New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Should the new anti-Covid pills be reserved for the unvaccinated?

Bugsy McGurk

President
It’s proposed that unvaccinated people will enjoy a preference when it comes to the use of the new anti-Covid pills, Paxlovid. There’s not enough yet for everybody. Yet another way that covidiots are causing harm to responsible people.

Should unvaccinated people be given a preference when it comes to the allocation of Paxlovid?
 

RickWA

Senator
It’s proposed that unvaccinated people will enjoy a preference when it comes to the use of the new anti-Covid pills, Paxlovid. There’s not enough yet for everybody. Yet another way that covidiots are causing harm to responsible people.

Should unvaccinated people be given a preference when it comes to the allocation of Paxlovid?
Decent, good, smart, inquisitive, curious citizens should ask the following question:
What is the goal or objective of any and all covid treatments, whether preventive or therapeutic...whether vaccination or post-infection care...what is our objective?

To date, I have seen repeated top posts suggesting withholding ventilators, withholding/forbidding hospital admittance for unvaxxed, and now potentially priority sequencing and permissions of authorization of medication. So, are we as a society now invested into leveraging medical offerings as punitive measure? Do we prioritize care by group "risk" and need? By ethnicity/equity concerns? Do we delay and/or preclude based on whether a patient in need made the choices we prefer?

"Hello, my name is Rick and I am a Doctor of Downstream Grudge Infliction".

What the hell happened to us? The new and improved Hippocratic Oath looks promising. :-/
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
It’s proposed that unvaccinated people will enjoy a preference when it comes to the use of the new anti-Covid pills, Paxlovid. There’s not enough yet for everybody. Yet another way that covidiots are causing harm to responsible people.

Should unvaccinated people be given a preference when it comes to the allocation of Paxlovid?
Back of the line. Anyone who is medically eligible to be vaccinated and refuses to do so should be at the very back of the line when it comes to doling out limited supplies.

The reason for doing this is not to be punitive but to use these limited resources where they will do the most good. Giving these medicines to people who refuse to be vaccinated will only insure that they go out and prolong the pandemic.

Additionally if it turns out that there is enough medicine available to treat the unvaccinated the medicines should only be given out in conjunction with a single dose vaccine such as the J&J. This will help prevent the spread of the disease.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Decent, good, smart, inquisitive, curious citizens should ask the following question:
What is the goal or objective of any and all covid treatments, whether preventive or therapeutic...whether vaccination or post-infection care...what is our objective?

To date, I have seen repeated top posts suggesting withholding ventilators, withholding/forbidding hospital admittance for unvaxxed, and now potentially priority sequencing and permissions of authorization of medication. So, are we as a society now invested into leveraging medical offerings as punitive measure? Do we prioritize care by group "risk" and need? By ethnicity/equity concerns? Do we delay and/or preclude based on whether a patient in need made the choices we prefer?

"Hello, my name is Rick and I am a Doctor of Downstream Grudge Infliction".

What the hell happened to us? The new and improved Hippocratic Oath looks promising. :-/
The obvious objective is to make people well.

The question then becomes whether the unvaccinated should be given a preference so that they are more likely to get well than the vaccinated.

I say no. What do you say?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Back of the line. Anyone who is medically eligible to be vaccinated and refuses to do so should be at the very back of the line when it comes to doling out limited supplies.

The reason for doing this is not to be punitive but to use these limited resources where they will do the most good. Giving these medicines to people who refuse to be vaccinated will only insure that they go out and prolong the pandemic.

Additionally if it turns out that there is enough medicine available to treat the unvaccinated the medicines should only be given out in conjunction with a single dose vaccine such as the J&J. This will help prevent the spread of the disease.
Excellent analysis and recommendation.
 

RickWA

Senator
The obvious objective is to make people well.

The question then becomes whether the unvaccinated should be given a preference so that they are more likely to get well than the vaccinated.

I say no. What do you say?
I say (and this is not mere opinion) that it is not the place of physician to enforce political will. It is his job to treat whoever is in front of him to the best of his ability, leveraging the best resources at his disposal. As a decent person who understands politics to be a temporal, profane, UNSACRED thing...it is my view that medication is offered to those in need as that need arises. I reject the notion that everybody everywhere needs to be a proxy agent of political or social will.

This is the only morally appropriate position. There is no room for refusing medication to a person in need based on anything other than that medication's unavailability.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
It’s proposed that unvaccinated people will enjoy a preference when it comes to the use of the new anti-Covid pills, Paxlovid. There’s not enough yet for everybody. Yet another way that covidiots are causing harm to responsible people.

Should unvaccinated people be given a preference when it comes to the allocation of Paxlovid?
It should be provided to whomever needs it
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Excellent analysis and recommendation.
We do not give liver transplants to alcoholics that blow out their livers. We don't do heart transplants to people with a less than 2 year life expectancy.

When resources are scare they should go to where they can do the most good.

No one would deny treatment to anyone if there are enough supplies. But when there isn't enough supply to meet the demand it should be used for the people who have acyed responsibly.

The idea that there would be a blanket refusal to treat COVIDIOT mask-holes is a strawman argument. If there are enough hospital beds for them let them have a bed, if there is enough medicine then give them some. But if there is not then - back of the line.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
We do not give liver transplants to alcoholics that blow out their livers. We don't do heart transplants to people with a less than 2 year life expectancy.

When resources are scare they should go to where they can do the most good.

No one would deny treatment to anyone if there are enough supplies. But when there isn't enough supply to meet the demand it should be used for the people who have acyed responsibly.

The idea that there would be a blanket refusal to treat COVIDIOT mask-holes is a strawman argument. If there are enough hospital beds for them let them have a bed, if there is enough medicine then give them some. But if there is not then - back of the line.

Is this true of say...persons who maintain diet and fitness...and those who do not?
 

RickWA

Senator
Is this true of say...persons who maintain diet and fitness...and those who do not?
It is nothing but extremist, punitive political nonsense. A medication is not an organ transplant, and there is no noble end to physicians refusing care and medication like this. Unthinking stooges stumble about like unthinking, rogue elephants - paying no mind to unintended consequences.

I blame poor parenting (as usual). What a horrible value system.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Is this true of say...persons who maintain diet and fitness...and those who do not?

It would be true for someone morbidly obese. They are not going to give a heart transplant to some 700 lb guy. Just not going to happen. Would they give one to someone like Bob Saget (reportedly maxed out at 267 on a 6'4" frame)? Yes.

But if someone not famous that was say 5'10" and weighted 267 needed a heart transplant he'd get moved pretty far down the list and told to lose a shit ton of weight if he wanted a better chance.
 
Last edited:

Bugsy McGurk

President
I say (and this is not mere opinion) that it is not the place of physician to enforce political will. It is his job to treat whoever is in front of him to the best of his ability, leveraging the best resources at his disposal. As a decent person who understands politics to be a temporal, profane, UNSACRED thing...it is my view that medication is offered to those in need as that need arises. I reject the notion that everybody everywhere needs to be a proxy agent of political or social will.

This is the only morally appropriate position. There is no room for refusing medication to a person in need based on anything other than that medication's unavailability.
This has nothing to do with “political will.” This has to do with allocation of a medical resource when there is not enough for everybody, and whether unvaccinated people should be given a preference.

You mounted your High horse and blathered some moral indignation, but you completely dodged the actual issue.

As always.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
It is nothing but extremist, punitive political nonsense. A medication is not an organ transplant, and there is no noble end to physicians refusing care and medication like this. Unthinking stooges stumble about like unthinking, rogue elephants - paying no mind to unintended consequences.

I blame poor parenting (as usual). What a horrible value system.
Refusing care and medication?

WTF? You should read the posts.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
We do not give liver transplants to alcoholics that blow out their livers. We don't do heart transplants to people with a less than 2 year life expectancy.

When resources are scare they should go to where they can do the most good.

No one would deny treatment to anyone if there are enough supplies. But when there isn't enough supply to meet the demand it should be used for the people who have acyed responsibly.

The idea that there would be a blanket refusal to treat COVIDIOT mask-holes is a strawman argument. If there are enough hospital beds for them let them have a bed, if there is enough medicine then give them some. But if there is not then - back of the line.
Exactly. Well said.

They should be placed at the back of the line. We are far too compassionate to completely throw them off the line.
 

RickWA

Senator
This has nothing to do with “political will.” This has to do with allocation of a medical resource when there is not enough for everybody, and whether unvaccinated people should be given a preference.

You mounted your High horse and blathered some moral indignation, but you completely dodged the actual issue.

As always.
Actually, I suggested prioritizing by need alone. You clowns suggested political and social lens introduction. Such dishonesty.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Actually, I suggested prioritizing by need alone. You clowns suggested political and social lens introduction. Such dishonesty.
Nope - these are your words:
It is nothing but extremist, punitive political nonsense. A medication is not an organ transplant, and there is no noble end to physicians refusing care and medication like this. Unthinking stooges stumble about like unthinking, rogue elephants - paying no mind to unintended consequences.

I blame poor parenting (as usual). What a horrible value system.

That is nothing but a strawman argument. No one here or anywhere else suggested refusing to treat anyone. Just the method that should be used to triage short supplies.
 
Top