Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered?

UncleTrvlingJim said
It's a lower probability that the vaccine will kill him than COVID will kill him - pre or post operation.

If he gets a vaccine, he can be monitored from the moment he gets the vaccine until after the higher risk period ends, and given anti-inflammatories. If he catches covid in the wild they can't control the heart inflammation that comes with covid at the point of infection b/c it's unknowable exactly when he will catch covid.

SWJJ said
"In all likelihood the vaccine can kill him"

That's a ridiculous statement.

Absolutely ridiculous.

SWJJ said
This statement is so ridiculous I had to point out again how ridiculous this statement is.

DaveXA said
I normally read your posts with an open mind...but this is just a horrific take.

One of the negative effects seen with the vaccine is inflammation of the heart and we have a patient who is past the point of no return needing a heart transplant and instead of assessing what can happen with A, you care more about B which can be avoided if proper precautions are taken. I'm looking at the risk of what could happen with something that he currently has while you are looking at it from the viewpoint of something that he may never get. At this point, the vaccine poses a greater risk to his health. How is this ridiculous? And about B (possibly catching COVID), how is the vaccine doing against Omicron?

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st... dosing,and neutralizing the Omicron variant.
So let's run this back; we have a patient who probably has not contracted COVID (and if he previously has, he would be better protected than he would with the vaccine) over the past 2 years but instead of looking at a present risk, our risk analysis is based on the presumption that this person WILL catch COVID. But even with a vaccine, every precaution would have to be taken to avoid catching COVID in the first place whether they are vaccinated or not because in his condition, he will be highly susceptible to severe symptoms. Couple that with Omicron taking over and the vaccine providing little to no immunity without booster, you would think a better approach would be avoid being in a position to catch COVID in the first place as opposed to your life hinging on taking a vaccine where you are still in the upper right quadrant for risk of severe symptoms and death IF you catch it.

But it is easier to say that this is a ridiculous take than to take all viewpoints into consideration when a person is life is on the line. And I just thought that these viewpoints were reserved for unvaccinated folks dying from COVID.

CoolBrees said
@jahsoul357

You don’t understand triaged care at all. Ask an alcoholic that is denied a liver if they think it’s fair. Or a smoker who doesn’t even get on the list for a new lung.

It has nothing to do with the vaccine.

It has everything to do with the limited number of organs and those with the best prognosis for survival before, during and after the surgery. Unvaccinated, by your own admission, survive lower rates than those with a vaccine.

Harvestable hearts are incredibly rare and precious. Every one is needed and should go to the individual who is in the most need - with the best prognosis for survival afterwards. An unvaccinated individual has less chance of survival than a vaccinated patient. Period. Therefore, the unvaccinated patient slips down the list.

It isn’t political. It is how you work with limited supplies.

Wouldn't that be an initial assessment as opposed to when their number is finally called to receive a transplant? Why would they tell an alcoholic or a smoker that they aren't eligible after they have been on a list for years, in some cases?