The [Coronavirus] Discussion Thread.

Bogart

The old thread was too long, so here is a novel thread for discussing the novel coronavirus.

Just going to plagiarize ceres write an amazing and definitely novel OP entirely by myself:
As the title states, this thread is for discussion surrounding covid and how it has affected us, our communities, others, and the world, while the updates thread is for information/updates about the virus itself.

Cite your sources and don't post bad or wrong or dishonestly-framed information; mod patience for this kind of thing is especially thin right now.

We've all had a terrible time of the past year, so try not to be jerks to each other.

Tl;dr: Be kind, be truthful and cite things, and if you're going to post in the updates thread with something that is not an update, post it here instead.

Bogart

Geth, kick @tbloxham from the thread.

Geth

Affirmative Bogart. @tbloxham banned from this thread.

ahava

So the majority of the country is in level 2 Delta.

This means social distance, masks everywhere, scan in with the QR code, no more than 50 people at a gathering, schools are allowed, but don't be dumb and send your sick kid.

Meanwhile, Auckland is still at Level 4. Only essential services are open, masks everywhere, no takeaways, stay home as much as possible, exercise only on your area, do not mix bubbles.


However, vaccination program is continuing to surpass the expectations of govt, and we're actually at risk of running it before the next Pfizer delivery.

Govt had planned on doing at most 350,000 doses per week. We're currently sitting around 400-500k/week.

We're scheduled to get more from Pfizer end of October, as planned. But we are going to need some to tide us over.

Govt had been in negotiations with other countries to get a holdover supply, and today announced that we're getting another 250,000 doses from Spain.


13 new cases today, all in Auckland, and all linked to the clusters. 868 total cases, 31 in hospital, 5 in ICU, 3 in ventilation.

The Zombie Penguin

That's several less than who were in icu and ventilaiton previously, so that's good news.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

Good new regarding COVID stroke: A new paper just came out that followed 6500 hospitalized covid patients and the incidence of stroke is about 1% and the risk of brain bleeding is 5%. The brain bleeding was highly associated with using the blood-rerouting machine ECMO and lots of anticoagulants so the brain bleeding seems to be a side-effect of being treated. It was a big concern when people saw covid patients having neurological symptoms and everyone was worried that this might be a missed and dangerous outcome but now it seems like a fairly rare event.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ene.15072

Abstract
Background and purpose
During acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, neurological signs, symptoms and complications occur. We aimed to assess their clinical relevance by evaluating real-world data from a multinational registry.

Methods
We analyzed COVID-19 patients from 127 centers, diagnosed between January 2020 and February 2021, and registered in the European multinational LEOSS (Lean European Open Survey on SARS-Infected Patients) registry. The effects of prior neurological diseases and the effect of neurological symptoms on outcome were studied using multivariate logistic regression.

Results
A total of 6537 COVID-19 patients (97.7% PCR-confirmed) were analyzed, of whom 92.1% were hospitalized and 14.7% died. Commonly, excessive tiredness (28.0%), headache (18.5%), nausea/emesis (16.6%), muscular weakness (17.0%), impaired sense of smell (9.0%) and taste (12.8%), and delirium (6.7%) were reported. In patients with a complicated or critical disease course (53%) the most frequent neurological complications were ischemic stroke (1.0%) and intracerebral bleeding (ICB; 2.2%). ICB peaked in the critical disease phase (5%) and was associated with the administration of anticoagulation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Excessive tiredness (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–1.68) and prior neurodegenerative diseases (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07–1.63) were associated with an increased risk of an unfavorable outcome. Prior cerebrovascular and neuroimmunological diseases were not associated with an unfavorable short-term outcome of COVID-19.

Conclusion
Our data on mostly hospitalized COVID-19 patients show that excessive tiredness or prior neurodegenerative disease at first presentation increase the risk of an unfavorable short-term outcome. ICB in critical COVID-19 was associated with therapeutic interventions, such as anticoagulation and ECMO, and thus may be an indirect complication of a life-threatening systemic viral infection.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

https://www.wired.com/story/would-it-be-fair-to-treat-vaccinated-covid-patients-first/

Really interesting article where bio-ethicists and hospitals explain exactly what triage is and is not.

Careful indeed. A big part of the rationale for triage guidelines is consistency, so individual doctors don’t have to rely on their intuitions. “Covid has taught us lots of things, but certainly that there’s a lot of implicit bias within the health care system, and certainly with Covid outcomes,” Lo says. “And we want not to make that worse.”

Plus, as much as we all might understand and empathize with the rage and frustration of health care workers—emotionally drained, epidemiologically at risk—whatever blame we might place could well be misdirected. “We know people are frustrated and angry, but that’s not a basis for decisionmaking,” Fine says.

Vaccination status, as Fine notes, is more complicated than that anger might allow. “I think we have to be really careful about saying someone chose not to be vaccinated. Some people do,” Lo says. “But there are still people who have difficulty making an appointment, who aren’t internet-savvy, who don’t speak English as a first language. A lot of people work in jobs where they don’t have time off, or if they get even a day of adverse effects from the vaccine and can’t work, their pay gets docked.” And how would a clinician trying to triage based on vaccination status distinguish among those groups, even if they were allowed to?

For that matter, even the people who resist vaccination because think they’ll never get sick, or that if they do then a horse deworming drug will save them, or that vaccines contain magnetizing 5G antennas through which Bill Gates can turn them into werewolves (They don’t! None of those things are things!)—those people have been lied to by leaders they trusted. Bad information is cheap; better information is expensive. And as ugly as the Covid numbers might be getting across the South, rage might be better directed at political leaders who are resisting basic public health measures instead of the people suffering as a result.

Gaddez

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/would-it-be-fair-to-treat-vaccinated-covid-patients-first/

Really interesting article where bio-ethicists and hospitals explain exactly what triage is and is not.

Careful indeed. A big part of the rationale for triage guidelines is consistency, so individual doctors don’t have to rely on their intuitions. “Covid has taught us lots of things, but certainly that there’s a lot of implicit bias within the health care system, and certainly with Covid outcomes,” Lo says. “And we want not to make that worse.”

Plus, as much as we all might understand and empathize with the rage and frustration of health care workers—emotionally drained, epidemiologically at risk—whatever blame we might place could well be misdirected. “We know people are frustrated and angry, but that’s not a basis for decisionmaking,” Fine says.

Vaccination status, as Fine notes, is more complicated than that anger might allow. “I think we have to be really careful about saying someone chose not to be vaccinated. Some people do,” Lo says. “But there are still people who have difficulty making an appointment, who aren’t internet-savvy, who don’t speak English as a first language. A lot of people work in jobs where they don’t have time off, or if they get even a day of adverse effects from the vaccine and can’t work, their pay gets docked.” And how would a clinician trying to triage based on vaccination status distinguish among those groups, even if they were allowed to?

For that matter, even the people who resist vaccination because think they’ll never get sick, or that if they do then a horse deworming drug will save them, or that vaccines contain magnetizing 5G antennas through which Bill Gates can turn them into werewolves (They don’t! None of those things are things!)—those people have been lied to by leaders they trusted. Bad information is cheap; better information is expensive. And as ugly as the Covid numbers might be getting across the South, rage might be better directed at political leaders who are resisting basic public health measures instead of the people suffering as a result.

This is some horseshit. I understand their perspective but at the end of the day bad information or not it's been clear for close to two years that this is a real thing and that there is a real method for treating it with easy access to it in the states for months thanks to trump's america first doctrine, and as such I can not accept abject stupidity and willful ignorance as a defense when it jeopardizes people who have done the right thing's access to medical treatment.

Chanus

it's very viscerally appealing i'm sure to say "they are getting what they deserve", but the real life situation we're talking about here, just so everyone is on the same page, is not two people show up needing ICU care and we can only treat one so we treat the vaccinated person. that's not what's happening and i'm pretty sure this has never happened

the real life situation would be refusing to treat the unvaccinated because we may possibly need that bed space in a few days, or stopping treatment of the unvaccinated in order to treat someone more "deserving" of care

if you are okay with that, i'm glad you're not actually making these decisions

Chanus

not to mention refusing to treat the unvaccinated just makes the problem worse as they are then left out to continue spreading the virus

urahonky

Chanus wrote: »

not to mention refusing to treat the unvaccinated just makes the problem worse as they are then left out to continue spreading the virus

If they've made it to the point of going to the hospital they won't be doing much to spread the virus.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

Gaddez wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/would-it-be-fair-to-treat-vaccinated-covid-patients-first/

Really interesting article where bio-ethicists and hospitals explain exactly what triage is and is not.

Careful indeed. A big part of the rationale for triage guidelines is consistency, so individual doctors don’t have to rely on their intuitions. “Covid has taught us lots of things, but certainly that there’s a lot of implicit bias within the health care system, and certainly with Covid outcomes,” Lo says. “And we want not to make that worse.”

Plus, as much as we all might understand and empathize with the rage and frustration of health care workers—emotionally drained, epidemiologically at risk—whatever blame we might place could well be misdirected. “We know people are frustrated and angry, but that’s not a basis for decisionmaking,” Fine says.

Vaccination status, as Fine notes, is more complicated than that anger might allow. “I think we have to be really careful about saying someone chose not to be vaccinated. Some people do,” Lo says. “But there are still people who have difficulty making an appointment, who aren’t internet-savvy, who don’t speak English as a first language. A lot of people work in jobs where they don’t have time off, or if they get even a day of adverse effects from the vaccine and can’t work, their pay gets docked.” And how would a clinician trying to triage based on vaccination status distinguish among those groups, even if they were allowed to?

For that matter, even the people who resist vaccination because think they’ll never get sick, or that if they do then a horse deworming drug will save them, or that vaccines contain magnetizing 5G antennas through which Bill Gates can turn them into werewolves (They don’t! None of those things are things!)—those people have been lied to by leaders they trusted. Bad information is cheap; better information is expensive. And as ugly as the Covid numbers might be getting across the South, rage might be better directed at political leaders who are resisting basic public health measures instead of the people suffering as a result.

This is some horseshit. I understand their perspective but at the end of the day bad information or not it's been clear for close to two years that this is a real thing and that there is a real method for treating it with easy access to it in the states for months thanks to trump's america first doctrine, and as such I can not accept abject stupidity and willful ignorance as a defense when it jeopardizes people who have done the right thing's access to medical treatment.

Sorry that all doctors and medical ethics personnel disagree with you?

TryCatcher

There's a big ethical problem of denying care thanks to "bad decisions", since that same argument can be used for obesity, smoking, alcoholism, drug use, being poor, etc.

The reality of triage doesn't excuse making that choice a priori.

dispatch.o

There's no reason to start denying care to others who will be absolutely harmed because of the unvaccinated. When care rationing actually happens, you triage based on benefit of care and odds of surviving.

By filling hospitals with the willfully unvaccinated, you are killing people with treatable illness. It's a thing that probably needs a hell of a lot of examination.

Personally I think they should be reserving beds for non covid patients, because dying of a gallstone or ruptured appendix is unacceptable. Having a localized cancer become metastatic is not okay because someone wanted to own the libs.

e: Some of the problem here is our attitude towards death and prolonging life at all cost. It really isn't a sustainable system and there are hard things to hear about end of life and withdrawal of care that people can't process.

urahonky

Honestly I lost all empathy towards these ghouls a few months after the vaccine was widely available.

dispatch.o

urahonky wrote: »

Honestly I lost all empathy towards these ghouls a few months after the vaccine was widely available.

I have empathy. Just not enough to throw other people on the bonfire.

urahonky

dispatch.o wrote: »

urahonky wrote: »

Honestly I lost all empathy towards these ghouls a few months after the vaccine was widely available.

I have empathy. Just not enough to throw other people on the bonfire.

I hope it remains for you. I really do.

daveNYC

dispatch.o wrote: »

There's no reason to start denying care to others who will be absolutely harmed because of the unvaccinated. When care rationing actually happens, you triage based on benefit of care and odds of surviving.

By filling hospitals with the willfully unvaccinated, you are killing people with treatable illness. It's a thing that probably needs a hell of a lot of examination.

Personally I think they should be reserving beds for non covid patients, because dying of a gallstone or ruptured appendix is unacceptable. Having a localized cancer become metastatic is not okay because someone wanted to own the libs.

e: Some of the problem here is our attitude towards death and prolonging life at all cost. It really isn't a sustainable system and there are hard things to hear about end of life and withdrawal of care that people can't process.

Yeah, unless they're going to kick patients out of hospital beds then triage in this situation, with a disease that's this widespread and has a hospitalization period of 1-2 weeks before things resolve (one way or the other), seems based as much on the luck of first come first served as it is on a fully rational calculation of the patient's odds of survival.

Rhesus Positive

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

dispatch.o

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I don't understand this. I've worn a mask 40+ hours a week for around 13 years now. It really isn't that bad.

Edit: 17 years... ugh.

discrider

Chanus wrote: »

it's very viscerally appealing i'm sure to say "they are getting what they deserve", but the real life situation we're talking about here, just so everyone is on the same page, is not two people show up needing ICU care and we can only treat one so we treat the vaccinated person. that's not what's happening and i'm pretty sure this has never happened

the real life situation would be refusing to treat the unvaccinated because we may possibly need that bed space in a few days, or stopping treatment of the unvaccinated in order to treat someone more "deserving" of care

if you are okay with that, i'm glad you're not actually making these decisions

As far as I'm aware they already do stop treatment in order to treat others, even before the pandemic.

Had a cousin go into hospital with the flu, he wound up in a coma, and the doctors were encouraging the family to take him off life support, to, as far as I'm aware, free up resources.
Family declined and he pulled through in another week or two.

Whether such decisions could be made on vaccination status, I don't know.
Personally, I'd probably just seperate Covid resources and ICU resources to keep beds open for other things even if the Covid ward overflows.
Which would be denying care due to vaccination status most likely.

kime

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/would-it-be-fair-to-treat-vaccinated-covid-patients-first/

Really interesting article where bio-ethicists and hospitals explain exactly what triage is and is not.

Careful indeed. A big part of the rationale for triage guidelines is consistency, so individual doctors don’t have to rely on their intuitions. “Covid has taught us lots of things, but certainly that there’s a lot of implicit bias within the health care system, and certainly with Covid outcomes,” Lo says. “And we want not to make that worse.”

Plus, as much as we all might understand and empathize with the rage and frustration of health care workers—emotionally drained, epidemiologically at risk—whatever blame we might place could well be misdirected. “We know people are frustrated and angry, but that’s not a basis for decisionmaking,” Fine says.

Vaccination status, as Fine notes, is more complicated than that anger might allow. “I think we have to be really careful about saying someone chose not to be vaccinated. Some people do,” Lo says. “But there are still people who have difficulty making an appointment, who aren’t internet-savvy, who don’t speak English as a first language. A lot of people work in jobs where they don’t have time off, or if they get even a day of adverse effects from the vaccine and can’t work, their pay gets docked.” And how would a clinician trying to triage based on vaccination status distinguish among those groups, even if they were allowed to?

For that matter, even the people who resist vaccination because think they’ll never get sick, or that if they do then a horse deworming drug will save them, or that vaccines contain magnetizing 5G antennas through which Bill Gates can turn them into werewolves (They don’t! None of those things are things!)—those people have been lied to by leaders they trusted. Bad information is cheap; better information is expensive. And as ugly as the Covid numbers might be getting across the South, rage might be better directed at political leaders who are resisting basic public health measures instead of the people suffering as a result.

This is some horseshit. I understand their perspective but at the end of the day bad information or not it's been clear for close to two years that this is a real thing and that there is a real method for treating it with easy access to it in the states for months thanks to trump's america first doctrine, and as such I can not accept abject stupidity and willful ignorance as a defense when it jeopardizes people who have done the right thing's access to medical treatment.

Sorry that all doctors and medical ethics personnel disagree with you?

See when you say "all doctors" agree with what you're saying, that just tells me you're making stuff up

dispatch.o

discrider wrote: »

Chanus wrote: »

it's very viscerally appealing i'm sure to say "they are getting what they deserve", but the real life situation we're talking about here, just so everyone is on the same page, is not two people show up needing ICU care and we can only treat one so we treat the vaccinated person. that's not what's happening and i'm pretty sure this has never happened

the real life situation would be refusing to treat the unvaccinated because we may possibly need that bed space in a few days, or stopping treatment of the unvaccinated in order to treat someone more "deserving" of care

if you are okay with that, i'm glad you're not actually making these decisions

As far as I'm aware they already do stop treatment in order to treat others, even before the pandemic.

Had a cousin go into hospital with the flu, he wound up in a coma, and the doctors were encouraging the family to take him off life support, to, as far as I'm aware, free up resources.
Family declined and he pulled through in another week or two.

Whether such decisions could be made on vaccination status, I don't know.
Personally, I'd probably just seperate Covid resources and ICU resources to keep beds open for other things even if the Covid ward overflows.
Which would be denying care due to vaccination status most likely.

They didn't make the decision for your family, just advised.

It's also not really cheap on staff to keep someone in ICU. As in manpower not money. On a vent and sedated? Even more care providers.

It's also extremely expensive, but while cost is a good reason to decide care, our system is so broken in the US that excessive healthcare (monetary) cost isn't a good reason for anything.

e: everyone I know in healthcare has a hundred stories of some fly-in aunt demanding everything be done for a grandma who is definitely dying and in pain. Just to prolong suffering because they aren't ready. That's not what I'm really referencing when I talk about COVID-19 patients, but there are certainly parallels.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

kime wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/would-it-be-fair-to-treat-vaccinated-covid-patients-first/

Really interesting article where bio-ethicists and hospitals explain exactly what triage is and is not.

Careful indeed. A big part of the rationale for triage guidelines is consistency, so individual doctors don’t have to rely on their intuitions. “Covid has taught us lots of things, but certainly that there’s a lot of implicit bias within the health care system, and certainly with Covid outcomes,” Lo says. “And we want not to make that worse.”

Plus, as much as we all might understand and empathize with the rage and frustration of health care workers—emotionally drained, epidemiologically at risk—whatever blame we might place could well be misdirected. “We know people are frustrated and angry, but that’s not a basis for decisionmaking,” Fine says.

Vaccination status, as Fine notes, is more complicated than that anger might allow. “I think we have to be really careful about saying someone chose not to be vaccinated. Some people do,” Lo says. “But there are still people who have difficulty making an appointment, who aren’t internet-savvy, who don’t speak English as a first language. A lot of people work in jobs where they don’t have time off, or if they get even a day of adverse effects from the vaccine and can’t work, their pay gets docked.” And how would a clinician trying to triage based on vaccination status distinguish among those groups, even if they were allowed to?

For that matter, even the people who resist vaccination because think they’ll never get sick, or that if they do then a horse deworming drug will save them, or that vaccines contain magnetizing 5G antennas through which Bill Gates can turn them into werewolves (They don’t! None of those things are things!)—those people have been lied to by leaders they trusted. Bad information is cheap; better information is expensive. And as ugly as the Covid numbers might be getting across the South, rage might be better directed at political leaders who are resisting basic public health measures instead of the people suffering as a result.

This is some horseshit. I understand their perspective but at the end of the day bad information or not it's been clear for close to two years that this is a real thing and that there is a real method for treating it with easy access to it in the states for months thanks to trump's america first doctrine, and as such I can not accept abject stupidity and willful ignorance as a defense when it jeopardizes people who have done the right thing's access to medical treatment.

Sorry that all doctors and medical ethics personnel disagree with you?

See when you say "all doctors" agree with what you're saying, that just tells me you're making stuff up

Did you come across an op Ed where a doctor is like "we shouldn't treat them"?

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

Chanus

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

to be fair it's also really difficult to stick to your principles when they're severely challenged and i don't begrudge anyone feeling weak on that front

i'm not ready to condemn anyone who's not perfect

Thawmus

I have both empathy and anger and I don't find it difficult to have both.

I have many in-laws, who I love and care about and really enjoy the company of, who are also real fuckin' dumb and believe a lot of dumb shit they hear because they're really good at construction and not really good at navigating information. So they're anti-vax, and I'm very worried that at some point my wife is going to have to go to their funeral over Facebook Live because of their dumbfuck decisions and I'll have to say goodbye to a MiL or BiL I really got along with, and I'll be both sad and angry about it.

For me I think it helps to direct a lot of my anger at the fucking assholes and dipshits who started this mass disinformation and continue to churn it.

Rhesus Positive

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

I never said she was a moral person :P

(Nah, she's alright, she just has Opinions)

SageinaRage

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

Simplifying complex moral questions down into pithy one liners is also what children do. Real people are not The Giving Tree and are not willing to give everything they have for people who don't appreciate it. Can we please stop with the performative moralizing in these threads? You're not really being convincing here.

Couscous

Wearing a mask is so small to me that comparing it to "give everything they have" is absurd.

It is more like holding open a door for someone carrying stuff.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

SageinaRage wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

Simplifying complex moral questions down into pithy one liners is also what children do. Real people are not The Giving Tree and are not willing to give everything they have for people who don't appreciate it. Can we please stop with the performative moralizing in these threads? You're not really being convincing here.

Oh my! I am not performing. I truly believe that moral acts are moral in and of themselves. I legitimately believe that doing the right thing has nothing to do with whether other people are doing the right thing. There's no performance here and if you want to attack the core of my argument please go ahead but I will not allow you to tell me how I should talk about things I care about.

dispatch.o

Couscous wrote: »

Wearing a mask is so small to me that comparing it to "give everything they have" is absurd.

It is more like holding open a door for someone carrying stuff.

Wearing a mask is equal to not mashing the close door button on an elevator when someone is running to it asking for you to hold.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

How have we not talked about Eric Clapton's video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNt4NIQ7FTA

TryCatcher

Anyways, Biden orders federal workers to either get vaccinated or get out:

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1435991541080854536

President Biden will announce that federal workers and contractors will be required to be vaccinated, eliminating an option for unvaccinated workers to be regularly tested, a source tells NPR.

NPR is a news site.

SageinaRage

Couscous wrote: »

Wearing a mask is so small to me that comparing it to "give everything they have" is absurd.

It is more like holding open a door for someone carrying stuff.

I was replying to an abstract statement, and the larger topic was triage in hospitals. Medical workers definitely are giving everything they have.

My main point is that calling people immoral for being burned out is just pointless finger wagging at people who don't deserve it.

tinwhiskers

dispatch.o wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

Wearing a mask is so small to me that comparing it to "give everything they have" is absurd.

It is more like holding open a door for someone carrying stuff.

Wearing a mask is equal to not mashing the close door button on an elevator when someone is running to it asking for you to hold.

If you ask me to hold the elevator for 6 months, I'm pushing the button.

Captain Inertia

Chanus wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

to be fair it's also really difficult to stick to your principles when they're severely challenged and i don't begrudge anyone feeling weak on that front

i'm not ready to condemn anyone who's not perfect

Thanks for this show of empathy

Sorry for calling you Ch Anus one time (but just one time, not the other times)

Captain Inertia

tinwhiskers wrote: »

dispatch.o wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

Wearing a mask is so small to me that comparing it to "give everything they have" is absurd.

It is more like holding open a door for someone carrying stuff.

Wearing a mask is equal to not mashing the close door button on an elevator when someone is running to it asking for you to hold.

If you ask me to hold the elevator for 6 months, I'm pushing the button.

Well yeah don’t share elevator air with an unvaxxed+unmasked person

Or someone that just ate beans

There’s no way to know someone reaching to stop the door closing is any of those things though

Chanus

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

How have we not talked about Eric Clapton's video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNt4NIQ7FTA

i guess because he's an irrelevant chode

ElJeffe

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Rhesus Positive wrote: »

I've seen empathy burnout with at least one person I work with regarding mask wearing - basically, "masks protect others more than the wearer, and I'm fully vaccinated, so why should I have to be uncomfortable on the train to help people who aren't willing to do the same for me?"

Willingness to sacrifice for the common good starts wearing thin when you're the only one doing it

I feel like you're not really a moral person if you stop doing a moral act because everyone else isn't doing it. That's kind of what children do.

Simplifying complex moral questions down into pithy one liners is also what children do. Real people are not The Giving Tree and are not willing to give everything they have for people who don't appreciate it. Can we please stop with the performative moralizing in these threads? You're not really being convincing here.

Oh my! I am not performing. I truly believe that moral acts are moral in and of themselves. I legitimately believe that doing the right thing has nothing to do with whether other people are doing the right thing. There's no performance here and if you want to attack the core of my argument please go ahead but I will not allow you to tell me how I should talk about things I care about.

Hey kiddos, let's take the rhetoric down a couple notches here.

shryke

Is medical ethics still treating vaccination like a personal choice? Cause unless they've come around to the fact that vaccination cannot be a personnel choice, their entire framework is non-sensical.

The deliberately unvaccinated are harmful to everyone and should be dealt with aggressively. I can understand people's lack of empathy for them but it's ultimately not even really relevant to the discussion. How empathetic people are or aren't to the deliberately unvaccinated doesn't really change the problem at hand.