So, if it turned out that the vaccine caused side effects that resulted in large cases in the ICU or cancer incidents down the road, you are willing to put them at the end of the line since they decided to take the vaccine? Do you not see how many variations of this argument can be made and how nonsensical the results would be?
City dwellers have increased incidence of cancer or whatever other ailment, so their choice to live in cities precludes them from medical services. Marijuana smokers have higher incidences of x so they don’t get treatment. Motorcycle, bicycle, and scooter drivers are risky actors so their choices preclude them from care. Where does it end?
When there are enough ICU nurses available to meet the demand.
>Doesn’t seem like freedom to me.
Again, can you give me a definition. It sounds like something 'empty' an American would say. Do you mean, Liberty? Like from the French Revolution?
This discussion doesn't matter in the US anyway, because you already have economic triage, where there is just no hospital near poor people. So in the US, the poor people are just 'free to die'.
When we need to triage it absolutely makes sense to take into account how much the ailment depended on the patient's known-to-be-risky choices. Motorcyclists and drug users, sure.
Since the major vaccines have minimal known side effects, we should not now or later blame people for taking them.
City dwellers have increased incidence of cancer or whatever other ailment, so their choice to live in cities precludes them from medical services. Marijuana smokers have higher incidences of x so they don’t get treatment. Motorcycle, bicycle, and scooter drivers are risky actors so their choices preclude them from care. Where does it end?
Doesn’t seem like freedom to me.