Originally Posted by
doctoravios
This approach isn't herd immunity. The classical definition for herd immunity is a point at which susceptible individuals are protected from infection due to resistant individuals being unable to transmit the pathogen. This will never happen for COVID-19. We know for certain that vaccinated individuals can transmit the virus. So herd immunity is not an option. The only feasible option is endemecity arising from transmission between vaccinated people.
We have to normalise and accept infection and transmission between vaccinated people to enable this to happen.
Huh? Herd immunity doesn't require people to be completely immune, it merely requires that it spread poorly enough that R0 is below 1. Look at the current situation--the R0 of Delta is about 6-7. A few posts above this one we have data that vaccination provides 6-7x lower infection rates. By itself, that puts the R0 at about 1--but breakthrough cases are generally shorter than regular cases, thus reducing the exposure. Thus we should already have a R0 somewhat below 1 even now--herd immunity amongst the vaxxed but continual introduction from the unvaxxed causing it to persist.
Originally Posted by
outgoing
Despite all this, we are slowly running out of bed capacity in Seattle (which is partially b/c we serve the whole region when it comes to severe cases of any disease/incident) and there are some rumors of informal instruction to triage patients against the unvaccinated i.e., put them at the end of pecking order. I said it multiple times but I will say it again, it's a moral hazard issue now and should be treated like one. Folks who choose not to get vaccinated should be charged more in terms of both treatment fees as well as their insurance.
The reality is somebody isn't going to get the care they need and will die. Why is it a moral hazard to direct the care towards the patient who was careful rather than the one that was reckless? Is it a moral hazard to direct organs to those more likely to make better use of them?