Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Sagat]

Are you saying that homosexuality is a ‘high risk behaviour’?

Strawman argument. I'm asking you that. Do you consider it a high risk behaviour and if so would you deny treatment? What other groups would you deny treatment to or is it just your political enemies?

 

[mill]

Strawman argument. I'm asking you that. Do you consider it a high risk behaviour and if so would you deny treatment? What other groups would you deny treatment to or is it just your political enemies?

I’m sorry but could you point to where I’ve said that people should be denied treatment?

 

[Sagat]

I’m sorry but could you point to where I’ve said that people should be denied treatment?

You're doing it again. I haven't accused you, I'm asking you a question. Are you, like some other posters on this forum, in favour of denying treatment to people who are unvaccinated?

It's a simple question mate, stop trying to lead it on into something that it's not.

The follow on question from that would be: if you are in favour of denying treatment to unvaccinated people then would you also be in favour of denying treatments to other groups of people depending on risk factors, behaviours, etc?

Now if you understand the law you will understand legal prescendent. Once you go down the path of excluding groups of people for one thing then it leads on to excluding more and more groups for other things.

 

[mill]

You're doing it again. I haven't accused you, I'm asking you a question. Are you, like some other posters on this forum, in favour of denying treatment to people who are unvaccinated?

It's a simple question mate, stop trying to lead it on into something that it's not.

The follow on question from that would be: if you are in favour of denying treatment to unvaccinated people then would you also be in favour of denying treatments to other groups of people depending on risk factors, behaviours, etc?

Now if you understand the law you will understand legal prescendent. Once you go down the path of excluding groups of people for one thing then it leads on to excluding more and more groups for other things.

Absolutely not. In fact I’ve been very clear on that if you look at my posting history.

I’m interested to understand where you drew your own comparisons for unvaccinated people, homosexuals and rock climbers though? What was your reasoning for that?

 

[roydo]

You're doing it again. I haven't accused you, I'm asking you a question. Are you, like some other posters on this forum, in favour of denying treatment to people who are unvaccinated?

It's a simple question mate, stop trying to lead it on into something that it's not.

The follow on question from that would be: if you are in favour of denying treatment to unvaccinated people then would you also be in favour of denying treatments to other groups of people depending on risk factors, behaviours, etc?

Now if you understand the law you will understand legal prescendent. Once you go down the path of excluding groups of people for one thing then it leads on to excluding more and more groups for other things.

Consider this reality.

Near me, Covid isnt yet a massive issue for hospitals, but they fully expect an uptick. That said, 80% of covid patients are unvaxxed. And the remaining 20 with covid? The majority caught it whilst in said hospital.

Mrs R is (vaxxed) back in hospital following a complication.

Unvaxxed patients are now a threat to her. I will most likely not visit her to minimise the risk to her.

Thanks for your concern.

 

[bigjonny]

Consider this reality.

Near me, Covid isnt yet a massive issue for hospitals, but they fully expect an uptick. That said, 80% of covid patients are unvaxxed. And the remaining 20 with covid? The majority caught it whilst in said hospital.

Mrs R is (vaxxed) back in hospital following a complication.

Unvaxxed patients are now a threat to her. I will most likely not visit her to minimise the risk to her.

Thanks for your concern.

Best wishes to you both, hope Mrs.R is back home soon.

 

[toffee82]

What a bizarre post.

My only regret is that the ignore button has hit you before Covid.

Wishes death on people he doesn't agree with. Can't deal with it when they give some stick back. What an absolute fanny.

He didn't wish death. He wished covid which you are refusing to get vaccinated against as you don't think you need it cos your hard.

Tiger knee!

 

[Sagat]

He didn't wish death. He wished covid which you are refusing to get vaccinated against as you don't think you need it cos your hard.

Tiger knee!

Ah, well that makes it all hunky dory then.

 

[Sagat]

Absolutely not. In fact I’ve been very clear on that if you look at my posting history.

I’m interested to understand where you drew your own comparisons for unvaccinated people, homosexuals and rock climbers though? What was your reasoning for that?

Are you aware that different groups of people can be in different risk factors for different things? It's not rocket science, it's medical science.

 

[toffee82]

Are you aware that different groups of people can be in different risk factors for different things? It's not rocket science, it's medical science.

So are vaccines.

 

[mill]

Are you aware that different groups of people can be in different risk factors for different things? It's not rocket science, it's medical science.

Do you think rock climbers and homosexuals pose a similar risk to others as unvaccinated people do?

 

[tsubaki]

Do you think rock climbers and homosexuals pose a similar risk to others as unvaccinated people do?

either the punchline will be something about mounting Everest or climbing Gay2

 

[Sagat]

Do you think rock climbers and homosexuals pose a similar risk to others as unvaccinated people do?

Another ridiculous argument. Do you think homosexuals have never been treated differently because of their behaviours? Has an argument ever been made to deny people treatment because of inherent risk?

You're trying to make an apples to oranges comparison. I'm arguing about biases. Since my previous example is far too spicy for you I'll phrase it differently. Should obese people be denied diabetes treatment since obesity is a risk factor in diabetes? Should smokers be denied cancer treatment? After all, they they knew the risks.

Can you not see my point or are you just desperate to tag an "ism" accusation to me?

 

[mill]

Another ridiculous argument. Do you think homosexuals have never been treated differently because of their behaviours? Has an argument ever been made to deny people treatment because of inherent risk?

You're trying to make an apples to oranges comparison. I'm arguing about biases. Since my previous example is far too spicy for you I'll phrase it differently. Should obese people be denied diabetes treatment since obesity is a risk factor in diabetes? Should smokers be denied cancer treatment? After all, they they knew the risks.

Can you not see my point or are you just desperate to tag an "ism" accusation to me?

I haven’t made any accusations or arguments. All I’ve done is asked questions. I’ve already made it clear that everyone should be treated equally in the context of medical treatment. It’s clear from my posting history.

What I’d like to understand is whether you think rock climbers have been treated differently given that you used them as an example here?

 

[Sagat]

I haven’t made any accusations or arguments. All I’ve done is asked questions. I’ve already made it clear that everyone should be treated equally in the context of medical treatment. It’s clear from my posting history.

What I’d like to understand is whether you think rock climbers have been treated differently given that you used them as an example here?

No I don't think rock climbers are treated differently. I've heard dimwit arguments like that made before though, hence why I changed it to smokers and diabetics to ease your understanding.

It seems we're on the same page. I don't expect people to be treated differently and neither do you, as you have stated, so I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.