gearhog

I wasn't trying to burn you or score a point. I'm honestly conveying my disgust for a truly despicable and indefensible position.

I guess... if it's even possible to feel good about your argument to jerk someone's breathing tube out of their throat.

Great post, I appreciate the thoughts. I can sort of follow your train of logic, but I still have problems with it. When, not if, the mutation of the virus turns up in the hospital where your girlfriend works and she is at risk because her vaccine is ineffective against it, being vaccinated/unvaccinated has no longer has any meaning. My point being, once a variant exists, everyone is effectively unvaccinated, so it shouldn't be factor in determining who gets treated. There are currently an untold number of variants, and we're told Delta is the predominant one. Let's add that there is no way to know which variant anyone has unless an individual sample is genetically sequenced. That's not happening. The obvious solution is to prevent variants, right? (I'm probably rehashing someone else's argument in another thread here, but I don't know.) Many of us are led to believe that getting everyone vaccinated prevents the mutation and spread of variants. Is that how it works? No. Do vaccines destroy the virus? No. Do vaccines create antibodies? Yes. Do antibodies improve an individuals immune response and perhaps lessen the viral load? I think so. Do vaccines prevent mutations from occurring? No. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants Are natural antibodies more robust and longer lasting than those resulting from vaccines? Who am I to say? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot Check out the phylogenetic tree lineage for viruses. Coronaviruses are distinct from influenza viruses, which are distinct at a higher level than, say, the Polio virus. Until recently, coronaviruses have always been known as the "Common Cold", for which a cure or a vaccine has never before been found. One major reason is because they can never be eradicated from animal reservoirs. We do have annual influenza shots, but how effective have they been in eliminating the flu? The point being, coronavirus variants will always exist because they will always lead the cure. None of this is about curing the virus.

First, I apologize if it seemed I am being hostile and condescending. I know I'm being direct, but I'm trying not to make it personal. I've had this debate with a few friends and although we get charged up over it, we remain friends. I'm assuming your girlfriend is vaccinated. If so, what's the problem? Why do you worry? The specific issue in this debate that I might seem passionate about is the logical leaps one must make to justify actively taking one life in the belief you're saving another on the basis of vaccination status. You're talking about what kind of pants I'm wearing and open borders. Your argument is a mess. What is the goal of vaccines? Is it to create antibodies to fight COVID? If that is the result you are trying to achieve, why would you differentiate the method by which it was achieved? Again, I'm being direct. Don't take it personally. I often don't have time to disarm my language with delicate words and subtle suggestions. I don't think you're an idiot. CS Lewis, circa 1948:

As I told pawnman, it's really easy to set up a hypothetical scenario that allows you punt the football out the stadium. As I did earlier, I could introduce a few complications and complexities to your example and you, also, wouldn't be able to create such an obvious answer. You're not a surgeon, pawnman is not a surgeon, and neither of you have been faced with these false dilemmas, nor do you know of anyone who has. I know that's sort of blunt, and I risk raising your ire by pointing that out. However, I can be reasonably certain that you will never be in that situation or have the ability to comprehend all the nuances and variables required to make such a decision. So... for you to profess that you have the knowledge and moral authority to make a life-death decision in a this unrealistic hypothetical is more than a little off-putting. You don't get to decide who lives or dies in the ER and, thankfully, you never will.

Thanks, I wish I could have articulated my points as well as this article does.

No, I am not. I am simply admitting I do not have enough information to take a life. Therein lies the fundamental difference between us. You would kill over vaccination status. I would not. In just a few posts, we've reached the impasse that all of society will soon face. Words don't solve it.

That's always the only other option.

I didn't poke any holes in your answers. They were already there. You say you're getting tired, so I won't run this into the ground. I could you if you like, but you seem like you don't. You don't have to do it here, but let this thought roll around in your head a while: "I am so secure in my convictions that would take one person off a ventilator and give it to another over their vaccination status."

Brother, I get all that. But here's the way it seems to me: The most embarrassing bumblefcku in American military history had just occurred due to poor decisions and assessment of risk, leading to the conditions that caused to 13 of our military brothers and sisters and countless civilians being killed at the airport gate. We're further shocked and humiliated, and Biden announces that this evil attack will not go unpunished. The same leadership, same decision process, same intelligence methodology that missed the attack at the gate miraculously finds a VBIED in a Kabul neighborhood the next day. So we shoot at an explosive laden vehicle in a dense neighborhood just before our final exist and blame civilian casualties on secondary explosions. Occam's Razor.

First, let's remind ourselves that I have created none of these hypothetical situations we're discussing. All I have done is used your hypotheticals (ventilators and heart transplants), and added some complexity. Adding just a little bit seems to create frustration because they are difficult questions to answer. No offense, but I'm left to assume that's why you didn't. Second, I haven't seen either your examples occurring on a scale or frequency that necessitates a blanket policy decision by you about who gets treatment. Or much, much worse yet, taking life away to give life. To give you an imperfect answer: I would help where help is needed, as it is needed, knowing full well I do not have the moral authority to take life away with regard to changing circumstances, or my personal beliefs. To me, it would seem the most obvious answer that is if you are limited in our capacity help, you increase capacity.

I think some of us may have a tendency to create a false hypothetical unrealistic dilemma to make our choices easier. I know I do it, too. Let's make it more interesting. You're a good guy and you have friends. Think of two of them. One is probably runs a little more than the other, one may be slightly overweight, one holds different political views than you, and you may even have a friend who is unvaccinated. Again, this is based on your hypothetical. With the names of these two real people in mind, say both need the heart transplant in your earlier example, do you automatically choose the one runs more miles? Let's go on make a decision nearer the one I asked about the ventilator: Only somewhat overweight one needs a heart transplant and gets it. He's okay. The other friend now needs one. With the same logic applied in this situation, it'd be okay to remove the former's new heart and give it to the latter. Would you treat them both with the same cold, simple variable approach you use for deciding who gets a ventilator? It's not the likelihood of the above dilemma, it's the moral and ethical decision process that matters, and that's what we're establishing.

This is fascinating stuff. However, that's an unfair caveat, because there are no equal medical situations. A scenario where you would have to choose between two identical human beings and the only basis for your decision being, one is vaxxed, one is not, simply cannot exist. The important information I gather here is that we have reached a point where I can give a person an unlikely hypothetical scenario, and their beliefs over such an unclear, widely debated issue allows them to so quickly attest that they would be willing to remove someone's life over it. Dark times are ahead.

That's an interesting thought. So medical staff shows up to work to an ER full of patients. They would obviously select the vaccinated people first for ventilators. However, I just don't see it working out that way. Would you remove an unvaccinated person from a ventilator if a vaccinated person later showed up needing one?

Propagandists strike again: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-08-30/family-says-several-children-killed-us-missile-strike-kabul

Who is the guy between the two Presidents? https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210825-harris-in-hanoi-as-afghan-debacle-rumbles

What type of treatments would you refuse the unvaccinated? Just COVID-related illnesses or any medical treatment?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to indicate a belief that civilian casualties and collateral damage as a result of this confirmed drone strike did not occur, because in the past, similar things have been lied about at least some of the time. In spite of reports from actual reporters on the ground and an acknowledgement of that possibility from CENTCOM, you've concluded that the whole story is propaganda and lies, and sharing it is doing the work of the Taliban. Believe me, I don't want to see things like this happen, and I didn't want to believe the monumental levels of incompetence that have consistently occurred prior to this alleged tragedy are real. But let's face facts, the conditions and leadership that have created the situation we now find ourselves haven't changed, so it's not a stretch to acknowledge that, yeah, we're still fkucing up and and accidentally blowing up innocents, perpetuating the cycle. Perhaps CENTCOM will release the video and it will be compared to the widely available graphic images on the ground. Perhaps they don't. Perhaps it's better to let people believe "This is a lie. This couldn't have happened."

Looks like we got our vengeance. Good work, everyone. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/afghanistan-kabul-taliban-us-news-08-29-21/h_2bd817e241b383fb2d746202ef5ed752 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9_5npPWEAAYZh8?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

I’ve tried to remain stoic through all of this. I can’t. We need to see changes. Today.

Hey guys, not sure what to do with this. Help/Advice/Recommendations welcome. I just checked into my hotel here in California and struck up a conversation with the bellman. I was struck by what an incredibly genuine human being he was from the moment he started speaking. He asked where I was from, I asked where he was from. Afghanistan. Former interpreter for the Marines. Came here under the whatever program it was that got him and his family US citizenship. Extremely long conversation ensued until the manger hinted that he needs to be working, not talking politics. Long story short: He has a brother in Herat with a wife and kids. The brother is in hiding because he also worked for Kellog, Brown, and Root on military bases throughout AFG. The Taliban is trying to root them out. Apparently, he needs some sort of a letter saying he worked for KBR to get the documents required to leave the country. Latif then asked, because I was former military, if I had any ideas or knew of anything he could do. He's worried that his brother and his family will not survive this. I got a lump in my throat as this whole thing I've been following suddenly became personal. I want to help, but I don't know what to do. I have his contact info. Any comments welcome.

State Department = "Brainworms" https://twitter.com/JimmyPrinceton/status/1428756995650240513?s=20

This one was a gut punch when I saw it, but it was designed to be. It's not for everyone, but consider looking into Stoicism.

From the WSJ article: A tent city is being erected at the New Jersey base and medical supplies, food, water, restrooms, lighting and other equipment are being installed there now, officials said. Evacuees could be there by next week, they said. Other bases being studied as potential housing sites include Fort Pickett, Va., Camp Atterbury, Ind., Camp Hunter Liggett, Calif., and Fort Chaffee, Ark. Pentagon officials are also looking at American bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Kosovo, Bahrain and Italy, officials said. The Pentagon earlier had identified Fort Lee, Va., Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort McCoy in Wisconsin as bases that were to begin housing refugees.

C’mon, man! The fall of Kabul was 4-5 days ago. Why are we still talking about this?