"Bob" if he ignored all sound medical advice and refused to get the vaccine?

valid scientific data. And possibly took up a bed that some poor schmuck who had a heart attack couldn't get and died as a result. From the piece, it was apparently very clear to the nurse early on that he was going to die, and it was just a matter of time. Why not offer hospice care, to make him comfortable rather than all the intubating and the bed that flips him over twice a day? Plus, again, freeing up a bed for someone who needs it even more and will survive if treated.

Paying attention to valid scientific data isn't a prerequisite for care.

So did the poor schmuck ignore valid scientific data about how to not get a heart attack? Or was that heart attack worthy of care?

And if he doesn't accept the offer of hospice care? Besides, if you think it's hard to find decent care in a hospital now, try hospice, either home-based or at a facility.

But only if the patient has paid attention to valid scientific data, I understand?

how would you ration them? Simply first come first served?

It's a reasonable barrier. If you ignore science deliberately and now get sick, well gosh! Should others who have paid attention to the science now be behind you in the line of those to be treated? Really? Where do we draw the line? How do we decide who should be treated and who should not?

The anti-vaxxers, the willful ignorers of science, should not be ahead of anyone else for treatment. They should be in a tent out in the parking lot with whatever medicos are available after treating the vaccinated. So sorry if that seems harsh, but the anti-vaxxers have been more than dismissive of science and reality. Let reality and science bite them in the face.

"Paying attention to science" is such a weird barrier thought. People can "pay attention to science" without acting on it. People can take action without "paying attention to science." People can take action without having it keep them out of the hospital.

As I say, I don't know. I do know that drawing a line invariably means that at some point, someone you were trying to include at the expense of someone else will still get excluded. No matter the line -- whether it's based on someone's attitude or the simple numbers of available capacity -- the decision will perpetuate trauma on patients, families and healthcare providers alike.

But creating that line around someone's attitude toward a specific mitigation of a specific disease is especially reprehensible, because when it doesn't work -- when hospitals are still burning out, even when we put the unvaccinated at the end of the line -- we start looking for other people to put at the end of the line. Those who didn't listen to the "science" around controlling their diabetes better, for example, or those who took a risk when they *knew* they were immunocompromised. It's bullshit and plays into people's weird desire for determining who "deserves" things or services and who doesn't.

people with heart attacks or strokes can't be treated and die, well I do think some decisions ought to be made.

We are in big trouble when we start encouraging medical professionals to abandon their ethics. It would truly be a slippery slope.

didn't we?

I'm starting to wonder.

And lots of us did but have...unintegrated values. They just never set them out to examine and tweak so they could work together as a coherent whole. Sincere as far as it goes, but observation suggests liable to vary according to blood sugar and hostility levels.

Of course some others were anti-Hillary/anti-Democrats and joined the holy cause of replacing the ACA because it was oppositional. Not a good place to start from in these times of mass radicalization, but some must have escaped to care about universal healthcare for itself. Hope so.

Btw, anxiety is proven to make people more conservative, which is why the GOP keeps levels up amap. We'll all be nicer and more generous someday. That soul of America we're fighting to save.

patient. I would resign on spot.
That is all.

It’s not just a flu or a cold. It’s serious, or certainly can be. I learned something else on this post. I was hospitalized a few years ago. When they tested my oxygen saturation it was 98-99 and I couldn’t understand it when they told me I had high saturation but low red cells. Now I understand why that would be (they checked me into hospital and gave me two units of red blood).

My understanding is thst he was often the person holding the phone or tablet to allow patients to say their last goodbyes to family and being with the patients in their final moments.. I can only guess the toll that on must take on him and the other frontline medical personel.

Especially when he realized his sh*t was f*cked.

reading the posts at r/nurses subbreddit and what COVID patients go through in treatment is horrifying! It's what's convinced me that I don't want to have to go anywhere near a hospital where I live.

ETA: a missing word.