• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?

Status
Not open for further replies.

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
Unfortunately I get the feeling that a significant proportion of the population falls into the authoritarian camp, regardless of political 'colour'. And there isn't really a credible party - let alone one worth voting for in our FPTP system - on the libertarian side of the axis.
I don't know what you consider to be a significant proportion but it is no where near a majority.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,203
Refuse treatment? I can't believe anybody seriously would agree with such an idiotic and, perhaps, fascist idea. :rolleyes:
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
Refuse treatment? I can't believe anybody seriously would agree with such an idiotic and, perhaps, fascist idea. :rolleyes:

Covid has exposed the closeted fascist I’m afraid, they of course are acting under the guise “protecting others” while virtue signalling constantly, it’s a very sad and exhausting life for these people
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
Once you start refusing treatment on the basis of a vaccine it's a very dangerous road to go down
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
Once you start refusing treatment on the basis of a vaccine it's a very dangerous road to go down

Sadly we went down that dangerous road the moment vaccine passports became a thing, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if this came into effect, give the government an inch and they’ll take a mile, our civil liberties are being eroded all for what is a respiratory virus with a 99% survival rate, well done to those who backed lockdown after lockdown now we’re all screwed thanks to their virtue signalling and hysteria.
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
Sadly we went down that dangerous road the moment vaccine passports became a thing, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if this came into effect, give the government an inch and they’ll take a mile, our civil liberties are being eroded all for what is a respiratory virus with a 99% survival rate, well done to those who backed lockdown after lockdown now we’re all screwed.
It wouldn't surprise me either to be honest
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Sadly we went down that dangerous road the moment vaccine passports became a thing, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if this came into effect, give the government an inch and they’ll take a mile, our civil liberties are being eroded all for what is a respiratory virus with a 99% survival rate, well done to those who backed lockdown after lockdown now we’re all screwed thanks to their virtue signalling and hysteria.

The current IFR is 0.096% I believe, so basically a 99.9% survival rate. (No pedantry intended, I thought you'd be interested!).
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Is that survival IF you get it? OR 99.9% of the population have survived so far?

That's if you get it (IFR stands for Infection Mortality Rate). Whether this figure allows for totally asymptomatic cases where the person is unaware they have it I'm not sure; if not then the IFR is actually lower.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,743
Location
Cheshunt
That's if you get it (IFR stands for Infection Mortality Rate). Whether this figure allows for totally asymptomatic cases where the person is unaware they have it I'm not sure; if not then the IFR is actually lower.
Ta - indeed I imagine it is far lower still in that case
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
That's if you get it (IFR stands for Infection Mortality Rate). Whether this figure allows for totally asymptomatic cases where the person is unaware they have it I'm not sure; if not then the IFR is actually lower.

IFR covers asymptomatic, yes.

There's another measure CFR - Case Fatality Rate - that covers people with symptoms. That is a higher %, for fairly obvious reasons.

The terms come from the quaint old days when we only said something was a 'case' if the person actually had symptoms, as opposed to now where we're all supposed to act ill whether we are or not.

I said pretty much from the start that I expected the IFR to land between 0.1% and 0.2%. I still think that is most likely.

(And before someone points out that the official figures have > 0.2% of the UK population dying of Covid already - well, even taking those figures at face value, and there are many reasons not to, the IFR in the UK is going to be higher than the global IFR because of the general unhealthiness of the UK population (obesity, diabetes, lung disease, vitamin D deficiency, plus generally people living to quite an old age in often quite poor health).
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
IFR covers asymptomatic, yes.

There's another measure CFR - Case Fatality Rate - that covers people with symptoms. That is a higher %, for fairly obvious reasons.

The terms come from the quaint old days when we only said something was a 'case' if the person actually had symptoms, as opposed to now where we're all supposed to act ill whether we are or not.

I said pretty much from the start that I expected the IFR to land between 0.1% and 0.2%. I still think that is most likely.

(And before someone points out that the official figures have > 0.2% of the UK population dying of Covid already - well, even taking those figures at face value, and there are many reasons not to, the IFR in the UK is going to be higher than the global IFR because of the general unhealthiness of the UK population (obesity, diabetes, lung disease, vitamin D deficiency, plus generally people living to quite an old age in often quite poor health).

When you say asymptomatic, do you mean no symptoms but confirmed infection? I was thinking of those who remain blissfully unaware which presumably would mean some kind of correction would need to be applied to the data?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
When you say asymptomatic, do you mean no symptoms but confirmed infection? I was thinking of those who remain blissfully unaware which presumably would mean some kind of correction would need to be applied to the data?

I'm going to break the habit of a lifetime and quote Wikipedia, because they appear to be correct with their definitions here:

Human infectious diseases may be characterized by their case fatality rate (CFR), the proportion of people diagnosed with a disease who die from it (cf. mortality rate). It should not be confused with the infection fatality rate (IFR), the estimated proportion of people infected by a disease-causing agent, including asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections, who die from the disease. IFR cannot be higher than the CFR and is often much lower, but is also much harder to calculate.

ie. IFR includes everything. CFR includes 'cases' - that normally wouldn't include asymptomatic people, but in this particular case we rather uniquely count someone with no symptoms but a positive test a 'case'.

So IFR is much harder to be accurate about, yes. You can try to extrapolate, and with the number of tests we're doing you can probably get a better idea for the Covid IFR than many other diseases, but it isn't going to be exact.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
I'm going to break the habit of a lifetime and quote Wikipedia, because they appear to be correct with their definitions here:



ie. IFR includes everything. CFR includes 'cases' - that normally wouldn't include asymptomatic people, but in this particular case we rather uniquely count someone with no symptoms but a positive test a 'case'.

So IFR is much harder to be accurate about, yes. You can try to extrapolate, and with the number of tests we're doing you can probably get a better idea for the Covid IFR than many other diseases, but it isn't going to be exact.

Thanks Mike, that does actually answer my question.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
No, just as they don’t refuse to treat transplant patients who have been smokers and alcoholics/abuse alcohol regularly.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
With the unvaccinated taking an unreasonable amount of space in Covid wards I think that we are at a stage whereby if someone like Piers Corbyn turns up at A&E with a “bad cough” then he only gets treatment if there are spare staff available….
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,226
Location
London
I'm surprised Rees-Mogg didn't say it in Latin.

I don’t care what language he says it in, he’s talking good sense there. I’ll take him over the craven Gove or Hancock any day of the week.


With the unvaccinated taking an unreasonable amount of space in Covid wards I think that we are at a stage whereby if someone like Piers Corbyn turns up at A&E with a “bad cough” then he only gets treatment if there are spare staff available….

Not this again!

Specifically how much space are the unvaccinated taking up, please? I think you’ll find the vast majority of seriously ill Covid patients are double vaxxed, elderly and/or infirm.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
With the unvaccinated taking an unreasonable amount of space in Covid wards I think that we are at a stage whereby if someone like Piers Corbyn turns up at A&E with a “bad cough” then he only gets treatment if there are spare staff available….

An 'unreasonable amount of space'? What a charming way of putting it.

You don't understand much about medical ethics, it seems.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
I don’t care what language he says it in, he’s talking good sense there. I’ll take him over the craven Gove or Hancock any day of the week.




Not this again!

Specifically how much space are the unvaccinated taking up, please? I think you’ll find the vast majority of seriously ill Covid patients are double vaxxed, elderly and/or infirm.


Statistic for ICU wards is stark when you consider the numbers of vaccinated v unvaccinated.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,226
Location
London

Statistic for ICU wards is stark when you consider the numbers of vaccinated v unvaccinated.

But overall hospitalisations are now overwhelmingly those who are vaccinated, just as you’d expect with a disease that is only likely to be serious for the aged and/or infirm.

The article also makes clear that the ICU vaccine ratios were unclear at the time of publishing. And those who are so unwell as to end up in ICU must include a good number who are too ill to receive the vaccine at all…

Are there any up to date figures showing that unvaccinated people are taking up the majority of space in ICU?
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
That post was going so well until the last bit that hasn't aged very well.
yeah i meant to go back in edit it to acknowledge im well off the page with my assessment of her handling of the situation

The relevant comparison is with the same day last week, comparing consecutive days is not a like for like comparison due to weekly fluctuations in testing.
1640108653820.png
This is by specimen date and its certainly looks like it might levelling out albeit at a higher level

With the unvaccinated taking an unreasonable amount of space in Covid wards I think that we are at a stage whereby if someone like Piers Corbyn turns up at A&E with a “bad cough” then he only gets treatment if there are spare staff available….
Definitely
 
Last edited:

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
There are degrees of avoidability, however.

As well as degrees of risk in the first place. The point is that it becomes a messy and highly divisive argument once you start going down the road @nedchester is advocating....

Yes they are higher percentage in some age groups but the NHS weekly vaccination survey for last weeks is also crystal clear that non vaccinated are a higher proportion of younger people

View attachment 107406

You do need to look at the numbers vaccinated in each group as well though.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
Not at all but things get desperate then the medics may have to prioritise.

It’ll never get to that…but don’t you think there is something wrong with your logic if you think it’s okay for a tax funded organisation to start picking and choosing who to help just because they choose to not have a jab? By that logic the NHS should stop treating fat people or smokers or alcoholics, the NHS is tax funded by unvaccinated people too.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
It’ll never get to that…but don’t you think there is something wrong with your logic if you think it’s okay for a tax funded organisation to start picking and choosing who to help just because they choose to not have a jab? By that logic the NHS should stop treating fat people or smokers or alcoholics, the NHS is tax funded by unvaccinated people too.
An example was the priory given to a liver transplant patient. Two people one an alcoholic and the other with a damaged liver for another reason. You choose.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t treat them but if there is a choice to treat an anti-vaxxer v another person in a high pressure environment then the anti-vaxxer loses.

Personally, if the choice was shut the pubs or treat anti-Vaxxers then it’s the pub for me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top