Should Covid health care be provided to those who refused the vaccine?

[Jebus]

Once the vaccine has been available to all, should we still allow hospital access to non-vaccinated Covid patients. Obviously they still need to be isolated until they are no longer contagious but why allow them to strain the economy even further?

[Jamie in Chile]

yes, let them in, it seems the right thing to do.

[brimstoneSalad]

If they have a legitimate medical reason for not being able to get the vaccine, of course.
Otherwise I don't think we should allow unvaccinated (by choice) people in hospitals, period, for any reason (say a car accident) because of the possibility that they have covid and will spread it to other sensitive groups. Much like the policy should be for all public schools, and as it should be for all government buildings, parks, etc.

I think private companies should deny access to those unvaccinated without a medical reason too, such as to grocery stores, but there's not much to be done about that legally since they are completely private institutions and it's harder to make the case for denying them entry than to somewhat more public (to varying degrees) institutions.

[teo123]

Once the vaccine has been available to all, should we still allow hospital access to non-vaccinated Covid patients. Obviously they still need to be isolated until they are no longer contagious but why allow them to strain the economy even further?

Let's say it was proven beyond reasonable doubt vaccines against COVID-19 do more good than harm to young people. Under that assumption...
I feel like this is much like asking whether treatment for lung cancer should be given to smokers. People who smoke may be genuinely misinformed into thinking the link between smoking and lung cancer is a myth or much less severe than it really is. Or, as many smokers I have asked say they think, they think second-hand smoking is a myth, and that they are not harming anybody by smoking except themselves. Many smokers today presumably think smoking protects them against COVID-19, as some studies early in the pandemic appeared to suggest, even though it is most likely just smokers being less able to notice the symptoms of COVID-19 (because they already have a decreased sense of smell and cough a lot...). To summarize, I think smokers are mostly low-information high-misinformation people, and that they deserve help, rather than disdain.
And if COVID-19 vaccines really do more good than harm, then anti-waxxers are also nothing but low-information high-misinformation people who deserve help, rather than disdain.

[teo123]

I mean, you think that not getting vaccinated is like smoking, right? You think not getting vaccinated is harming yourself and people around you, causing respiratory illnesses that kill millions of people per year, right? So, if you think medical care should not be given to anti-waxxers, then the corollary of that is that it should not be given to smokers either.

[chocolatea]

Yes regardless of whether a patient is vaccinated or not, we should allow anyone to be treated at the hospital.

[Jebus]

I mean, you think that not getting vaccinated is like smoking, right? You think not getting vaccinated is harming yourself and people around you, causing respiratory illnesses that kill millions of people per year, right? So, if you think medical care should not be given to anti-waxxers, then the corollary of that is that it should not be given to smokers either.

A few distinctions here:

1. Smokers, unless they smoke in front of you, are not a health hazard to others.
2. Smokers, due to sin tax, have in a way paid for their treatment in advance.
3. I don't think experts are able to be 100% certain that a smoker's lung cancer was caused by smoking, since non-smokers sometimes get lung cancer, too.

Anything that can get more people to take the vaccine would be highly beneficial to society, and the fear of not having health care in case of infection, would likely motivate a lot of people to get vaccinated.

[teo123]

Smokers, unless they smoke in front of you, are not a health hazard to others.

And, if vaccines actually work, the danger of being exposed to a COVID patient would be minimal.

Smokers, due to sin tax, have in a way paid for their treatment in advance.

That tax is negligible compared to other taxes almost everybody is paying.

since non-smokers sometimes get lung cancer

And that is either because of burning certain types of wood (smoke of some types of trees also contains carcinogenous substances, much like tobaco smoke does) or, much more likely these days, because people around them smoke.

the fear of not having health care in case of infection

I think most anti-waxxers realize medicine cannot help you a lot in case you get COVID. COVID is usually treated with antiviral drugs such as Ivermectin, which are safe but the evidence of them being effective against COVID is very thin, or intubating people, which we really don't know whether it is safe or effective. I mean, only 12% of COVID patients who are intubated survive. So, at best, medicine can increase your chances of surviving COVID by 12%.

[Jebus]

@teo123 You just scored 0 out of 4.

[Jebus]

Correction. Cigarette sin tax only pays for a tiny part (5% in the U.S.) of the added healthcare costs caused by smokers. There is definitely some merit in the idea of denying them healthcare. However, I doubt this is logistically possible. How would one know for sure that a patient is a smoker? How would one treat those who used to be smokers, but gave up years ago? Would people who smoke other things besides tobacco be included in the ban?

Also, if one denies healthcare to smokers one would have to do the same for the other categories that increase health care costs, such as meat, dairy, and alcohol. Denying healthcare to people who refused the Covid vaccine without good reason is much more straight forward.