General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
Kim Christensen:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 03:56:43 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:53:29 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 01:25:12 am ---For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".
--- End quote ---
Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.
--- End quote ---
I said "talks and demands", but yes, it has happened:
https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated-patients-not-priority-on-organ-transplant-waitlist-warns-ama-c-4877733
--- End quote ---
Quoting an article in a right leaning paper that's behind a paywall is kind of disingenuous.
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 02:40:53 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 01:25:12 am ---For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".
--- End quote ---
While I wouldn't ban, I would be ok with de-prioritizing those that engage in risky activity such as not getting vaccinated. When there are not enough hospital beds to go around, difficult choices have to be made, it's not an ideal situation but it is reality.
--- End quote ---
Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.
james_s:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 03:43:54 am ---
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 03:30:45 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 03:20:17 am ---I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
--- End quote ---
Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.
If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close. :-//
--- End quote ---
It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.
--- End quote ---
No it is not at all.
I think I see what is going on here. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it means "to question" something. It does not mean you simply state that it is wrong, instead it means let's ask ourselves if this is right and then sit down and look over the data and evaluate it. Maybe in the end we decide it is in fact sensible, maybe it's sensible under certain circumstances, maybe we aren't really sure, or maybe after looking at the data it turns out that it's wrong.
I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.
james_s:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 04:07:45 am ---Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.
--- End quote ---
Keep in mind my view is skewed by the system we have here, in which the taxpayers DO NOT fund healthcare. I get my insurance through my employer, it is a part of my compensation, if I didn't have that I would have to pay for it, and the amount I would pay monthly depends on my lifestyle. I get a significant discount for stating that I do not consume tobacco. I get another significant discount for getting an annual physical. Under this system I think it is totally fair for insurance companies to charge substantially more for someone that is unvaccinated, or to prioritize care to those who are.
The problem of course is in the circumstance where we are resource constrained. Say there are 6 hospital beds and 10 people that need them, all of those 10 people paid into the system and are entitled to care, but not all of them can get it due to reality of available resources. What information do we consider when triaging them? Is it fair to let someone die who took all the best steps they could to reduce their risk, in order to provide treatment to someone that refused to get vaccinated and went out to gatherings thus greatly increasing their risk? I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 04:16:34 am ---I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
--- End quote ---
"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version