On 2022-02-06 08:45:57 triton242 said:
On 2022-02-06 00:06:38 pizzaboyza said: On 2022-02-05 23:57:58 triton242 said: Seems like you have a greater chance of survival staying at home to recover instead of going to a hospital.

If anti vaxxers refuse the vaccine (as is their right), why would they feel the need for hospitalisation if its serious?

If even 1% of infected people needed hospitalisation, we would still be overwhelmed and unable to make ends meet.

I would find it amusing if an anti vaxxer needed emergency medical help for something, but they died because other anti vaxxers were using the resources needed to save their life.

I feel no sympathy for people who choose not to be vaccinated. That is their right, it is their choice and they should explore it fully, especially if they experience a serious case.

Such a sad, angry, vengeful little man you are. As is the case with a lot of the pro vaxxers.

I'm not vengeful or angry lol.

Help me understand the logic behind refusing something supported by the medical community but going to same people when hospitalisation is required?

Why change the underlying belief? Why pick and choose when to listen /approach Dr's for assistance?

Why not stay true to your conviction?

On 2022-02-06 08:45:57 triton242 said:
On 2022-02-06 00:06:38 pizzaboyza said: On 2022-02-05 23:57:58 triton242 said: Seems like you have a greater chance of survival staying at home to recover instead of going to a hospital.

If anti vaxxers refuse the vaccine (as is their right), why would they feel the need for hospitalisation if its serious?

If even 1% of infected people needed hospitalisation, we would still be overwhelmed and unable to make ends meet.

I would find it amusing if an anti vaxxer needed emergency medical help for something, but they died because other anti vaxxers were using the resources needed to save their life.

I feel no sympathy for people who choose not to be vaccinated. That is their right, it is their choice and they should explore it fully, especially if they experience a serious case.

Such a sad, angry, vengeful little man you are. As is the case with a lot of the pro vaxxers.

By the way, I'm the same way that I feel no sympathy for anti vaxxers, if somebody chose to not wear a seat belt and was injured /killed in a car crash, then that's their choice.

There's no room for me to feel sympathy in cases like this as well. Or any number of similar circumstances.

We all make our own choices. At the very least see them through.

On 2022-02-06 09:02:56 triton242 said:
@Johnlennon
Finally someone who can argue a point without getting all worked up. Or winging bad on others out of fear.

Not sure what "winging bad" on someone means but this is the exact point that Teletubby made. Is it that he hurt your feelings by being snarky?

On 2022-02-06 08:45:57 triton242 said:

Such a sad, angry, vengeful little man you are. As is the case with a lot of the pro vaxxers.

It's not about vengeance at all. The important issue here is that the healthcare system is under extreme strain. If there was an unlimited supply of hospital beds and medical professionals then everyone who needs help should get it, even if it was their own stupidity that put them there.

But that's not the case. The system is creaking. So if you make a choice that puts you in explicit danger, then it is utterly unreasonable to expect to be allocated a limited resource ahead of someone who has landed up there purely through misfortune. And at this point its not like anyone can say "I didn't know", because like Johnny and wild-one ignoring posts and facts that don't confirm their beliefs it is *wilful* and deliberate ignorance.
(incidentally have a look at sorryantivaxxer.com for a pretty extensive list of anecdotes of how many antivaxxers say exactly that when they end up in hospital)

Also before generalising about how vengeful etc. pro-vaxxers are, maybe have a look around your own side of this debate. wild_one has explicitly said, on numerous occasions that he *wants* us all to die (and that we're going to hell when we do). We (or at least I) don't want anyone to die, but if its from your own stupidity then you're not going to get any sympathy either, and you sure as shit don't deserve to be treated ahead of someone who has done everything they can to protect themselves.

Exactly right JP.

And I'd add this: choosing not to get vaxxed doesn't just put you in danger, it puts others in danger too. It isn't just stupid, it's also selfish.

To make an inherently selfish decision and then ask society to prioritise your needs and allocate you those scarce resources (when you have shown an utter disregard for the health and safety of everyone else) is the height of hypocrisy.

So why aren't you advocating for forced TB and other vaccines as well, those also put your lives at risk...?

JP
Well reasoned argument there, except for what you think people do/don't deserve. Not your decision to make, and luckily not how life works either

On 2022-02-06 15:45:23 triton242 said:
So why aren't you advocating for forced TB and other vaccines as well, those also put your lives at risk...?

I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm not advocating for forced covid vaccines either. I'm making a moral argument - that choosing not to get vaxxed is morally reprehensible and deserves condemnation. I think that, having assessed the evidence, people should get the vax (and other vaccines for diseases that pose similar risks etc) and if they don't they are worthy of moral criticism. I haven't anywhere argued that that if they don't they should be forced to do so.

Let's rather enjoy life now. We will all be dead in 50-100years time depending on your current age

On 2022-02-06 15:53:05 triton242 said:
JP
Well reasoned argument there, except for what you think people do/don't deserve. Not your decision to make, and luckily not how life works either

Again, I think you have missed the point. I haven't just arbitrarly claimed certain people deserve things, nor have I pretended that I have the right to be the one that decides how resources get allocated. What I have done is made an argument showing, on a moral basis, *why* I think resources should be allocated in a certain way. You can disagree if you want but what you need to do to do that successfully is show why my moral reasoning is faulty, not just point to the trivial fact that I am not the one who gets to decide.

(ps when you say "luckily not how life works", I assume you mean "lucky" for the antivaxxer who has chosen to put himself in danger? Cos it seems to me to be not just unlucky but decidedly unfair on the guy who has a heart attack but dies because there aren't any ambulances or hospital beds available)