Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? If you don't want to be banned on HN, you can email us at [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.
1. aggressive triage based on chances and QALY remaining
2. increased healthcare funding
3. voluntary isolation of individuals who see lockdown as being preferable to their personal coronavirus risk
Will it result in more deaths than February 2020? Sure. But we don't have that choice because sars2 exists now.
We think it's better to ration healthcare and therefore doom an unlucky minority, versus rationing life itself for everyone (via lockdowns and restrictions) and slow killing everyone.
As far as I can tell, most of the lockdown debate centres around an erroneous idea that we can just do X, Y, Z, and then immunosuppressed Harriet can rejoin the world and avoid contracting coronavirus.
But she just can't. Even the original strain would have eventually infected her with high probability unless we continued to cycle lockdowns or she voluntarily isolated.
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...
Its just that, using Swedish data again, Western societies are significantly more aged: eg. there 120,000 80-84 year old men (prime COVID death territory) in 2020, vs only 101,000 in 2009. Its similar in many other Western countries: about 20% more elderly people, in absolute numbers.
As such, the 'same' types of respiratory viruses will simply kill more people.
The decisions is thus a social and political one: do we lockdown and force 6-monthly vaccinations on everyone, based on elderly deaths that will occur anyway simply due to the baby boomer cohort entering their twilight years?
I think we need to just get more efficient at end-of-life care, focusing on simpler treatments and comfort, as well as euthanasia-on-demand for anyone over age 75.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky
The four elderly members of our immediate family are all fairly adamant that the young have suffered enough, and "hell, yes" they want to see their grandkids, and no, they aren't asking about vaccinations and negative tests.
I'm minded to respect their opinions.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211122/us-covid-deaths-202...
Given widespread availability of vaccines, I think it is acceptable to turn away any non vaccinated people without medical exemptions to preserve hospital capacity.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMT...
I wish I could tell people that:
The vaccine does not prevent transmission as much as you think it does.
You do not spread as easily as you think you do, and you can personally attempt to reduce it even further.
You are vaccinated, and if it is indeed effective and you believe in it, you should not be worried much.
The unvaccinated are people too who probably do not have any malicious intent, and most likely pose little, or no risk to you.
Merry Christmas!
Always puzzles me to see people suggesting all these “just let them die” silver bullet algorithms.
Is there any evidence that this is true at the point of presenting with equal acute symptoms? Sure, your symptoms are likely to be less acute if you are vaccinated, but that's not the issue, the issue is response to treatment given similar symptoms.
Person A is "fully vaccinated", last dose five months ago, hasn't taken a Covid test since.
Person B is unvaccinated, but had a PCR test yesterday and is negative for Covid19.
Let's say you're clinically vulnerable, which of A or B would you rather sit next to during a meal?
This is clearly not the case for the vast swaths of our public health institutions who have supported and eagerly carried out mass terminations of healthcare workers who refuse the Covid vaccines.