231–240 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the last one on the list (neither vaccine nor covid) has a higher chance of carrying covid.
In general they are more susceptible to becoming infected and once infected they have higher risk of negative outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I would think, but apparently Malaysia for example really wants people to have recovered from COVID specifically.
About everyone will get it sooner or later, vaccinated or not. (Pets are a reservoir, and nobody is vaccinating them.) The best to hope for is not to die, be hospitalized, or suffer various long-term or permanent effects. Vaccination is all we have to prevent those.
That's the point. If you wanted to ensure people to not get COVID, do not give those who have had COVID pleasant exemptions. They failed, they should not be rewarded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also basically murdered someone via stabbing so kudos for giving his body to science, but there's a case that he should have spent his life in prison.
> there's a case that he should have spent his life in prison. Why? Normally you do this because you want people that cannot reform to stay away without resorting to murder. This person was gravely ill, which is it's own prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, half of your hearth failing being "exceptionally unpleasant" is not a surprise. Anyways, wouldn't it be feasible to use wireless power transfer?
It is, and it has even been done. One large limitation is that it's not a great idea to have batteries inside the body. An LVAD is intrinsically liquid-cooled; batteries are not. Ruggedly encapsulating a battery means it is fairly well-insulated and can get warm. Batteries also fail pretty unpredictably- they're fundamentally dozens of square feet of very thin film, and it's very difficult to ensure that every batter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know how arrogant that is? Alcoholics aren't people who deserve to die because of some kind of moral failing. Very often they're alcoholic because of other mental health problems or abuse. Would you want to deny a clininically depressed person your liver because they might commit suicide?
Im a recovering alcoholic myself, don't lecture me. I didn't say they deserve to die. But if they can't stay sober they don't deserve a liver over someone else who may need it more.
You're now changing your idea to add "over someone who may need it more", which is different, and I'm not disagreeing with that. It's the same as favoring young or healthy people because they're likely to gain more life extension from a transplant when the rest of their body is working OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im a recovering alcoholic myself, don't lecture me. I didn't say they deserve to die. But if they can't stay sober they don't deserve a liver over someone else who may need it more.
You don't represent alcoholics. Personal experience gives you a bias, not a justification for being condescending. Medical decisions are not and should not be based on moral judgements of the patient's behavior. You're now changing your idea to add "over someone who may need it more", which is different, and I'm not disagreeing with that. It's the same as favoring young or healthy people because they're likely to gai…
There was and is no condescension present. I don't look down on them just like I wouldn't look down on a 90 year old man whose liver is failing from natural causes. Neither would be my first choice for recipients of my liver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About everyone will get it sooner or later, vaccinated or not. (Pets are a reservoir, and nobody is vaccinating them.) The best to hope for is not to die, be hospitalized, or suffer various long-term or permanent effects. Vaccination is all we have to prevent those.
Yes, but measures like the policies in question encourage people to get infected with symptomatic COVID so that they could go to doctor and get that very useful piece of paper. That's the point. If you wanted to ensure people to not get COVID, do not give those who have had COVID pleasant exemptions. They failed, they should not be rewarded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also basically murdered someone via stabbing so kudos for giving his body to science, but there's a case that he should have spent his life in prison.
He also lost a civil case, where the plaintiff was award 3.4 million in restitution, in which he paid $0 into. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/13/pig-heart...
What makes him any less deserving? I don’t want to downplay the fact that he stabbed a guy, but the criminal justice system sentenced him and he, by all accounts, appears to have regretted his actions and reformed to be a good person. It seems like the system worked far better than it usually ever does. Once you’ve gone through the system and come out the other side rehabilitated, you’re done: continuing to deny random services, including in this case access to experimental surgery, is just cruel and seems really a desire for continued revenge against this person (which I definitely understand from a human perspective, but definitely does not belong in our social services scheduling).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US I presume? Canadians have a harder time... In Canada/Ontario, you have to convince your doctor to give you a cholesterol test, e.g. family history. It won't be done preventively [1]. Even if you manage to get tested, if you're under 40 the doctor won't care and there will be no followup. [1] https://exechealth.ca/ontario-drops-annual-physicals/
Meh. Might be an American thing, if you watch TV or news the images of persons will be constantly telling you to ask your doctor about this, consult a medical professional before this other activity they advertise, and oh you gotta see a dentist every six months. Just demand creation, better just to get a blood-pressure test when you do see a doctor and a cholesterol test based on the result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A test in the US < $50 and is easy to schedule without having a doctor involved at LabCore or similar. Is that an option in CA?
That's interesting pricing. I just did some blood tests at Quest Labs w/o a Dr and it ran me $200
Walgreens also has cholesterol tests for ~30$ https://news.walgreens.com/press-center/news/walgreens-intro...