Please don't respond to flamebait by taking the thread further into full-out flamewar. That's exactly what we don't want here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> During Covid they CLOSED 3 entire floors of the Hospital due to inactivity, she was PISSED because those floors could have easily been used as overflow. >yes thay are "full" now because operational capacity has been significantly reduced.

Well, most hospitals aren't limited by literal space. They are limited by personnel, or supplies, or even ICU capacity. Not square footage.

> What sort of degenerate would wish this upon others blows my mind.

He's not wishing anything on them. People I know are being turned (well, advised) away from seeking medical care because the unvaccinated are dominating the hospitals. Is it really wrong to request that if they want to use our health care system they take basic care of themselves?

> And yes they are "full" now because operational capacity has been significantly reduced.

This is the kicker. It affects different areas disproportionately at different times; but on a response level we're pretending "my region!" is all areas in these discussions at all times.

> Comments like this are just pure disgraceful and disgusting. What sort of degenerate would wish this upon others blows my mind.

I want to be clear - he prefaced it with a simple "I almost...", not a "I wish". It's simply a comment on how hard it is that anti-vaxxers are actively killing others currently with forced-ration care; and how frustrating the lack of individual responsibility is.

Why should Alice die from (misc non-covid-related complication) because that care she needed went to John-from-accounting who was afraid of microchips in vaccines; but still went to that football game last week and can't breath now?

That's not to say that's happening everywhere; but it's definitely happening.

Ask people who have waited for health care, or had loved ones die due to delayed care.

Hospitals were closed due to inactivity LAST YEAR, before vaccines, because people were AFRAID TO GET COVID and expected to get it when going to a hospital.

I can assure you that the hospital I'm in has no closed floors.

>During Covid they CLOSED 3 entire floors of the Hospital due to inactivity

Wasn't that because there weren't many cases due to people social distancing and opting out of elective surgeries and healthcare because of fear of infection? Hospitals are private institutions and will reduce staff. I think the proposed CARES act last had funding but wasn't passed during the then administration.

>Comments like this are just pure disgraceful and disgusting. What sort of degenerate would wish this upon others blows my mind

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? People (ab)use freedom they don't want the consequences of doing so? They nod to all the politicians, talking heads, social media posts demonizing medical scientists, healthcare workers, doctors and then run to the hospital once sick? Don't you think there's a problem here with minimizing the dangers of covid and promoting unproven magic cures? Anyway I think unvaccinated people should be deprioritized if hospitals are full, unless they have a proven medical reason to not get vaccinated.

Wishing consistency in thought?

Reread it. They're not wishing death on anyone. But the healthcare system is overloaded primarily due to people rejecting the vaccine that the healthcare system has been begging people to get for quite some time.

There's no degeneracy here. It's a perfectly defensible line of moral reasoning.

The constraint is, there simply is not enough capacity to treat everyone. If there was, there would be no problem. So should you prioritize care for people who are intentionally making themselves ill, or those who aren't?

You have to choose one, after all. Are you advocating that people with illnesses other than covid should get delayed or denied care? Is that not just as degenerate?

This is a well-explored situation in other cases of shortages. Suppose that there is a severe famine and the government imposes food rationing. The Smiths abide by the rations and eat small but barely sufficient meals for a month. The Joneses refuse (for whatever reason), buy lavish amounts of ingredients, and throw out leftovers. At the end of the month the Joneses have blown through their ration cards and say they will starve the next month unless the Smiths share some of their rations.

The morally defensible answer is no, despite the danger that the Joneses may die, because if you say yes, now both the Joneses and the Smiths will be malnourished, this is an unacceptable harm to the Smiths, and being willing to answer yes will just encourage other people to act like the Joneses.

It's a trolley problem. You always want to just stop the trolley of you can or get people off the tracks. But if you can't, you have to make a choice about who it hits. Being in the position of making that choice doesn't inherently make you a murderer.