hph6203 said:schmendeler said:hph6203 said:
Doctors absolutely declined treating unvaccinated individuals. Was it policy? No, but you've gone from caring about the individuals in society engaging in legal activity having accidental negative consequences inflicted upon them being a bad thing (citizen detention), to not caring about the intentional negative consequences inflicted upon them for engaging in legal activity (unvaccinated not receiving services and/or having freedoms restricted).
Call me crazy, but I don't think people should have their healthcare or freedoms restricted for engaging in legal activities any more than I think U.S. citizens should be detained by ICE. One of those things is an intentional action directed against a group of people because they fall into a category (unvaccinated) the other is an error that occurred and was rectified. A post occurrence assessment of "that shouldn't have happened to either" and a post occurrence assessment of "that shouldn't have happened to the U.S. citizen detained by ICE, but the unvaccinated had it coming."
No, you should not triage care based upon vaccination status. You should triage care based upon severity and likelihood of a successful outcome. A person with two bullets in their head should probably not receive the same level of attention as a person with one in their chest, who should receive more attention than someone with one in their shoulder. That's how triage works.
I also think it's an unconscionable miscarriage of justice for the federal government to use a warrant against a man with a valid claim of illegal activity (with evidence) to acquire his private communications (justifiably) and then use that to release the private communications of uninvolved/non-evidenced based individuals contained in those communications to the public. Why am I reading the private communications of Elon Musk's, Bill Gates', Reid Hoffmann's, Howard Lutnick's etc etc.? They spoke with a convicted and released criminal and subsequently accused but not yet convicted individual? Seems like a pretty low bar for the public to get access to those correspondence. A crazy violation of privacy. Lots of people being accused of crimes as an extension of that violation.
Why did that happen? Because a collection of politicians primarily wanted to tag a single individual with evidence of child abuse/sexual crimes. Seems they could have reviewed the information privately and come to the conclusion the evidence exists or doesn't exist without violating the privacy of thousands of mostly uninvolved individuals.
1. Post some evidence (news articles) of doctors declining to treat the unvaccinated. You saying it "absolutely happened" is not going to persuade.
2. Are you coming down on the side of defending Epstein's associates from being revealed? I get that not everyone mentioned was involved, but there's a difference between being in there few times and being in there a few hundred times. Or, in the case of others, thousands of times.
1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-doctor-pledges-stop-treating-unvaccinated-patients-n1277316Quote:
Effective Oct. 1, 2021, Dr. Valentine will no longer see patients that are not vaccinated against COVID-19."
"Oh, so one doctor said it, blah blah" <-Predictable response. You think every doctor announced it so clearly? You think every doctor provided the same level of care while holding the same perspective as you?
2. This is a conclusion derived from things not stated. His co-conspirators should be brought to justice if any of them exist. I don't think this method is the appropriate way to do that. Do you think the only way to uncover who was involved in Epstein's activities is publishing his correspondence, related or unrelated, for all the world to see? No. Obviously not. There is no difference between an individual being mentioned one time, and an individual being mentioned 1000's of times. The difference between them is a matter of notoriety difference between the two individuals.
Have you gone through any of the e-mails? I've reviewed over 2000. Most of them are wildly innocuous correspondence, none of them were direct evidence of a crime being committed.
Thanks for posting the article. You may not agree with me, but i find an incident of a doctor telling patients that they need to find a different provider to be different than someone actively needing medical attention and being refused care. These are different things, no?