My thought experiment does not indicate any moral judgement as far as I see it. I would say it is designed to tug on emotions to make people think but it doesn't decide what answer is the morally right one. Two people can run through the thought experiment and come to opposite conclusions. One might say the terrorist goes to the back of the line for reasons ABC and the other might say the terrorist should be triaged just the same as the victim for reasons XYZ. People may use morality to come to their conclusion but I am not morally judging what conclusions people come to.

You are right though that certain pre-existing medical conditions would complicate a policy that places the unvaccinated at the back of the line. This would be, in my opinion, one of the stronger argument against using a triage system that prioritizes the vaccinated.


I wouldn't say I believe it is morally right to triage an unvaccinated person as lower priority compared to a vaccinated person. I can see a few positives to it but a number of negatives that I am not comfortable with.

My personal position on the matter of forced vaccinations is that I will never support forced vaccinations of any kind. I don't trust the government with that kind of power, though they technically already have it for members of the military. Now if a private employer wants to mandate a vaccine that I somewhat support since they are private. I think it is ok for the government to incentivize a vaccine but the line from incentive to force can get a little blurry.

Your thought experiment has another facet that you aren't including.  More and more, the government makes these decisions.   If we ever go to universal single-payer government run healthcare for all, we WILL see rationing, the same as we have seen in Europe.

You need to ask "Who has the power to make the decisions on who gets treated and who must take a number."  Pretending the individual in the ER or ICU has that sole power isn't realistic.

#1  Why else do you think they're pushing to get as many shots in arms as quickly as possible?  Maybe BECAUSE the liability protection won't last forever?

#2  Who said you can't get longterm side effects from the virus?  Who is "acting" like ONLY the vaccine leaves you with side effects?  Nobody here that I've seen.  If both the vaccine and the virus have a risk of long term side effects, where's the benefit IN THIS CONTEXT of taking the vaccine?

#3  The word "completely" is the operative phrase.  Maybe not 100% completely, but the vaccine does become inert over a few months.  How that affects immunity in the body is to be seen. 

Regular annual flu shots are effective until the next annual shot.  From what's being told to us, the COVID vaccine isn't effective UNTIL you get a booster.  Then you may need another booster in 6 months (like Biden just had).  Then you need another in 6 months, and another, and another.  There are no studies, as well there can't be, that show the longterm side effects of taking these periodic boosters to continually force your body to develop immunity to a disease -- an immunity that's not even close to the level promised.

When was the last time you heard the term "Herd Immunity?"  Is that no longer relevant for this virus?  Now it has to be 100%?

#1 IIRC the liability protection was for 4 years so there is ample time to get everyone immunized. Secondly the protection as I understand it isn't against people who get immunized in that window but merely that they cannot get sued within that 4 years. So even if you got the vaccine now, you could still sue after the 4 year window expired.

#2 If someone is scared of the vaccine because of the unknown side effects but not scared of the unknown side effects of covid then they aren't being objective because they are being selectively scared of the unknown. Don't get me wrong, the unknown is always a bit scary but I think if we look at the unknowns vs the unknowns the vaccine is the safer bet. We already know a number of long term side effects from a covid infection plus the unknown. Compare that to the unknown long term side effects of the vaccine. Both have long term unknowns but one has long term knowns. If I have to pick between two rooms containing unknown animals but I know one room for sure has a tiger then the room with the tiger is not the safer bet.

#3 In all the reporting and data that I have seen about the waining protection I have never seen anything that the numbers indicated the effectiveness decreases to a level where it no longer had any significance. IIRC the average flu vaccine has an effectiveness of about 40% so even if the vaccine fell from 95% effective to lets say 50% that isn't really an argument against it. A big part of the reason we get flu vaccines every year is because the influenza virus mutates so quickly, and because the flu vaccine actually contains multiple strains of the virus cause they can't perfectly predict which ones will go through a population. it isn't because the vaccines simply wear out.

One of my big objections is that the vaccine passport here does not take into account natural immunity which has shown to be quite effective and may even be more effective than the vaccine alone. Israel counts you as protected on their vaccine passport if you recovered from from covid and I see no good reason that we have completely failed to recognize that.

Your thought experiment has another facet that you aren't including.  More and more, the government makes these decisions.   If we ever go to universal single-payer government run healthcare for all, we WILL see rationing, the same as we have seen in Europe.

You need to ask "Who has the power to make the decisions on who gets treated and who must take a number."  Pretending the individual in the ER or ICU has that sole power isn't realistic.

That certainly is a valid question but I would argue that it is a separate issue. The question was how should triage policy be set, not who gets to set it.

That certainly is a valid question but I would argue that it is a separate issue. The question was how should triage policy be set, not who gets to set it.

Who says we need to redefine triage? You? Who made you god?

The media used to say hospitals near max capacity every flu season. So no diff from covid times. Or where they lying back then?which means why trust them now.

Who says we need to redefine triage? You? Who made you god?

Redefine? You assume everyone had a triage plan for pandemics in place. Not all triage models are the same either, it's not like there is a single triage model. G

Nowhere did I say it had to be redefined either.

The media used to say hospitals near max capacity every flu season. So no diff from covid times. Or where they lying back then?which means why trust them now.

I don't ever recall hearing such a thing? Hospitals were threatening to turn away patients because of an inundation of influenza patients?

I don't ever recall hearing such a thing? Hospitals were threatening to turn away patients because of an inundation of influenza patients?

no, that's his point
ICUs are at 100% more of the year than you would think, especially during flu season
and no, they don't threaten to turn away patients during flu season
that's why people question...

no, that's his point
ICUs are at 100% more of the year than you would think, especially during flu season
and no, they don't threaten to turn away patients during flu season
that's why people question...

But are they at 100% for extended periods of time and across large areas to where someone can't simply go to another facility? I know hospitals will experience surges and tell ambulances to take patients elsewhere but is it as bad as now? Are people being told to wait on essential surgeries and sent home if the condition isn't immediately life threatening? Is this happening all the time but we just never hear about it?

I was thinking about the idea of using morality and I realized that there does seem to be other areas where morality is factored into decisions, even by the government. Take for example at a murder trial: you might see a family member get on the stand and testify about what a great person the murder victim was but why do we allow it? A murder is a murder, someone's life was taken, why does it matter if they were pretty or funny or had a bunch of friends?

Maybe this shouldn't be allowed at trials or do we allow morality to come into play sometimes and if we do how do we draw a line?

I was thinking about the idea of using morality and I realized that there does seem to be other areas where morality is factored into decisions, even by the government. Take for example at a murder trial: you might see a family member get on the stand and testify about what a great person the murder victim was but why do we allow it? A murder is a murder, someone's life was taken, why does it matter if they were pretty or funny or had a bunch of friends?

Maybe this shouldn't be allowed at trials or do we allow morality to come into play sometimes and if we do how do we draw a line?

Now you’re arguing in favor of “guilty until proven innocent”? All these totalitarian wet dreams of yours disguised as questions of morality had me confused about your motives for a bit now I get it. For you morality is just another tool in the Arsenal for imposing your will on others.

You’re a psychopath.

Heard discussion on sports radio last night about how the NBA was trying, or more to the point testing was to get compliance via different approaches to mandates, penalties etc. Anyways, NBA is now as a point where they are up front about trying various fines and penalties to see where players didn’t comply, or where they noted a move to compliance. Where a couple of fines didn’t deter, so they looked to other ways to get conformance. As well as looking at which cities had restrictions and angling things that way.

Doesn’t take a thought experiment to see what that’s about…

Now you’re arguing in favor of “guilty until proven innocent”? All these totalitarian wet dreams of yours disguised as questions of morality had me confused about your motives for a bit now I get it. For you morality is just another tool in the Arsenal for imposing your will on others.

You’re a psychopath.

On second thought labeling someone a psychopath is not helpful, just like labeling someone as autistic oversimplifies a complex situation.

These are actually a clinical diagnoses and there is a wide spectrum,. Just because someone shows up on a spectrum does not mean they are on the same level as Rain Man or Ted Bundy.

There are plenty of people on the PCL-R scale functioning in high levels of government and industry as well as many other common occupations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/01/05/the-top-10-jobs-that-attract-psychopaths/?sh=35dc9c1b4d80

Unfortunately we now live in a time when our society has made a critical concentration of them in our elite classes and we have clearly failed to keep their worst tendencies in check

Heard discussion on sports radio last night about how the NBA was trying, or more to the point testing was to get compliance via different approaches to mandates, penalties etc. Anyways, NBA is now as a point where they are up front about trying various fines and penalties to see where players didn’t comply, or where they noted a move to compliance. Where a couple of fines didn’t deter, so they looked to other ways to get conformance. As well as looking at which cities had restrictions and angling things that way.

Doesn’t take a thought experiment to see what that’s about…

So making life difficult to coerce compliance.  Nothing wrong with this according to 1 person here, or was here. He's been MIA for a while.  Maybe on vacation or lost access from work?  Forum has been a lot better since he's gone. 

So making life difficult to coerce compliance.  Nothing wrong with this according to 1 person here, or was here. He's been MIA for a while.  Maybe on vacation or lost access from work?  Forum has been a lot better since he's gone.

Compliance by trial and error.  Oh, they don't care about that, try this. . .

It has been quite peaceful. . .

These are actually a clinical diagnoses and there is a wide spectrum,. Just because someone shows up on a spectrum does not mean they are on the same level as Rain Man or Ted Bundy.

There are plenty of people on the PCL-R scale functioning in high levels of government and industry as well as many other common occupations.


Unfortunately we now live in a time when our society has made a critical concentration of them in our elite classes and we have clearly failed to keep their worst tendencies in check

This is why I talk to those on the spectrum a certain way.  As in I give them lots of breaks if they're doing/saying something that makes zero sense.  But after so many errors, then there is no choice but to just ignore them.  Depending on the situation, I try to help them out by being blunt, because maybe no one took the time to lay it all down for them.  And do understand that even after being blunt, they may not understand what you're telling them.  So I may have to lay it down again and again.  Until it reaches the point of ignoring. 

Now you’re arguing in favor of “guilty until proven innocent”? All these totalitarian wet dreams of yours disguised as questions of morality had me confused about your motives for a bit now I get it. For you morality is just another tool in the Arsenal for imposing your will on others.

You’re a psychopath.

WTF? There is no reasonable way you can arrive at that conclusion from my post. All I did was question whether we should allow someone to testify about the victim being a good person and somehow you jump to guilty until proven innocent? 

I haven't really weighed in on my personal position in terms of whether vaccination status should affect a triage situation on a ethical or moral ground but I think I have arrived at a semi solid stance. If I were in the position of power to set the triage guidelines I don't think I would place someone who isn't vaccinated lower in line than someone who was vaccinated (all things else being equal). I do think the moral argument can be made that an unvaccinated person is contributing to the problem, I think the data certainly makes that argument on its own. But I would never lead with a message of blame, rather I would stress the message of people getting vaccinated because they love their neighbor and their family and want to do their part to protect their neighbors. Americans aren't always great at that sentiment which can be both good and bad depending on the circumstances but I think it is a better angle than harsh judgement.

all this vax vs non-vax narratives are just to divide us. Simple.

all this vax vs non-vax narratives are just to divide us. Simple.

Worked for Candidate Biden -- and his trotting mate.