Originally Posted by
Loren Pechtel
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?
The moral hazard is taking a risk and not getting vaccinated b/c you have health insurance (at the same price as those vaccinated). It's a change in behavior due to having insurance. Make it more expensive i.e., equalize the true cost with a cost born by an individual and they will be more likely to get vaccinated at the margin.
Originally Posted by
ryman554
I worked in emergency medicine back in the day. You treat who's in front of you. Period. If you need to triage resources, you prioritize those that are the sickest unless there is no hope for them. Yes, this is a simiplification, but is the general tenet. In this case, whether or not one is vaccinated makes no difference to the care they get, full stop. If folks are choosing to prioritize vax over non-vax (and that is the only consideration), they deserve their medical license revoked.
Lets take this discussion elsewhere, it's OMNI, not a fact-based thread.
I was just reporting on a chatter I've heard from friends who work in the industry. Obviously nobody is going to make it official as it would be a huge scandal. I also don't think they deserve their medical license to be revoked if they devote resources to those whom they can help more effectively given that triaging is needed. We know that Covid patients occupy ICU beds for a long periods of time and the success rate after ventilators are low. Perfectly reasonable to help others where prognosis is more encouraging if they are at capacity.