Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

bobmac

Major Champion
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,413
Location
Lincolnshire
They alcoholic, drug addict, obese person (not all I appreciate) have all made a choice, at some point, that has lead them to the point of them being in hospital. You can disagree as much as you like however all should be treated equally.
Make up your mind.
I doubt there are many who have chosen to be obese, an alcoholic or a drug taker, unlike someone choosing not to take a life saving vaccine which could potentially infect/kill him/her self and others in hospital.
 

road2ruin

Q-School Graduate
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,940
Location
Surrey
Make up your mind.
I doubt there are many who have chosen to be obese, an alcoholic or a drug taker, unlike someone choosing not to take a life saving vaccine which could potentially infect/kill him/her self and others in hospital.
The 'not all' was specifically for the obese people as for some it is not a choice, some it is a medical condition whilst for others it is just too much cake. I was trying to be careful and not tar all with the same brush.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,754
Location
Canary Wharf
What's that to do with the point in discussion. It wasnt about the net cost, rather the moral duty of care for Ill people.
Cost plays a massive part, don't be ignorant.

It's much easier to treat smokers, whilst they will require more time in hospital. They pay for that in full via duty, and provide a huge excess which can be used for staff and equipment elsewhere.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,359
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
My opinion, and I don't intend to stay in this debate, on smoking, alcohol etc vs Covid.

I think there are considerable differences which make the question of linking an action and its consequences very difficult. These include risk to self, risk to others and pressure on the NHS.

I abhor smoking and always have. I was really happy to see smoke-free pubs, cinemas etc. There is no safe or advisable level of smoking. The adverse health effects of smoking are considerable, but they affect people very differently and often do so remotely in time. I worked on a chest ward where we had lots of people with chronic emphysema and bronchitis, and lung cancers. Almost all were former or current smokers. It was amazing to see people come in who couldn't blow hard enough to move a feather 6 inches from their lips, and their only objective was to get enough puff back to smoke again.

Alcohol is a somewhat different situation. The relationship between consumption and adverse heath effects is often said to resemble a J-shaped curve on a graph. In other words, the health effects of a small amount are better than none, but they get worse again beyond a small amount. This may be due to a modest anti-thrombotic effect of a small amount of alcohol. many people drink through their lives and experience no apparent health effects. And like smokers, drinkers play plenty of tax and duty to the public purse.

You could add fat middle aged blokes who unwisely decide to take up running, and people who do "charity" parachute jumps to the list too.

Unlike those, Covid has the additional risk of causing direct harm to others. This makes a difference. Your personal health autonomy is all fine and dandy, but you have no ethical right to make decisions on the risk others should have to experience. Also, the relationship between the vaccination or otherwise and that risk to others is pretty clear. If someone in middle age has a heart attack, was it due to their smoking or drinking? Maybe, maybe not. But if someone catches Covid, they got it from someone in their circle of contacts. Stopping people smoking will rescue lung cancer deaths, but gradually over the next 30 years. Vaccinating everyone and using effective hygiene measures will reduce Covid cases tomorrow. If people won't do the right thing, the right thing needs to be done for them.
 
Last edited:

BiMGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
3,025
Alcoholics/drug takers can not infect doctors and nurses who are treating them.
Covid patients can.
And where did I say that drug addicts shouldn't be treated?
Do I have to make it any clearer or are you just looking for an argument.
They absolutely can.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
17,578
Cost plays a massive part, don't be ignorant.

It's much easier to treat smokers, whilst they will require more time in hospital. They pay for that in full via duty, and provide a huge excess which can be used for staff and equipment elsewhere.
Before you throw insults around read what was posted and if you decide to comment keep it relevant to the point in question.

The point I made replying to a previous post was that in my opinion people unvaccinated with Covid should be treated in hospital the same as people I'll through smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism etc. You decided to defend smokers and alcoholics due them paying high tax. My point was nothing to do with the costs but based on the way the health system does not differentiate on who it treats.

Also, if you are suggesting smoking can be defended due to the amount of tax smokers pay then I disagree with you in no uncertain terms, the tax is there as a deterrent.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,359
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Before you throw insults around read what was posted and if you decide to comment keep it relevant to the point in question.

The point I made replying to a previous post was that in my opinion people unvaccinated with Covid should be treated in hospital the same as people I'll through smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism etc. You decided to defend smokers and alcoholics due them paying high tax. My point was nothing to do with the costs but based on the way the health system does not differentiate on who it treats.

Also, if you are suggesting smoking can be defended due to the amount of tax smokers pay then I disagree with you in no uncertain terms, the tax is there as a deterrent.
If the doctor looking after the last ICU bed had 2 patients in front of him/her who needed it, and they were clinically otherwise identical except one had been vaccinated and the other not, I would 100% support him/her choosing the vaccinated patient. The other made a choice, and choices have consequences. You run the risk of adverse events from vaccination if you take it, you run the risk of other adverse events if you don't.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,754
Location
Canary Wharf
Before you throw insults around read what was posted and if you decide to comment keep it relevant to the point in question.

The point I made replying to a previous post was that in my opinion people unvaccinated with Covid should be treated in hospital the same as people I'll through smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism etc. You decided to defend smokers and alcoholics due them paying high tax. My point was nothing to do with the costs but based on the way the health system does not differentiate on who it treats.

Also, if you are suggesting smoking can be defended due to the amount of tax smokers pay then I disagree with you in no uncertain terms, the tax is there as a deterrent.
Ignorance is not an insult, a fair few people disagree with your comment, including me.

If you think taxation is a deterrent to an addict, then I don't know what to say! But the facts are smokers create a financial surplus of billions each year.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
17,578
If the doctor looking after the last ICU bed had 2 patients in front of him/her who needed it, and they were clinically otherwise identical except one had been vaccinated and the other not, I would 100% support him/her choosing the vaccinated patient. The other made a choice, and choices have consequences. You run the risk of adverse events from vaccination if you take it, you run the risk of other adverse events if you don't.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with that although it's not the point I'm making. Do you agree or not that not being vaccinated should automatically bar you from treatment.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
17,578
Ignorance is not an insult, a fair few people disagree with your comment, including me.

If you think taxation is a deterrent to an addict, then I don't know what to say! But the facts are smokers create a financial surplus of billions each year.
A fair few people disagree with yours, including me. You suggest because of the tax raised by smoking it's OK. Unbelievable.
You've probably not experienced one of your close family die of lung cancer.

Edit:
I made the point that smokers should be treated in hospital and so should someone with Covid who is unvaxxed. Although you seem to want to argue what exactly are you disagreeing with.
 
Last edited:

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,359
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with that although it's not the point I'm making. Do you agree or not that not being vaccinated should automatically bar you from treatment.
No, it shouldn't automatically bar you from treatment, but it should be made clear to people that the choice they make is not simply limited to the injection in the arm, and there are implications, for example prioritisation, and certainly, in my opinion, in their ability to expose others to danger, hence vaccine passports.
 

BiMGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
3,025
No, it shouldn't automatically bar you from treatment, but it should be made clear to people that the choice they make is not simply limited to the injection in the arm, and there are implications, for example prioritisation, and certainly, in my opinion, in their ability to expose others to danger, hence vaccine passports.
That’s a very slippery slope!
 

Ser Shankalot

Active member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
125
Location
London
If you're a regular smoker, any life insurance premiums are substantially higher and you pay more in tax and you are blocked from smoking in areas where it may adversely affect others. You have the choice to smoke, but it comes with consequences. Nobody is forcing you one way or another.

However those who deny the vaccine just from a free choice perspective, want free choices but with no consequences. And it's not about them getting sick (their choice), but adversely affecting the health of others. I wish I could have a life like that.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
17,578
No, it shouldn't automatically bar you from treatment, but it should be made clear to people that the choice they make is not simply limited to the injection in the arm, and there are implications, for example prioritisation, and certainly, in my opinion, in their ability to expose others to danger, hence vaccine passports.
I fully agree
 

Swinglowandslow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
2,387
Perhaps not in a viral infection way…but in other ways an addiction can be, and often is, ‘contagious’…especially within the addicts family…and most certainly the damage and illness an addict suffers is contagious in that it is very often reflected by physical and mental damage in those close to the addict.

The best, often only, way to help those damaged by the addict is to help and treat the addict. Abandon the addict and you abandon a whole circle of family and friends.
At the end of the day, the only treatment for the addict that works is for him/her to STOP. End of.
How many families are wrecked when some awful illness that no one can do anything about strikes some poor bugger who hasn't done , or isn't doing , anything to cause or promote it? Ask that patient to stop doing some voluntary action to cure it and they would in a flash.
Willpower ,for crying out loud!
 
Top