Hacker News Reader

Comment by France_is_bacon | Hacker News Reader

I would like to know "why" the ERs are letting gunshot victims, or other injured people, wait.

If I was in charge of the ER, I would bump people out/put them lower on the priority list. The people who take ivermectin are idiots listening to idiots. Their genes need to be taken out of the gene pool.

Maybe it is supposed to be first come, first serve, but there also is such a thing called triage. And while it means that the most injured person gets treated first, I think that does not apply in this case. It's like at a triage site, the dead get a black tag, so subsequent first responders know they are a waste of time to treat a dead person, and they can tell just by looking at the tag. In the same way, we should give those taking ivermectin a black tag, because their brain is dead.

View on HN

While I agree with you, generally speaking, what about other cases?

Obese people vs fit ones

Smokers vs non-smokers.

Child who broke his leg jumping from a tree vs someone hit by a car.

As I wrote elsewhere, a child jumping from a tree, or someone using a wingsuit are one-off situations. There are not 900,000 children breaking their legs per year, or in actuality, dying per year. Smokers and obese people do not flood the emergency rooms all at the same time, but I'll have more to say about this at the end of this post.

However, the people who don't wear masks, get vaccines, or take ivermectin are purposefully creating a situation where they flood the hospital beds and PREVENT children who broke their legs jumping out of trees to get proper medical care (and hopefully you agree that children don't know better as opposed to anti-maskers, anti-vaccination, and people taking ivermectin, or injecting bleach into their veins as proposed by Donald Trump).

And, in actuality, those who get Covid and say it is fake or not too bad and is like the flu or that somehow microchips or automobiles are injected into their bloodstream with the vaccine, should have the strength of character and integrity to refuse a hospital bed. Don't say that they didn't have fair warning. But they are moral cowards with no integrity.

As far as obese people and smokers, I think 100% that they should pay a lot more for insurance. I know for a fact that smokers pay three times as much in premiums as non-smokers. That's fair. So the health insurance of obese people and smokers should reflect the extra expense that they inflict on society. You hear a LOT about how conservatives don't want their money to go to pay for birth control for those who use it...well, why should I pay for the obese or smokers? It's the same thing. And, of course, again, the conservatives will be hypocritical about this, because there are a LOT of obese people and smokers that are Republican/conservatives. Especially in bedrock conservative state like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, et al. The sh-ttiest healthcare, most obese, most smokers, most uneducated populations are in conservative states.

So of course, they will be against "their" taxes paying for birth control, but will be all for others paying their life choices.

The issue is that triaging can be done when a new ER room opens up but you cannot easily throw out people already getting treatment because someone else comes in with a more serious issue.

I know. And I am arguing that it should happen. Throw them out.

In my experience, the actual medical treatment time is quite short.

It is the gathering of all the extensive information for billing and payment that takes all the time, from those that have the means, or insurance to pay. They need to gather enough info on you to fuel the bill collectors in other cases... EMTALA[1] did not come for free after all.

So, the bills from the numerous amount of freeloaders, non-payers, charity cases, and other people using the ER as a primary care doc still need to be paid [2] , [3]

[1] https://www.emra.org/emresident/article/emtala/

[2] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/medical-care-in-emerg...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-am...

You think that if someone uses the wrong medical treatment, doctors should treat them as if they're already dead and never try to help them at all?

I think if someone chooses to poison themself, they should be triaged below someone who didn't choose to poison themselves, should the need to triage patients occur.

Furthermore, if someone comes in after them, the person who decided to poison him or herself, they should be vacated out of the bed and given the lowest priority. Let them lie on the floor in the hallway or in the chapel until doctors can get to them again.

They are not using the wrong "medical" treatment. It is NOT a medical treatment, at all.

In this case, 100% do NOT help them, if needs be. They are so proudly and loudly anti-vax, anti-mask, inject bleach into their bloodstream, that they should get what they deserve.

What I'm saying is that gunshot wounds, broken legs, stuff that is not the results of people taking eating poison on purpose, or not getting the Covid vaccine or not wearing masks - they should be lowest on the totem pole, and only treated when everyone else is done. End of story. And if someone comes in after some idiot is being treated for being an idiot, then they should get the idiot off the bed and make them lie on the floor, and put the person who has an actual real injury onto the bed. The person lies on the floor until the medical staff can get to them again, because there's only so many beds. That's what I think.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're right about ivermectin being a poison equivalent to bleach and not an FDA-approved medicine in humans, wouldn't your argument also lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't try to save people who attempt suicide?

come on... that's cleary not what he said. why are you making comments like this putting words in the commenters mouth.

How else do you interpret this?

> the dead get a black tag, so subsequent first responders know they are a waste of time to treat a dead person, and they can tell just by looking at the tag. In the same way, we should give those taking ivermectin a black tag

Are you unaware of the context the comment is being made in or just ignoring it? The comment isn't about about sweeping er practices. Its being made in the context of people make poor decisions on purpose.

I wrote that comment and stand by it. I will soften it up a little and change it to giving them a dark grey tab. Meaning those people do not get treatment until everyone else gets treatment. And if they are getting treatment and someone who is not an idiot comes in, the doctors and nurses should IMMEDIATELY stop treating the idiots who take ivermectin, or are anti-maskers, or anti-vacciners. Put the idiots in the hall on the floor, or get some tents outside of the hospital and put them in there. Whatever, I don't care.

However, those that are vitriolic anti-maskers and anti-vaxers should have the MORAL COURAGE to not go to the hospital in the first place, since it is their mindset that put them there in the first place. They should live by their convictions. But time after time, you see those who spout this bullshit, like radio hosts and everyone else who are the "anti's" go into the hospital and cry like the little babies that they are, saying everyone should take vaccines.

Why should these people even get a hospital bed? Where is their convictions, that Covid is not bad? Cowards.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/24-year-old-who-needed-double-lun...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/phil-valentine-conservat...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-cia-officer-calle...

Doctors are already refusing patients that refuse the COVID vaccine.

My mother, who works at hospital, was told due to her age that if there was a choice between her and a younger patient, the younger patient would get the bed/oxygen. She was told this long before the COVID vaccine was released in 2020.

The CDC and more are already reaching out urging people not to take a horse deworming medication. They do not listen. They believe whatever is shared by their friends on social media and right wing media over medical professionals.

At what point do you prioritize treatment for those who do nothing of their own fault over those who deliberately ignore medical advice and harm themselves with a horse medication?

My opinion: the ER should have started turning them away a long before they had to refuse treatment to others.

Edit:

Missed the part where the above top parent wrote which I do not agree with: 'Their genes need to be taken out of the gene pool.'

> The CDC and more are already reaching out urging people not to take a horse deworming medication

When I read this, I was a little bit stunned.

Ivermectin has a large number of human indications, and in certain parts of Africa, Asia & Latin America is a vital drug for humans, more than it is anywhere else. River Blindness is a horrible disease, as are many other parasitic infections. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Because Ivermectin is broadly applicable against many parasites, mites, and also has other qualities such as being an anti-viral, it is one of those important drugs for the health of endangered populations.

For you to politicize this issue, and to repeat political attacks is frankly unworthy of the HN community.

While I think we all know that prescription drugs should be the domain of trained medical professionals having a fundamental expertise in diagnosis (MDs/DOs primarily, and PAs and NPs) and that veterinary medications best left to the vets for those animals in need.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

[2] https://www.merck.com/stories/mectizan/

[3] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/07/03/forty-y...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/01/us/new-drug-may-curb-trop...

Sorry, but calling it "horse deworming medication" is inflamatory, not to mention incorrect. [1]

Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA for human usage. [1] Claiming ivermectin is a drug for animals exclusively is a falsehood.

Is ivermectin known to cure or heal COVID? Absolutely unproven. But your misrepresentations are just as bad as anyone claiming it's a COVID miracle cure.

Stop fighting misinformation with misinformation, you're not better than them. You're lying.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ivermectin-covid-19-a...

> Sorry, but calling it "horse deworming medication" is inflamatory, not to mention incorrect.

I did not claim it was exclusively for horses. What I have been reading (and perhaps can be clarified) is that they have been buying doses specifically meant for horses and then they wind up at the ER.

Also, if you are going to accuse someone of lying and cite the FDA (but only link to the Canadian CDC). Please read carefully.

From the FDA:

'Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People

For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.'

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

>I did not claim it was exclusively for horses

Nope, you only strongly implied it. Ivermectin is not a livestock drug. Ivermectin has been used for 50 years in humans and is approved for that purpose. Ivermectin is not a "livestock drug" anymore than steroids are a "chicken drug".

Doesn't mean it's safe at animal doses, but it does mean you're being inflamatory, misleading and fueling misinformation on this topic (to the detriment of people who actually need the drug).

Here's the phrase you used: "horse deworming medication". You also falsely implied the CDC warned people not to take it in any circumstance, which seems to hint at your lack of knowledge on ivermectin. Consider not jumping on misinformation bandwagons, because you're making this all worse.

Wrong. It's entirely correct to say "The CDC and more are already reaching out urging people not to take a horse deworming medication". People are picking up horse deworming medication off the shelf, and taking it. That's exactly what's the driving the overdoses.

Ivermectin prescriptions are harder to overdose on because they're meant for human consumption and the doctor and pharmacist list the safe dosage. So yes, human ivermectin is safer(at normal deworming dosage), even if not proven to be effective for Covid. Horse deworming medication not meant for human consumption is dangerous for humans, there is a way higher chance of overdose.

I haven't seen you or anyone cite a source that shows that particular product is the primary source of ivermectin overdoses. In my area, people are obtaining ivermectin pills which are marketed and intended for humans.

So, again, calling it "horse deworming medication" is inflamatory and incorrect.

In addition, it's not inherently more dangerous given the cases. You can dose either product incorrectly, or correctly.

Also, by using such narrow terminology aren't you implying it's okay to take ivermectin pills intended for humans for a purpose it has not been approved for?

Your language is designed to be incendiary, and its effects are horrible. Human people need ivermectin. It is an incredibly useful drug for humans. Stop demonising it with a broad stroke based on mass media campaigns (the same mass media that spread the lie that masks were ineffective in early 2020).

> But your misrepresentations are just as bad as anyone claiming it's a COVID miracle cure.

Nah. It's a harmless mistake at worst compared to a very harmful and invalid claim.

There’s a huge distance between triage when resources are limited and refusing to treat patients. Many health issues are self-inflicted through poor lifestyle habits despite patients knowing better.

Agreed. Missed that part from the top parent comment.

That is 100% true. However, this is a unique situation. This is an acute situation, and not because of long-term things, or one-off problems.

Wingsuiting is a poor life choice, given the high death rate of people who do it, but to compare wingsuit deaths of 5 deaths per year to the Covid virus that has killed almost a million people in the USA since it started - that is a weird comparison that you gave.

There are already a ton of hospitals who refuse to treat people who refuse to get the Covid vaccine, and rightly so.

And, as far as treating them, fine, but if someone comes into the hospital other then non-vacccine, non-mask, taking ivermectin - then they immediately get bumped down the list by ANYONE else who needs treatment. Let them lie on the floor against the walls in the hall until doctors treat everyone else and have time for them again.

Because these people are the same exact people that we see all the videos about - screaming and yelling in stores, airplanes, Trump rallies, the insurrection at the Capitol, saying how masks don't work or are bad. Then the bitch and whine when they get it and expect treatment, after all their toxic behavior. I have a folder where I track all the a-holes that were radio hosts who said covid is not real, and then they get it and change their tune and say it is and that they should have taken the vaccine, and now recommend everyone to take it. Sorry man, day late and a dollar short - you don't get a bed, f you. That's my opinion.

> There are already a ton of hospitals who refuse to treat people who refuse to get the Covid vaccine, and rightly so.

Citation needed. Many hospitals are delaying some elective surgeries, but is even one hospital refusing all treatment to anyone who is unvaccinated?

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-doctor-refuses-treat-unvacc...

https://www.thv11.com/article/news/verify/yes-a-private-care...

https://www.ladbible.com/news/latest-sydneysiders-could-be-b...

That is simply a lie. Due to EMTALA, hospitals with ERs are legally required to treat unstable patients regardless of vaccination status. (I do recommend that everyone get vaccinated if they can.)

>Missed the part where the above top parent wrote which I do not agree with: 'Their genes need to be taken out of the gene pool.'

That was me. If they are not treated, their genes get taken out of the gene pool anyways, no matter what I say or don't say. That's how natural selection works. I was just being honest about how it works.

What does the first paragraph of your comment has to do with the others?

Yes, doctors should refuse to treat someone who does not want to be vaccinated.

If they do not make the effort for the good of everyone, they suffer the consequences.

> If they do not make the effort for the good of everyone, they suffer the consequences.

That's one of the most dystopian-sounding sentences I've ever read.

Not sure what is dystopian there.

My wife is dependent on not meeting these unvaccinated idiots because otherwise she will likely be in serious trouble (~die). My child is also seriously sick so he is in danger too. It costs them nothing to protect themselves and others.

If they do not want to do that, then fuck off - if they are sick with COVID or because of something COVID-related then they just die in a corner while waiting for a bed used by someone else. No whining, no drama. Just bearing the consequences of a choice.

By this logic, doctors should treat suicide attempts as if they're already dead. If you take an entire bottle full of pills to suicide, it's clearly wrong medical treatment.

How about if you drink a case of beer and then get in a car and crash it into a tree, ending up half dead?

Tell us, who should be denied treatment because of their choices?

Hospitals are not currently being overwhelmed by either of your theoreticals. Those things aren't the issue right now, and if you would like to revisit that, should suicide from pills or DUI related crashes become an issue, I'd love to discuss it further.

Because those are one-off situations.

900,000 people have died from covid virus in the last year and a half, let alone those who get extremely sick and take up hospital beds for weeks. It's a national/global emergency.

Usually a suicidal person has a degree of mental illness as well. So if you argue that those who don't use mask or vaccines are mentally ill, then that would be more of an apt comparison. However, still, there are 900,000 dead from Covid in the USA. The USA went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan (wrongly, I might add - we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, as 18 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia uses its great wealth to fund madrases and terrorism all over the world). But that is a digression.

But, to your point, I personally agree that if there were 900,000 people dying of drunk driving per year, then absolutely yes, put them as low down on the treatment scale scale as possible. If anyone comes in for sepsis, car accident (not caused by alcohol), or any other reason, the doctors and nurses should immediately start treating the people who weren't drunk driving, and free up the bed - put the drunk driver on the floor in the hallway, whatever. Get to him or her when you can, as soon as actual not-at-fault victims are taken care of first. Because f-ck drunk drivers. They are JUST as stupid as anti-maskers and anti-vaccine people.

AIUI the way emergency care in the US works is it's basically strictly a FIFO of those in need of urgent care.

You treat what's in front of you in need of life-saving care you're capable of providing, and start turning away what you can't treat for lack of capacity.

This is exceptionally vulnerable to DoS attack, which is what we're effectively seeing. The FIFO will be overwhelmingly full of ivermectin overdoses in pandemic hot spots coinciding with widespread belief that self-administered ivermectin is effective treatment for said pandemic.

Nobody wants to be in a position of prioritizing one patient's urgent needs over another, which is why this FIFO approach has become the standard; it's the non-judgemental (and lowest liability) option.

> Their genes need to be taken out of the gene pool.

I suspect that the majority of people taking Ivermectin are no longer breeding, so it makes little difference to the gene pool.

An early inheritance could even allow their children to breed more, causing the genes to become more common!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com