Hacker News Reader

Comment by lovich | Hacker News Reader

> Secondly, it is massively against a breach of ethics to intentionally withhold care from people because of a moral judgement.

I don’t think framing it as a moral judgement is correct. We don’t have the capacity in our medical system to keep this up forever, and the electorate has signaled they don’t want to pay for increasing the systems capacity. Cutting off the purposely unvaccinated is just triage

View on HN

I don’t have an answer but I always get stuck on the slippery slope intersection about what differentiates willingly unvaxxed vs people that don’t exercise and eat healthy enough.

The unvaxxed tipped the system. It’s like when your company finally adds npm audit checks to your ci pipeline and you are the first team to push a patch after that. Sucks that you got the luck of the draw and are dealing with the failures of multiple groups, but the failures are real now and there is no more forward progress without handling the situation

Sure, the electorate has thus far been unwilling to increase the capacity. At the same time the private medical facilities have been underpaying, overworking, and under-resourcing our hospitals. They close rural hospitals because they're not profitable /enough/. We could have more beds, and happier staff, but then the profits would be lower.

I agree that the hospitals as private businesses have not handled the situation well because they are seeking profit, but the electorate has no punished them for it.

There are no single issue voters for increasing the medical systems capacity. There are multiple political groups who care about the medical system but none who are willing to sacrifice every other possible gain if they get an improved medical system. That is what I mean about the electorate signaling that they do not care

Reply on news.ycombinator.com