Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (15 Viewers)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

In all likelihood, the vaccine can kill him

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]

In all likelihood, the vaccine can kill him

"In all likelihood the vaccine can kill him"



That's a ridiculous statement.

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[CoolBrees]

@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.

 

[SWJJ]

In all likelihood, the vaccine can kill him

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

 

[dtc]

But if we are being real, the doctors are letting him die. Let's be sensible; they want someone who needs a heart transplant to take a vaccine that has been linked to inflammation of the HEART. Are we so far down this hole that we are OK with letting someone die because they aren't vaccinated and because of the effects, have a greater risk of dying from the vaccine?

OK?

I'm overjoyed.

I have my morals and my principles and I'll stick by them.

Doctors who do transplants are required to evaluate and consider potential outcomes so they don't waste precious resources on people with less likelihood of recovery than others.

He made his choice.

 

[DaveXA]

In all likelihood, the vaccine can kill him

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

 

[jahsoul357]

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.

"In all likelihood the vaccine can kill him"



That's a ridiculous statement.

Absolutely ridiculous.

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

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?

No Omicron immunity without booster, study finds — Harvard Gazette

Traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant, reports a new study.

news.harvard.edu

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.

@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?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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?

No Omicron immunity without booster, study finds — Harvard Gazette

Traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant, reports a new study.

news.harvard.edu

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.



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?

It's a near statistical probability that he will be exposed to COVID. And one of the side effects of COVID is inflammation of the heart. In fact you are more likely to have heart inflammation from COVID than the COVID vaccine.

Overally, he is far more likely to die from not getting the vaccine than from getting it. Just like almost everyone else.

 

[jahsoul357]

It's a near statistical probability that he will be exposed to COVID. And one of the side effects of COVID is inflammation of the heart. In fact you are more likely to have heart inflammation from COVID than the COVID vaccine.

Overally, he is far more likely to die from not getting the vaccine than from getting it. Just like almost everyone else.

But we can limit our exposure to COVID and apparently, he has done a good job of doing that over the past few years. So right now, the vaccine poses a higher risk because he currently has a bad heart and he would have to catch COVID first for that to actual pose a threat. Because of his condition, things aren't looking good if he catches COVID, regardless of being vaccinated.

 

[SWJJ]

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?

No Omicron immunity without booster, study finds — Harvard Gazette

Traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant, reports a new study.

news.harvard.edu

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.



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?

The percentage of people who have complications from vaccines is like 0.000000 something. Its absolutely NOT likely.
Transplant recipients have to take immune suppressants. COVID is highly fatal to people who are immune compromised.


This isn't the first time this has come up, but other people choose to get the vaccine and get the lifesaving surgery


Yes, alcoholics and smokers absolutely get rejected from even being on the transplant list, unless they quit smoking/drinking.

I don't think you get how selective the transplant lists are.

 

[SWJJ]

But we can limit our exposure to COVID and apparently, he has done a good job of doing that over the past few years. So right now, the vaccine poses a higher risk because he currently has a bad heart and he would have to catch COVID first for that to actual pose a threat. Because of his condition, things aren't looking good if he catches COVID, regardless of being vaccinated.

He has BETTER CHANCES of survival if he is vaccinated.

How do yo think things "don't look good" regardless of being vaccinated?

 

[jahsoul357]

The percentage of people who have complications from vaccines is like 0.000000 something. Its absolutely NOT likely.
Transplant recipients have to take immune suppressants. COVID is highly fatal to people who are immune compromised.


This isn't the first time this has come up, but other people choose to get the vaccine and get the lifesaving surgery


Yes, alcoholics and smokers absolutely get rejected from even being on the transplant list, unless they quit smoking/drinking.

I don't think you get how selective the transplant lists are.

As the son in law of someone that didn't make it before their number was called, I have an idea

 

[dtc]

As the son of law of someone that didn't make it before their number was called, I have an idea

What concern do you have for the son in law of the person who was 100% identical in risk and outlook being denied having the heart while a guy who refused the vaccine against medical advice was given it?

Then, imagine how you'd feel if 3 months later the guy with no vaccine died from covid.

Then cry me a river of unfair.

 

[jahsoul357]

*back after watching the presser and fussing at one of my kids cutting onions*

He has BETTER CHANCES of survival if he is vaccinated.

How do yo think things "don't look good" regardless of being vaccinated?

Because overall health affects the efficiency of the vaccine and the article is making it as though he is knocking on death's door. And the link I added pointing to why things don't look good, regardless.

What concern do you have for the son in law of the person who was 100% identical in risk and outlook being denied having the heart while a guy who refused the vaccine against medical advice was given it?

Then, imagine how you'd feel if 3 months later the guy with no vaccine died from covid.

Then cry me a river of unfair.

My views are a little different because vaccination status has turned into a tool of discrimination and how would I know if the recipient would live or die, as you don't normally know who is in front of you and haven't know many to keep up with those who received a heart transplant before them.

 

[dtc]

*back after watching the presser and fussing at one of my kids cutting onions*


Because overall health affects the efficiency of the vaccine and the article is making it as though he is knocking on death's door. And the link I added pointing to why things don't look good, regardless.


My views are a little different because vaccination status has turned into a tool of discrimination and how would I know if the recipient would live or die, as you don't normally know who is in front of you and haven't know many to keep up with those who received a heart transplant before them.

I don't understand what you were trying to say.

It's not your job to know.

It's the transplant board's decision and they track the various facts in order to determine when one of these precious beating hearts become available where it goes so that it isn't wasted on someone too stupid to take medical advice.

Do you understand when you refuse to take medical advice how difficult it is for a bunch of doctors to overlook your ignorance and arrogance and put your principles aside in order to deny some other suffering person a heart?