• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Covid 19 Thread: [no bitching about masks of Fauci edition]

betrayal

Banned
Ignoring the fact that human beings understand tragedy precisely through individual fates, long COVID is a societal problem that will need to be addressed as part of the process of returning to normality.

Individual fates have nothing to do with the general public, nor are they a "societal problem". They are, quite clearly, individual fates.

It may be that some people would like to believe that and also the media contribute a lot to it, but that still does not make it true.


And by the way, you can ask these very people and media about the "big" "sociatal problems" before COVID. Remember racism? Gender equality? Political left vs. political right? And much more. They're "gone" for now, but those were big "societal problems", too, at least until the media stopped writing about these issues, which until then had lived rent-free in people's heads.

But it is always the same. The majority of society perceives things as they are presented and not as they are. The latter would require energy and time and that's a big no-no for most people.
 

GHG

Member
An extremely sad precautionary tale involving long COVID


Isolated stories or data when it's the opposite of what people want to hear are dismissed but here we have a story about one person and it needs to be taken seriously? Why?

If people are going to take a strong stance as they have done throughout this thread, then some consistency would be appreciated.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Isolated stories or data when it's the opposite of what people want to hear are dismissed but here we have a story about one person and it needs to be taken seriously? Why?

If people are going to take a strong stance as they have done throughout this thread, then some consistency would be appreciated.

I would actually pose that same question to you - it's an argument we've heard from anti-vaxxers here before (just in the other direction) many times.

But for the sake of discussion: long COVID is an ailment that has been being studied since near the beginning of the pandemic, as people who recovered from the initial disease reported enduring symptoms. It's well known but still considered emergent. This is something that people who get their information from valid sources have known for over nearly a year now.

Unfortunately, as we have seen throughout the various incarnations of this thread, there are many people out there who do not get any of their information from well-sourced professionals who strive to share the facts as they're known at the time. And for a variety of reasons they reject data and facts that do not paint the rosiest picture possible (many of them are merely anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who still consider COVID-19 something akin to the flu).

TLDR: I am not going to pretend that the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories some people attempt to spread is equivalent to actual events and science.
 
Last edited:
There was this new person I trained at work that kept getting sick for a week, then we would restart, then sick. Then she dropped a high up box of single serve packets on her own head and was out for a month. Then gone.

I really hope she isnt dealing with long term brain damage or something.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: GHG

GHG

Member
I would actually pose that same question to you - it's an argument we've heard from anti-vaxxers here before (just in the other direction) many times.

But for the sake of discussion: long COVID is an ailment that has been being studied since near the beginning of the pandemic, as people who recovered from the initial disease reported enduring symptoms. It's well known but still considered emergent. This is something that people who get their information from valid sources have known for over nearly a year now.

Unfortunately, as we have seen throughout the various incarnations of this thread, there are many people out there who do not get any of their information from well-sourced professionals who strive to share the facts as they're known at the time. And for a variety of reasons they reject data and facts that do not paint the rosiest picture possible (many of them are merely anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who still consider COVID-19 something akin to the flu).

TLDR: I am not going to pretend that the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories some people attempt to spread is equivalent to actual events and science.

It's been well documented that long COVID is a thing, what's your point? It's also known that different people suffer from it to differing degrees. You posting a story about one woman who has suffered from it for multiple years does what exactly? Should I dig up a story about someone who didn't suffer long COVID, or only had covid for a couple of days without any symptoms? I could, but I won't because there is no point. At this stage only articles/information about cross sections of populations are of any value - we've all had COVID and/or know someone who has had it, we will all have a personal story to tell.

If you want to talk about posting information from well sourced professionals then you should do just that. You can go directly on government websites and find all kinds of studies and data on long COVID, not some shitty anecdotal article from business insider. Please note however that said studies and data will not be laced with shock value and sensationalism.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: WoJ
we've all had COVID and/or know someone who has had it, we will all have a personal story to tell
Not until now.
Just now I have plenty of first hand stories about covid to tell.

My brother in law is also rapid test positive now. (totally unrelated to my infection chain, tho)
 

FireFly

Member
Individual fates have nothing to do with the general public, nor are they a "societal problem". They are, quite clearly, individual fates.

It may be that some people would like to believe that and also the media contribute a lot to it, but that still does not make it true.


And by the way, you can ask these very people and media about the "big" "sociatal problems" before COVID. Remember racism? Gender equality? Political left vs. political right? And much more. They're "gone" for now, but those were big "societal problems", too, at least until the media stopped writing about these issues, which until then had lived rent-free in people's heads.

But it is always the same. The majority of society perceives things as they are presented and not as they are. The latter would require energy and time and that's a big no-no for most people.
Society is composed of individuals, so societal problems by definition concern individual behaviour. That doesn't mean (and I am not claiming) that all individual problems are by extension societal problems.

The reason why long COVID is a societal problem is not simply that certain individuals have worse life chances than others, due to chance events. We have not decided to equalise the effect of chance on human outcomes. The reason is that these worse life chances are due to ill health, a factor which we have collectively decided to insure ourselves against. One reason for this is that if individuals are ill, they cannot work effectively and so there is a direct loss of productivity and therefore societal wealth. So given that we are already spending billions on healthcare, we want to use that money where it is most effective, favouring cures for debilitating conditions such as long COVID, over allowing their effects to compound in the long term.

But this comes back to my point. How do we imagine X million people suffering from long term health conditions? We can't. We can only imagine what it is like for a particular individual to experience something. So complex societal problems inevitably involve the consideration of individual fates. That's arguably even more the case with racism and gender equality, since the idea of collective "social justice" is even harder to imagine. However, we can think about particular principles as they apply to particular cases.
 
Last edited:
The only reason lockdown does not work is people do not follow it. Like for example they ban restaurant from having dine in, it DOESN'T sto peopel from getting takeout and having a party in a house.
How would you reasonably enforce this? There's just very little that can be done to contain Omicron. Get vaccinated and ideally boostered, wear masks indoors, behave responsibly and stay the fuck away from all the conspiracy lunatics online. Not much else you can do at this point. We have (implicitly) accepted all the negative ripple effects an uncontrolled spread of Omicron might entail.
 

JCK75

Member
I feel like there are two sides going to insane extremes and refusing to look at reality on this entire thing.
COVID is very real, and very serious
But the data is quite clear that the danger is limited to specific age range and physical conditions
The US vaccine I find a mixed bag - it only emulated the spike proteins means it will save lives by preventing severe illness and death BUT
you will still get and spread covid no matter how many boosters you take..
it leaves zero T-Cell Memory which is why you have to take an insane 4 shots in a year.

Long Covid is a real thing but the vaccine can often do the same thing to young people (speaking from experience, had my 2nd shot of Moderna Feb 26th 2021 and since that day
I've had a Sinus headache that has never stopped from that day, it gave me random heart palpitations and Arthritis in my hip.. I have really good insurance but in trying to get doctors
to help me with these things I have $4k I have to pay out of pocket now so..I'm just giving up).

It seems these side effects are not really a thing with older people whom the vaccine is most beneficial for so
Over 50 - absolutely should take the vaccine
Under 50 the decision is yours
but pretending that people who refuse to take it are putting others at risk is just a BS argument as we know it doesn't stop the spread.
China has been more successful because they use a deactivated virus vaccine, so you get long term natural immunity.. I feel like it's time for us to replace our
current vaccines with this.

The risk of serious illness from it with children is near zero, the fact we are still fighting about masking up children in school is insane.. it was never needed, teachers were given priority with the vaccine

It's clear the vaccine fight is not about public health but othering political opponents based on the fact that many of the people being fired for refusing vaccines have had the virus, it's proven natural immunity
is insanely more effective than the vaccines (it just sucks to get immunity that way) but why would someone who had tested positive have to vaccinate if we know they have immunity? follow the science maybe?
I don't like Mandates but I'd fight them less if you'd at least consider having covid equal to having the vaccine.

Omicron is the end, Delta is still out there for now and it's killing people.. But Omicron is insane.. it's more contagious than the measles and you will get it, I will get it.. everyone will get it and there is no mask on earth that is
going to change that fact, and once you do you will get mild illness and then be completely immune

Governments role in this is over.
 
It seems these side effects are not really a thing with older people whom the vaccine is most beneficial for so
Over 50 - absolutely should take the vaccine
Under 50 the decision is yours
What evidence do you have to suggest that it's a potentially wise decision to not get vaccinated below 50? You're either getting the vaccine or the virus or both. Avoiding all of these isn't really an option, unless you move into the woods and live the rest of your life as a hermit. You have to weigh the risks of the vaccine vs the risks of an infection or a breakthrough infection. I have seen absolutely no data to suggest that it's a good choice to skip the vaccine.
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Banned
But this comes back to my point. How do we imagine X million people suffering from long term health conditions? We can't. We can only imagine what it is like for a particular individual to experience something. So complex societal problems inevitably involve the consideration of individual fates. That's arguably even more the case with racism and gender equality, since the idea of collective "social justice" is even harder to imagine. However, we can think about particular principles as they apply to particular cases.

The term "social justice" is exactly the problem. People see something within a narrowly defined area (regionally or intellectually) and conclude that it is like that everywhere or that everyone must be like that. And in the end, an entire society has to adapt because everyone thinks that this what is necessary to solve these specific problems in narrowly defined areas. This is the very definition of stupidity.

But so be it. This is the idiotic society we live in with people who are getting more and more dumb, which is even backed by numerous statistics and studies.
 

JCK75

Member
What evidence do you have to suggest that it's a potentially wise decision to not get vaccinated below 50? You're either getting the vaccine or the virus or both. Avoiding all of these isn't really an option, unless you move into the woods and live the rest of your life as a hermit. You have to weigh the risks of the vaccine vs the risks of an infection or a breakthrough infection. I have seen absolutely no data to suggest that it's a good choice to skip the vaccine.
I didn't say it was wise, I said it's valid that you weigh the risks vs rewards
Vaccine side effects pretty much do not exist with the elderly where the virus high chance of death = the reward of the vaccine is insanely higher than the risk (I think someone in this range not taking it is foolish)
someone in their between 30-50 its about 50/50 I'd say most should consider getting it unless they are in great physical condition (and many will be)
Someone under 30 the risks of the vaccine are higher than the reward as the risks of the disease are not very high but the side effects of the vaccine are higher in young people.

The average age of those killed by COVID is 82.5 years of age, the average life expectancy is 79

But the key things here is that age+health are important factors when it comes to risk an that needs to be considered when it comes to policy
Not inluding Natural immunity from getting COVID with vaccine restrictions is complete bullshit and it makes me not take them seriously for not doing so.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it was wise, I said it's valid that you weigh the risks vs rewards
Vaccine side effects pretty much do not exist with the elderly where the virus high chance of death = the reward of the vaccine is insanely higher than the risk
someone in their between 30-50 its about 50/50
Someone under 30 the risks of the vaccine are higher than the reward as the risks of the disease are not very high but the side effects of the vaccine are higher in young people.
Yes, I understood what you said. I was asking for evidence. The worst that could happen with an mrna vaccine is a myocarditis, to my knowledge anyway. What is the chance of a myocarditis after a COVID infection and how does it compare to a vaccine (whether Pfizer or Moderna makes a big difference wrt to myocarditis). Frankly, you must know these answers off the top of your head if you can confidently assert that one is less dangerous than the other.
 

JCK75

Member
Yes, I understood what you said. I was asking for evidence. The worst that could happen with an mrna vaccine is a myocarditis, to my knowledge anyway. What is the chance of a myocarditis after a COVID infection and how does it compare to a vaccine (whether Pfizer or Moderna makes a big difference wrt to myocarditis). Frankly, you must know these answers off the top of your head if you can confidently assert that one is less dangerous than the other.

We don't know because with both COVID and Vaccines most are left undiagnosed and untreated.
I noticed mine, but I've been unsuccessful in getting a doctor to spend any time on it and get me treated.. they just tell me to take aspirin and move along.. so there was no VAERS reports for me.

If this vaccine was an actual immunization I'd feel differently but knowing it has only a 6 month lifespan tops and does not prevent infection or spread.. seems pointless to anyone in that age group who is at low risk of serious
ilness. If it was a traditional vax or even an mRNA vax that covered more than just the spike proteins I'd feel differently.

Early on I was VERY for this vaccine, like I was arguing against anyone bashing it.. while many of their fears were stupid (I know a lady that really thinks it contains a microchip created by bill gates).. but the more I see and experience the less in favor of it I am... I'm ready for a better vaccine, we've had time to make that happen.
 
Last edited:

FireFly

Member
The term "social justice" is exactly the problem. People see something within a narrowly defined area (regionally or intellectually) and conclude that it is like that everywhere or that everyone must be like that. And in the end, an entire society has to adapt because everyone thinks that this what is necessary to solve these specific problems in narrowly defined areas. This is the very definition of stupidity.

But so be it. This is the idiotic society we live in with people who are getting more and more dumb, which is even backed by numerous statistics and studies.
Without principles for evaluating how society functions we can't tell if we are going forwards or backwards. And when we face new challenges and new technology, we need to know what are the limits on our actions.

COVID is a perfect example, since if you are against lockdowns or vaccine passports, just saying "I don't like this" doesn't have any real force. You need some principle that could prevent a government from imposing such measures. And such a principle would ultimately be a principle of social justice. The question is whether, irrespective of what people think, there is a way for society to go better or worse. And if there is, whether we can head in the right direction.
 
Is long Covid a completely new thing, or is it just that the effects are particularly bad? Aren't there deleterious effects to pretty much anything that strains our body, or other strong flus?

I need some kind of context, because this is the first time I've heard of anything like this. I never gave much thought to the after effects of an illness that seems to have "gone away".
 

betrayal

Banned
Without principles for evaluating how society functions we can't tell if we are going forwards or backwards. And when we face new challenges and new technology, we need to know what are the limits on our actions.

COVID is a perfect example, since if you are against lockdowns or vaccine passports, just saying "I don't like this" doesn't have any real force. You need some principle that could prevent a government from imposing such measures. And such a principle would ultimately be a principle of social justice. The question is whether, irrespective of what people think, there is a way for society to go better or worse. And if there is, whether we can head in the right direction.

Before we talk about social justice we have to talk about facts. And that's where patience and morality already end for some.
 

tommolb

Member
Well, I am talking about the present.
Yeah. Just wanted to point out, plenty of people got through the first 2 years of covid without any real close first hand experience of infections or people they know being infected.

That changes dramatically with this Omicron wave. Hear it all the time. 2 years fine, finally got covid.
 

poppabk

Member
1.) Even if the doctor's "diagnosis" is correct, psychosomatic symptoms are still real 2.) Since the cause of long COVID is unknown, there is no diagnostic test for it. See here for example:

I feel ok with dismissing this as a sad story which doesn't have any meaning beyond the personal impact to this person.
Doesn't mean she is wrong, I know people who experienced first hand the problems of getting their MS to be diagnosed as anything more than malingering or psychosomatic.
 

Shai-Tan

Banned
Based on the stuff I've seen, strikes me as an honest broker of information. His qualifications aren't secret, and seem above board to me.

He shows his data, cites his sources, and doesn't over-dramatize and sensationalize. Not much contrarianism to be found beyond a cautious interest in the therapeutic values of Ivermectin, a topic that's been stupidly politicized when it really had no business being.

Either way I find his stuff infinitely better than most.

edit: other videos in the description (haven't watched most of those myself, but I imagine it's in line with the criticisms I saw elsewhere on social media)
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
It's been well documented that long COVID is a thing, what's your point? It's also known that different people suffer from it to differing degrees. You posting a story about one woman who has suffered from it for multiple years does what exactly? Should I dig up a story about someone who didn't suffer long COVID, or only had covid for a couple of days without any symptoms? I could, but I won't because there is no point. At this stage only articles/information about cross sections of populations are of any value - we've all had COVID and/or know someone who has had it, we will all have a personal story to tell.

If you want to talk about posting information from well sourced professionals then you should do just that. You can go directly on government websites and find all kinds of studies and data on long COVID, not some shitty anecdotal article from business insider. Please note however that said studies and data will not be laced with shock value and sensationalism.

There is a great deal of information out there on long COVID. As I mentioned, there has been for some time. Doctors and other medical researchers and professionals have been dealing with it since shortly after the pandemic began. Whether it's a syndrome of some kind or a series of ongoing complications from the disease itself we don't know yet, but it's a thing - whether you like it or not.

We're also not your secretaries here. You can Google just as well as the rest of us can and then filter out the obvious static like any thinking adult can. I'm far, far past entertaining anti-vaxx fantasies or "fake news" conspiracy theories.
 
That's all correct.
Especially with Omicron, the current vaccines do Jack shit at preventing selfinfection and spreading from those infected. I've experienced it first hand. But that's the reason those "vaccinated only" and "vaccine mandate" measure are so ridiculous useless and idiotic now.

And some people predicted this as a real possible scenario at the start of the pandemic, yet they were only laughed at.
Some normale people might have moved on, but those in power haven't at all. They still bring the same arguments from half a year ago.

It's disheartening.
I would pay top dollar for a vaccine that's great against covid. I just don't want to take a vaccine every few months that doesn't help in a meaningful way.
Just reducing my risk of serve covid, while having mild covid is a high chance anyways on top of getting serve covid while being vaccinated still being possible nevertheless is not a great sales pitch.


Get people at high risk vaccinated.
Stop using the current vaccines, so big pharma has an incentive to research new vaccines and change their production lines.
If a new serve mutation emerges, that might be the wrong call, but so far we did only wrong calls anyways. It's hard
Disagree on two things. "Some" normal people is a gross and vast understatement. Try "most" normal people. Hell even "the overwhelming majority" would fit just fine.

And the thing about people in power having not moved on. Also disagree. UK, Denmark, Canada and Australia saying fuck it, the USA imposing zero new restrictions during this wave. Most of Europe moving on actually with a new rhetoric of "living with it" (the right call IMO).

I think those two things were incorrect but otherwise we're one to one.
 

Clear

Member

edit: other videos in the description (haven't watched most of those myself, but I imagine it's in line with the criticisms I saw elsewhere on social media)

Honestly, as soon as this guy got onto moaning about Ivermectin I shut the video off. Topic is way too politicized as evidenced by the vehemence with which some seek to debunk it.

Does Campbell proffer it as an alternative to vaccination? No, he does not. Hence its not a "conspiracy", although the desperate need to squash the credibility of anyone who doesn't dismiss it as quackery does strike me as something likely to encourage conspiratorial thinking.

Regardless of the guy who's making this video's qualifications in molecular biology, he demonstrates an extremely poor grasp of psychology.
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie

"Statistics show that an average of over 2,000 people are dying from the virus in the US every day, roughly on par with the deaths seen in late September.

A large portion of the dead are older than 65 years old or unvaccinated."
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
There is a great deal of information out there on long COVID. As I mentioned, there has been for some time. Doctors and other medical researchers and professionals have been dealing with it since shortly after the pandemic began. Whether it's a syndrome of some kind or a series of ongoing complications from the disease itself we don't know yet, but it's a thing - whether you like it or not.

We're also not your secretaries here. You can Google just as well as the rest of us can and then filter out the obvious static like any thinking adult can. I'm far, far past entertaining anti-vaxx fantasies or "fake news" conspiracy theories.

So to summarise:
  1. Long covid is a thing "whether I like it or not" despite me 100% acknowledging it's existence along with further commentary on the subject in the very post you quoted
  2. I'm an anti-vaxxer (unless I'm interpreting your previous 2 replies to me incorrectly?) - this is an interesting one, especially considering we have a 100% vaccination rate in the country I live in, not sure how this one is supposed to work.
  3. For the final combo "fake news" is brought up despite me never claiming the article you posted was fake news.
It makes me wonder, are you even reading my posts before replying to them?

Anyway, I'll leave you to continue to be angry and upset (which I have no doubt is a result of the media you're seeking out and sharing) while the rest of the world starts getting on with life again. Good luck.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell

poppabk

Member
Cruel and inhumane by the hospital. Purely being done out of spite, which is against the code of doctors. This has nothing to do with fear of someone contracting the virus. If that was the case, he wouldn't even be allowed in the hospital. Stories like this will just continue to cause public distrust.
It's down out of the fear of him contracting the virus and dying - thus wasting an organ.
A heart for transplant is almost a one for one - one person gets one, pretty much one person doesn't and dies. There are a whole bunch of requirements to be eligible for a heart transplant - number one is listening to your Doctor's advice.
 

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Cruel and inhumane by the hospital. Purely being done out of spite, which is against the code of doctors. This has nothing to do with fear of someone contracting the virus. If that was the case, he wouldn't even be allowed in the hospital. Stories like this will just continue to cause public distrust.
No, nothing cruel or unusual about requiring vaccinations prior to a transplant. It SOP. He'll be on immunosuppression for the rest of his life after the transplant and would be extremely high risk for severe COVID19 and a host of other illnesses that he would also need to be vaccinated against. Also would likely not mount as effective a response to the vaccine after the transplant because his immune system would be shot. Hearts don't grow on trees, the next one will be used on someone who is more likely to follow medical advice and survive.
 
Last edited:

Jsisto

Member
Cruel and inhumane by the hospital. Purely being done out of spite, which is against the code of doctors. This has nothing to do with fear of someone contracting the virus. If that was the case, he wouldn't even be allowed in the hospital. Stories like this will just continue to cause public distrust.
I mean….I’m generally against mandates and for people being able to make their own decisions….but cmon….if that’s the policy and I was awaiting an organ transplant to save my life, I sure as hell would get vaccinated immediately despite any concerns I had. the alternative is significantly worse no matter how you slice it. The article states it’s “against his principles”. A 31 year old man who could potentially have a long life ahead of him, throwing it all away out of principle when the alternative is certain death. I do feel bad for him, but he sounds like an idiot.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
No, nothing cruel or unusual about requiring vaccinations prior to a transplant. It SOP. He'll be on immunosuppression for the rest of his life after the transplant and would be extremely high risk for severe COVID19 and a host of other illnesses that he would also need to be vaccinated against. Also would likely not mount as effective a response to the vaccine after the transplant because his immune system would be shot. Hearts don't grow on trees, the next one will be used on someone who is more likely to follow medical advice and survive.
I understand the logic, but it feels very wrong. They're essentially saying "sorry, you're going to die now." I can't consider that anything but cruel.
 
Disagree on two things. "Some" normal people is a gross and vast understatement. Try "most" normal people. Hell even "the overwhelming majority" would fit just fine.

And the thing about people in power having not moved on. Also disagree. UK, Denmark, Canada and Australia saying fuck it, the USA imposing zero new restrictions during this wave. Most of Europe moving on actually with a new rhetoric of "living with it" (the right call IMO).

I think those two things were incorrect but otherwise we're one to one.
Australia?
The 0 case goal Australia, that then vaccinated the total population in a few months is now completely change course?
That's definitely news to me. They still kicked out Djokovic and have mandatory quarantine for newcomers, not?


Maybe I just live in a different circle. I'm from Germany. We never had a big wave yet. We have the biggest wave yet, but those are some other countries had during wave 2 or 3.

And no bigger prior waves equals less additional immunity
But you're right. Some countries do. UK was always a front runner on that.
 

Jsisto

Member
I understand the logic, but it feels very wrong. They're essentially saying "sorry, you're going to die now." I can't consider that anything but cruel.
I guess you could look at it that way. But he had a choice. I view it more as him choosing death. It’s cruel, sure, but sounds like it was his decision.
 

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
I understand the logic, but it feels very wrong. They're essentially saying "sorry, you're going to die now." I can't consider that anything but cruel.
Them's the breaks with organ transplants. People get rejected all the time if they aren't willing to follow medical advice. It's entirely up to him if he wants to die or follow his team's medical advice. Organs are the scarcest resource in health care and they need to ensure they go to patients who will most likely benefit from them.

And no, they aren't leaving him to die. He'll most likely die, but he's still getting medical treatment.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
Them's the breaks with organ transplants. People get rejected all the time if they aren't willing to follow medical advice. It's entirely up to him if he wants to die or follow his team's medical advice. Organs are the scarcest resource in health care and they need to ensure they go to patients who will most likely benefit from them.
Just gonna agree to disagree here. Still consider it inhumane.
 

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
How else do you propose they allocate heart transplants?
I think they should go to those who are closest to dying first. Just try to save as many lives as possible. I think it's fruitless for them trying to play soothsayer and envision scenarios in their head about who is most likely to die or waste the heart and for what reason. It's based on unforeseen circumstances that may or may not come to fruition. This guy could get a transplant and never catch COVID. And someone given a heart who is vaccinated could get it and get pneumonia and die. Or get hit by a bus. They have no way of knowing and their projections likely have a small rate of being correct with all the unknown variables involved. Or this guy could get the transplant and get COVID and survive.

With Omicron a lot less deadly than Delta, and the peak COVID stretch likely being in February, after that cases will likely drop significantly, it may not even be a concern for him once he gets the transplant.
 

Liljagare

Member
The variant has been in the UK since December and only 426 cases have been detected so far.


Would be interesting to see testing differences, 45% of new cases in Denmark and 10% in Sweden are BA2, it also seems to reinfect those who had delta or omnikron BA1, vaccine effect on illness/hospilazitation remains unclear, but it is holding at 70% roughly in ICU are unvaccinated, which is pretty high, so it suggests the vaccines have some effect of keeping you out of the ICU, or that unvaccinated have more cormobidities (sources in swedish, https://www.lifesciencesweden.se/ar...r_det_vi_vet_om_ba2_undervarianten_av_omikron, https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/mrWpAg/undervariant-kan-smitta-den-som-nyss-haft-omikron).

Denmark are going to stop restrictions on the 31'st, Sweden might still close down more, or open up, it's up in the air atm here.
 
Last edited:

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
I think they should go to those who are closest to dying first. Just try to save as many lives as possible. I think it's fruitless for them trying to play soothsayer and envision scenarios in their head about who is most likely to die or waste the heart and for what reason. It's based on unforeseen circumstances that may or may not come to fruition. This guy could get a transplant and never catch COVID. And someone given a heart who is vaccinated could get it and get pneumonia and die. Or get hit by a bus. They have no way of knowing and their projections likely have a small rate of being correct with all the unknown variables involved. Or this guy could get the transplant and get COVID and survive.

With Omicron a lot less deadly than Delta, and the peak COVID stretch likely being in February, after that cases will likely drop significantly, it may not even be a concern for him once he gets the transplant.

Except we know that a person who is unvaccinated against COVID 19 and on immunosuppression is much more likely to die from COVID19. Especially if his post operative period (i.e. when he's most likely to die) will end up being in the "peak" stretch of the pandemic (as you're predicting). This isn't playing soothsayer, this is medical fact and the people on these panels are medical transplant experts. If we had a deluge of spare organs lying around and it was as simple as teleporting a heart into the chest, sure. We could just give everyone a transplant, and if they didn't follow their teams medical advice and got themselves killed we could just chalk it up to personal responsibility and move on. But it doesn't work like that. A wasted heart is one less life saved. This is them trying to "save as many lives as possible".

If the pandemic dies down while he's still alive and COVID becomes a thing of the past, I'm sure they'll revisit his case.

EDIT: and no, they probably also wouldn't transplant a guy who has a history of running out in front of buses.
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie
I think they should go to those who are closest to dying first. Just try to save as many lives as possible. I think it's fruitless for them trying to play soothsayer and envision scenarios in their head about who is most likely to die or waste the heart and for what reason. It's based on unforeseen circumstances that may or may not come to fruition. This guy could get a transplant and never catch COVID. And someone given a heart who is vaccinated could get it and get pneumonia and die. Or get hit by a bus. They have no way of knowing and their projections likely have a small rate of being correct with all the unknown variables involved. Or this guy could get the transplant and get COVID and survive.

With Omicron a lot less deadly than Delta, and the peak COVID stretch likely being in February, after that cases will likely drop significantly, it may not even be a concern for him once he gets the transplant.
naaa that's like saying put the 2 pack per day smoker dying of lung disease or the biggest drinker at the top of the list since they need it the most ... sometimes u just gotta live with the poor choices you make, and in this case it's giving up a new heart because you are some ignorant and ingrate man child that wants to pick and choose the precautionary measures they require from you to make the most of an organ that thousands of people are waiting on. I'm sure they gave him a choice, and this self absorbed pea brain was dumb enough to turn it down because he wanted to believe the stupid shit he read on facebook and wanted to pretend he's some hero with principles he's defending, , when really all he is is deeply misguided. theres literally thousands of people that will die waiting for a new heart and would happily get vaccinated to get a second life, you really think anyone will feel bad for him??

it should be noted that all organ transplant patients are chronically immunosuppressed with meds (to keep your immune system from rejecting the new foreign tissue) and naturally higher risk. if you are suppressing your immune system, what do you think happens when you need it to fight off a pathogen?

not only is this guy going to die now, but he did it completely senselessly while defending none of the principles he claimed to espouse . it'sfuxking mental. not to mention this guy is probably a flagrant hypocrite when it comes to his principles, like many of us are, and all we are doing is just adding him to the pile of countless victims of misinformation of people that did not have to die

if we had an abundance of organs to pass around, it would be inhumane like you said, but we don't, which is why we make people quit smoking/drinking for +1yr before you can be eligible
 
Last edited:
That about the vaccines and transplantations is all right.

But even with a vaccination you're likely to get bad covid and they vaccine won't work well.

It's an overall just shitty situation if you need a donor organ. You just increase your chance of worse to bad.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
naaa that's like saying put the 2 pack per day smoker dying of lung disease or the biggest drinker at the top of the list since they need it the most ... sometimes u just gotta live with the poor choices you make, and in this case it's giving up a new heart because you are some ignorant and ingrate man child that wants to pick and choose the precautionary measures they require from you to make the most of an organ that thousands of people are waiting on. I'm sure they gave him a choice, and this self absorbed pea brain was dumb enough to turn it down because he wanted to believe the stupid shit he read on facebook and wanted to pretend he's some hero with principles he's defending, , when really all he is is deeply misguided. theres literally thousands of people that will die waiting for a new heart and would happily get vaccinated to get a second life, you really think anyone will feel bad for him?? there are rules in place to keep this fair and as humane as possible

it should be noted that all organ transplant patients are immunosuppressed and naturally higher risk

not only is this guy going to die now, but he defended none of the principles he claimed to espouse in doing so. it's completely senseless! not to mention this guy is probably a flagrant hypocrite when it comes to his principles, like many of us are

if we had an abundance of organs to pass around, it would be inhumane like you said, but we don't, so that's why there are rules that you need to quit smoking/drinking for +1yrs before you are eligible to receive a new liver/lung.
See, you're projecting. No one has any idea why he declined to get vaccinated. We need to stop putting people into boxes to fit narratives. It's counterproductive.

I just don't think COVID, as serious as it is, is serious enough to treat it like it's the plague in this case. Makes it seem like with a heart transplant and not being vaccinated, he might as well be walking into the Chernobyl reactor during the meltdown.

He may not even catch COVID. And I'm sure he and his family will take precautions to keep him safe from exposing himself to illnesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WoJ

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
See, you're projecting. No one has any idea why he declined to get vaccinated. We need to stop putting people into boxes to fit narratives. It's counterproductive.

I just don't think COVID, as serious as it is, is serious enough to treat it like it's the plague in this case. Makes it seem like with a heart transplant and not being vaccinated, he might as well be walking into the Chernobyl reactor during the meltdown.

He may not even catch COVID. And I'm sure he and his family will take precautions to keep him safe from exposing himself to illnesses.

Just about all of the vaccinated COVID patients in hospital I'm seeing now are immunocompromised. The problem isn't just that your immune system is weakened after a transplant, its also that you won't have a good response to the vaccine if you were to get vaccinated after the transplant. Hence why they want him to get vaccinated now. I don't think you have an appreciation of how serious COVID infections can be in this population, or how severely immunocompromised you can be after having an organ transplant. This is especially true in the period right after surgery, which -if your prediction is right - would be when COVID cases are peaking. What do you think the most common nosocomial infection right now is in hospitals? Instead of automatically assuming that these decisions are made out spite or vindictiveness, you should consider the possibility that the medical experts that make these decisions know a bit more about the risk benefit calculus than you do.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
Just about all of the vaccinated COVID patients in hospital I'm seeing now are immunocompromised. The problem isn't just that your immune system is weakened after a transplant, its also that you won't have a good response to the vaccine if you were to get vaccinated after the transplant. Hence why they want him to get vaccinated now. I don't think you have an appreciation of how serious COVID infections can be in this population, or how severely immunocompromised you can be after having an organ transplant. This is especially true in the period right after surgery, which -if your prediction is right - would be when COVID cases are peaking. What do you think the most common nosocomial infection right now is in hospitals? Instead of automatically assuming that these decisions are made out spite or vindictiveness, you should consider the possibility that the medical experts that make these decisions know a bit more about the risk benefit calculus than you do.
If somehow there was some calculation that if patient X got a heart transplant, but didn't do Y, when released back into the populace he has an 80% chance of dying, I might agree with their decision. But in this instance, I'm not sure that percentage can even be calculated, and if it could I'm not sure how high it would be. Seems like an extreme measure for something that is a total projection and even given the circumstances if you factor in that not only does the person have to catch COVID(which is no guarantee, especially when your lifestyle can be adjusted to mitigate risk) and then also die from it... it seems extreme.

For all we know, this dude plans to live like a hermit until COVID rates plummet, and not go near anyone and essentially put himself at no risk. We simply have no idea.
 
Top Bottom