If I needed a transplant for anything, I sure as hell wouldn’t trust my body on its own because “COVID’s kill rate is very low”. That’s not to mention the rate and severity of permanent lung damage and lingering heart issues.

It’s also a matter of resource scarcity, so the vaccination becomes a layer of filtration that helps maximise the chance of success. It’s much like the dilemma of unvaccinated COVID patients, they take up resources and often elected not to take the vaccine for no good reason, when they turn they have a much lower chance of making it through compared to a breakthrough vaccinated patient. The first in best dressed attitude is not compatible with optimally saving as many people as possible in a resource scarce environment. Hence the increased triaging

"Odds of survival have long been factored into prioritizing who will get donated organs. And requiring vaccinations against devastating infectious diseases is also standard. Organ recipients are already generally required to be vaccinated against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and tetanus, among others diseases."

None of those diseases have high kill rates. Kill rates aren't the justification being used.

It's about maximizing success of the transplant. This is just one more vaccination in a list of vaccinations.

This isn't surprising to anyone remotely familiar with eligibility requirements for organ transplants. There are all sorts of choices a patient can make that would make them ineligible.

> None of those diseases have high kill rates.

Hep A - 0.3% for adults ages 15 to 39, and 2.1% for adults ages 40 and old [1]

Hep B - 14% [2]

Influenza - 0.2% (calculated from stats on wikipedia)

Tetanus - <15% with treatment, >25% without treatment [3]

Covid - 1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover [4]

So no, most of those diseases have much higher kill rate than covid. Also, those vaccines have been proven over decades. Covid vaccines have barely been studied for a year.

[1] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70180/WHO_I...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24523214/

[3] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000615.htm

[4] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-...

If they trust science enough to get a transplant they can trust science enough to get vaccinated.

‘If they want a transplant, they better voluntary make the decision I want them to take!

And if they don’t, well that’s more input to my ‘Laugh at people who died because they didn’t take the vaccine’ Facebook group!’

‘Look at me, feeling holy saving lives through science! I know better than you!’

They aren't being bumped from the list out of spite, its for statistically better outcomes.

Medical science trumps stupid beliefs whether you are Steve Jobs or some idiot feeding off facebook.

Science is not ‘we decide based on who trusts science’.

No, its knowing about statistics and chances of catching something and dying because you are on immune system supressing drugs.

As per the article "Organ recipients are already generally required to be vaccinated against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and tetanus"

If they are too fucking stupid to take a simple injection to save their life then so be it. There is no rationale for them not to take it.

That’s science. This is not:

> If they trust science enough to get a transplant they can trust science enough to get vaccinated

Also, it doesn’t make you seem smarter if you call people who disagree with your position ‘fucking stupid’.

I'm not saying that to sound smarter, I'm stating a fact - in their scenario the chance of them dying is millions of times greater if they refuse the vaccine.

> If they are too fucking stupid to take a simple injection

> I'm stating a fact

No, you’re not. You’re just insulting people.

>catching the infection is also very unlikely now

It isn't. In the US, the daily infection rate is currently 3 people per 10,000 per day. That's 1% per month - higher than the June 2020 peak.