Next Tuesday the Dutch government will hold a press conference.
What they, based on the OMT’s (outbreak management team) and RIVM’s (Dutch centre for disease control) advices, are going to suggest should be done to combat the rising numbers in hospitals is anyone’s guess.
But they have already mentioned the 75 to 80% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people. And that the options being weighed could balance between a general response and a targetted response.
The writing is on the wall.
What’s going to be interesting is how they plan to use a dual tracked approach, yet minimise the divisions in society.
And this is already an issue. The general public is turning quite against the unvaccinated people, generally referring to them as “wappies” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean). The unvaccinated being generally under 25 and/or with an immigration background. The former being very vocal on the issue (ironically spreqdinf the disease even faster, one presumes).
The Dutch government (actually a demissionary cabinet) would have mass support for targetted restrictions.
Practicality aside, the question I want to ask is:
Is it ethical to restrict one part of society more than others? Does the same argument count if it’s for public health issues, like at the moment?
@shavixmir saidI think they should do something about all choices that lead to a drag on society's money.
Next Tuesday the Dutch government will hold a press conference.
What they, based on the OMT’s (outbreak management team) and RIVM’s (Dutch centre for disease control) advices, are going to suggest should be done to combat the rising numbers in hospitals is anyone’s guess.
But they have already mentioned the 75 to 80% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people. And tha ...[text shortened]... more than others? Does the same argument count if it’s for public health issues, like at the moment?
Why do we waste money on drug rehab? Why should we need to support women who choose to have sex and get pregnant outside of marriage?
So many people doing stupid things costing thd government money which could be used in better ways.
@shavixmir said"But they have already mentioned the 75 to 80% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people"
Next Tuesday the Dutch government will hold a press conference.
What they, based on the OMT’s (outbreak management team) and RIVM’s (Dutch centre for disease control) advices, are going to suggest should be done to combat the rising numbers in hospitals is anyone’s guess.
But they have already mentioned the 75 to 80% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people. And tha ...[text shortened]... more than others? Does the same argument count if it’s for public health issues, like at the moment?
In another thread you said 80%, not 75 to 80%.
Exaggerate much?
@shavixmir saidI think if you restrict everyone equally across the board, the question to answer would be, what on earth did anyone get vaccinated for, if they were still being restricted? If the unvaxxed were more likely to get infected and require hospitalization, then the only sensible option to ensure that hospital services were not overrun, would be to restrict the movement of the unvaxxed until such time that infection rates and fatalities in the broader society become negligible.
Practicality aside, the question I want to ask is:
Is it ethical to restrict one part of society more than others? Does the same argument count if it’s for public health issues, like at the moment?
If nothing else, then for their own good.
@kmax87 saidActually the best way to ensure hospitals are not overrun is to kill off everyone over 65.
I think if you restrict everyone equally across the board, the question to answer would be, what on earth did anyone get vaccinated for, if they were still being restricted? If the unvaxxed were more likely to get infected and require hospitalization, then the only sensible option to ensure that hospital services were not overrun, would be to restrict the movement of the unvax ...[text shortened]... nd fatalities in the broader society become negligible.
If nothing else, then for their own good.
@metal-brain saidDude, The numbers are:
"But they have already mentioned the 75 to 80% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people"
In another thread you said 80%, not 75 to 80%.
Exaggerate much?
75% of hospitalisations are unvaccinated.
80% of IC patients are unvaccinated.
I shortened it, because the 5% is neither here nor there for the ethical issue I want discussed.
@eladar saidUnsubtle, but it is the core of the point. And Kmax87 points out the other side of the coin.
No, I am pointing out the stupidity of classifying people as subgroups. Hospitals are for people who need them plain and simple. Your attempt to make a inferior sub class called unvaxxed is immoral.
If you can claim the unvaccinated as a designated target, why not fat people, alcohol drinkers, etc.
Yet, the unvaccinated are holding society and the economy to a certain extent hostage. And clogging up the hospitals.
But so do people who live unhealthy life styles to a certain degree too.
Not a lot of people chipping in on the ethical debate.
Too complicated? It is a hard one. With, I guess, no real answer that is satisfactory.
Let’s look at it practically:
People are starting to say they don’t want to work with unvaccinated people (because they don’t want to catch covid and spread it to the elderly or immune-challenged people they know).
The unvaccinated don’t want to be constantly tested.
The employers can’t mandate testing on the workplace.
What’s the answer? Working from home?
Some things go well from home. But some jobs and some parts of jobs need real human interaction.
How do we solve the problem practically?
@shavixmir saidYou are a liar. The people who are making rules about covid are taking society hostage.
Unsubtle, but it is the core of the point. And Kmax87 points out the other side of the coin.
If you can claim the unvaccinated as a designated target, why not fat people, alcohol drinkers, etc.
Yet, the unvaccinated are holding society and the economy to a certain extent hostage. And clogging up the hospitals.
But so do people who live unhealthy life styles to a certain degree too.
@eladar saidIn a debate it would be a good ways to say.
You are a liar. The people who are making rules about covid are taking society hostage.
"I don't agree, my point of view is..."
The "liar" attack is a fould here. Since you most probably cannot demonstarte that the poster did say what they knew to be untrue (that would be a lie, as poossed to an error)
@ponderable saidNo, liar is the truth. The unvaxxed are not setting the rules that make things difficult.
In a debate it would be a good ways to say.
"I don't agree, my point of view is..."
The "liar" attack is a fould here. Since you most probably cannot demonstarte that the poster did say what they knew to be untrue (that would be a lie, as poossed to an error)
@eladar saidWhy would that make someone a liar ??
You are a liar. The people who are making rules about covid are taking society hostage.
Couldn't you just have said that he was incorrect ?
The narrative of "lying" has been tossed around too easily.
People may be incorrect about something. They may change their position about something as they learn more.
But some of you in here resort to tossing the terms "liar" and "lying" around at will.
CDC lies. Fauci lies. Everyone lies !!
I think you have become desensitized to a former president who lied and continues to lie like it is a bodily function.
As to your post ...... I don't call you a liar. You are just plain wrong. See the distinction ?
@mghrn55 saidIf you tell a lie, then you lie, even if simply repeating the big lie.
Why would that make someone a liar ??
Couldn't you just have said that he was incorrect ?
The narrative of "lying" has been tossed around too easily.
People may be incorrect about something. They may change their position about something as they learn more.
But some of you in here resort to tossing the terms "liar" and "lying" around at will.
CDC lies. Fauci lies. ...[text shortened]...
As to your post ...... I don't call you a liar. You are just plain wrong. See the distinction ?