]

I’m making no excuses. I support the rights of people to make medical choices for themselves.

Smokers aren’t filling up hospitals causing others to be denied care. You need to own the consequences of your excuses.

And to add the cost of care is impacted by people who choose to go down the unhealthy path.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Then you accept that it’s okay for people to be denied care.

Do you accept that people shouldn’t have freedom to make medical choices?

 

[mkt]

I’m making no excuses. I support the rights of people to make medical choices for themselves.

I agree people have the right to make their own choices. But they don't have the right to negatively impact others as a consequence.

 

[sullyinMT]

I saw this on the news and was as flabbergasted as I was disheartened. It’s amazing to me that there are medical professionals who feel this way (video is in the linked article):

COVID-19: Sajid Javid directly challenged on mandatory coronavirus jabs by unvaccinated NHS doctor

Steve James, a consultant anaesthetist who has been treating coronavirus patients since the start of the pandemic, tells Health Secretary Sajid Javid about his displeasure with the government's policy of mandatory vaccination for NHS staff.

news.sky.com

Worked for one today, a surgeon. He’s full on conspiracy theorist and its very difficult to work with him and listen at times. They’re out there, even if in small numbers.

His point still stands. It is unethical to deny medical care to people just because we dislike the decisions they make, even if those decisions are spectacularly bad.

I’ve mentioned “caps” out of heated frustration more than anything in the past. Realizing that care wouldn’t be denied anyone, sometimes the overworked and overtaxed vent in ways that aren’t fully what they (I) mean.

I have an honest question, though. How can we be ok and patient with those that overtax our healthcare system and society? How are their actions any more ethical than some attempt at triage (or at least admitting what their actions are doing) so that some modicum of capacity is reserved for the victim of a DUI, or stroke, or other reasons that ED’s are filled? My son has recurring kidney stones that we’re slowly figuring out with a lot of trial and error (it goes way beyond dehydration and simple diet change). Should one of those require lithotripsy during a wave, should he be pushed back and risk pyelonephritis or worse because people are free to do whatever?

Sorry for the rant if it comes across that way. Because it’s a real struggle in my brain to remain patient with individual people and angry at the situation they collectively perpetuate.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Do you accept that people shouldn’t have freedom to make medical choices?

Freedom of choice doesn’t mean there are no consequences. The unvaccinated are causing people to be denied care.

If choice is so important what about those who don’t get a choice? People in excruciating pain who chose to get surgery have had to have that care and relief delayed. They had no choice. They had to suffer because of the choices of others. This choice you hold so sacrosanct is a choice for the sake of choice. Any lost benefit or positive is infinitesimal compared to the negatives that can come to the individual and are certainly coming to others who made a better choice.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Freedom of choice doesn’t mean there are no consequences. The unvaccinated are causing people to be denied care.

If choice is so important what about those who don’t get a choice? People in excruciating pain who chose to get surgery have had to have that care and relief delayed. They had no choice. They had to suffer because of the choices of others. This choice you hold so sacrosanct is a choice for the sake of choice. Any lost benefit or positive is infinitesimal compared to the negatives that can come to the individual and are certainly coming to others who made a better choice.

Let’s take this theory a step further... doesn’t covid spread by travel? So people, vacinated or not, shouldn’t be traveling correct?

 

[KrzyKtty]

Wow, Is this conversation derailed fast

 

[sullyinMT]

Let’s take this theory a step further... doesn’t covid spread by travel? So people, vacinated or not, shouldn’t be traveling correct?

Since you asked, my answer would be “kinda.” I would be in favor of a domestic air and (non-commuter) train vaccine requirement.
-“But the vaccinated still get and spread COVID.” Far less. And with less collateral damage by way of hospitalization. They will take a bed multiples less often than an unvaccinated traveler.
-“But freedom of movement and commerce.” Shut up and drive. No one said you’re confined to your township, county, or even state.

We restrict international travel consistently, pandemic or not. While disease burden is significant, yes, I think a vaccine requirement for certain modes of travel is a fair compromise between open skies and airline business and a shutdown. Besides, almost 80% of eligible customers have already made themselves travel ready.

And, for Pete’s sake, if you travel right now: follow your destination’s mask and distancing protocols without comparing everything to whatever town you reside. Don’t be “that tourist.”

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

But the vaccinated still get and spread COVID.” Far less. And with less collateral damage by way of hospitalization. They will take a bed multiples less often than an unvaccinated traveler.

But they can still spread it. So they shouldn’t be allowed to travel either. Right?

 

[Timmay]

The EMTLA of 1986 forbids hospitals to deny care even if one cannot afford to pay.

That simply isn’t true. EMTALA requires any CMS participating hospital to provide an appropriate emergency medical screening and administer stabilization care if required. Hospitals can, and do, deny care regularly to those not needing emergency stabilization.

 

[DisneyCane]

I saw this on the news and was as flabbergasted as I was disheartened. It’s amazing to me that there are medical professionals who feel this way (video is in the linked article):

COVID-19: Sajid Javid directly challenged on mandatory coronavirus jabs by unvaccinated NHS doctor

Steve James, a consultant anaesthetist who has been treating coronavirus patients since the start of the pandemic, tells Health Secretary Sajid Javid about his displeasure with the government's policy of mandatory vaccination for NHS staff.

news.sky.com

There is nothing he said that is untrue or counter to "the science" (which I put in quotes because I think it's absurd how it's referred to like some kind of supreme being).

There have been multiple studies that showed the quickly waning efficacy against infection by the vaccines. The was a very recent one done in the UK (I think that's where it was) which concluded that after a booster, the efficacy against infection by Omicron was 75% and dropped to below 50% in under 10 weeks.

He didn't say the vaccines don't work. He didn't say they have some crazy latent side effect or are filled with mind control nanobots. The justification for the mandate that he disagrees with is to prevent spread to others (same justification as the mandates that were argued in the Supreme Court today). He simply stated that he has antibodies (which I can only give the benefit of the doubt was laboratory confirmed) and therefore is not at any higher risk of getting infected and spreading than a vaccinated person. He also pointed out the impractical booster schedule that would be required to maintain high efficacy against infection.

 

[LittleBuford]

I have an honest question, though. How can we be ok and patient with those that overtax our healthcare system and society?

One doesn’t have to be OK or patient with them, though. It’s enough to simply dispassionately follow the principle that care should be given to all who need it, and first to those who need it the most.

 

[DisneyCane]

Since you asked, my answer would be “kinda.” I would be in favor of a domestic air and (non-commuter) train vaccine requirement.
-“But the vaccinated still get and spread COVID.” Far less. And with less collateral damage by way of hospitalization. They will take a bed multiples less often than an unvaccinated traveler.
-“But freedom of movement and commerce.” Shut up and drive. No one said you’re confined to your township, county, or even state.

We restrict international travel consistently, pandemic or not. While disease burden is significant, yes, I think a vaccine requirement for certain modes of travel is a fair compromise between open skies and airline business and a shutdown. Besides, almost 80% of eligible customers have already made themselves travel ready.

And, for Pete’s sake, if you travel right now: follow your destination’s mask and distancing protocols without comparing everything to whatever town you reside. Don’t be “that tourist.”

According to CDC data, 86% of the 18+ population has at least one dose and 73.1% are fully vaccinated. Assuming there's an over count of the former and an undercount of the latter it's probably more like 78% are fully vaccinated and 82% have at least one dose.

Considering that most of the holdouts tend to be in more rural states, what percentage of adults on aircraft on any given day do you really think are unvaccinated? I'd guess that it is pretty low, in the single digits.

If there was a vaccine requirement, most of those would just travel via a method that doesn't have a vaccine requirement so what will the requirement really accomplish?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Let’s take this theory a step further... doesn’t covid spread by travel? So people, vacinated or not, shouldn’t be traveling correct?

What theory? People have been denied care. It has happed. It is happening now. Anyone who is over-worked, exhausted, burnt out, etc is going to experience cognitive decline resulting in reduced performance.

Travel in and of itself does not cause COVID-19 to spread. Certain travel arrangements, activities and environments can be conducive to spread. But restricting travel means removing far more choices from people with very real short term and long term negatives associated with that removal of choice.

 

[lazyboy97o]

One doesn’t have to be OK or patient with them, though. It’s enough to simply dispassionately follow the principle that care should be given to all who need it, and first to those who need it the most.

Saying it is a personal choice that should be respected isn’t being OK with the decision?

 

[LittleBuford]

There is nothing he said that is untrue or counter to "the science" (which I put in quotes because I think it's absurd how it's referred to like some kind of supreme being).

There have been multiple studies that showed the quickly waning efficacy against infection by the vaccines. The was a very recent one done in the UK (I think that's where it was) which concluded that after a booster, the efficacy against infection by Omicron was 75% and dropped to below 50% in under 10 weeks.

He didn't say the vaccines don't work. He didn't say they have some crazy latent side effect or are filled with mind control nanobots. The justification for the mandate that he disagrees with is to prevent spread to others (same justification as the mandates that were argued in the Supreme Court today). He simply stated that he has antibodies (which I can only give the benefit of the doubt was laboratory confirmed) and therefore is not at any higher risk of getting infected and spreading than a vaccinated person. He also pointed out the impractical booster schedule that would be required to maintain high efficacy against infection.

By his own telling, he has been working with COVID patients throughout the pandemic. Vaccines have been available to British health workers for over a year now. He said he had COVID “at some point” and has never had the vaccine. Natural antibodies don’t last more than about six months, which means he’s happily spent the rest of the time needlessly unvaccinated. He can’t very well invoke the transmissibility of Omicron as his excuse, as that doesn’t explain why he refused to get vaccinated before the new variant reared its head just a few months ago. So no, he isn’t following the science or doing anything remotely sensible.

 

[LittleBuford]

Saying it is a personal choice that should be respected isn’t being OK with the decision?

I’m not the one saying that, though, nor is it how I feel. I’m not OK with someone choosing to remain unvaccinated, but neither do I think that that person should be denied care if they need it. These are not irreconcilable positions.