Fair point. An overrun issue can be mitigated if a) hospitals would not dismiss unvaccinated staff thereby leading them to be understaffed (an unstaffed bed = not a bed, which is one reason why hospitals "don't have enough beds"), and b) US medical staff would accept more of the treatment options available in other countries (Japan, India, etc) such as ivermectin.
> Fair point. An overrun issue can be mitigated if a) hospitals would not dismiss unvaccinated staff thereby leading them to be understaffed (an unstaffed bed = not a bed, which is one reason why hospitals "don't have enough beds")
I don't believe this is actually a problem. I think you're either mistaken or making this up. Got a citation I might believe this is actually causing any meaningful effects? Because if not, I think hospital staff have a duty to do everything in their power, within reason, to not harm their patients, or make pandemics worse. Which is exactly what someone working with covid patents would do, turn one infection and 20 maybes into 22 infections.
> US medical staff would accept more of the treatment options available in other countries (Japan, India, etc) such as ivermectin.
I'm super hopeful ivermectin is proven to be a useful antiviral. Which it currently isn't. We're in dire need of useful antivirals, and it's only going to get worse. The US has a nasty history of experimenting on it's population, one we're rightfully very careful to make sure we don't repeat. So pretending ivermectin is anything other than uncontrolled experimentation is dishonest at best. There are times when experimental treatments are justified. Hospital capacity ethically speaking isn't one of them.
This may be me, but I like my first line treatments to be backed by large sample, peer approved research before they're used. Radical treatments for the critically ill is another topic; but that's not what we're talking about here is it?
I don't have time to read all of these articles but the first three I spot checked before I stopped said nothing about ivermectin so this is the most intellectually dishonest and argumentally malicious post I've read in a long time congratulations. I don't know what psychotic forum you pulled this copy paste off of but if you expect others to believe what you post perhaps you should at least try to do the most basic of investigations and just see if any of these articles actually mentioned the word ivermectin at all. I am angry I've spent as much time reading these articles as I already have.
So far clicking through a dozen or so from the top I've seen a mix of (a) review articles/lit searches outlining past research on ivermectin or other repurpose-able drugs as antivirals (b) in vitro studies (c) articles about the theoretical ways ivermectin could work [mostly about binding sites, with one long one going over the entire virus life-cycle] and (d) two or three like you saw that don't even mention ivermectin.
You cannot seriously be trying to advocate for hospitals being run with unvaccinated staff.
> We treated your asthma attack, sorry about the covid that you got while you were here, hope those two things don't affect each other
I have to agree with the other commenter that you're either not arguing in good faith, or you're so blindly ideologically driven that you've thrown basic reasoning skills out the window.
Unvaccinated staff get sick and die, and staff members of all sorts of vaccination status can get sick and miss work, and also transmit the disease to at risk loved ones.
I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but vaccinated people can still transmit the disease to others. There is probably some reduction in risk but the magnitude is unclear.
