[ad_1]
All over the world, hospitals and traditional healers have had it they were very close that both Covid and non-Covid patients should apply the same principles, that care should not be the first, first-line treatment (due to differences in availability), and that the initial cost should be the maximum number of people leaving the hospital alive. Some cultures sometimes start to work if you think about magic: a good life, or the years you lived or, like, with someone who is precious, even a few. (And triage is not the only way to distribute vaccinated and non-vaccinated people; back in return for Covid care Seems like a good rejection of the idea of stopping shooting.)
One of the things that medical and medical professionals have come up with over and over again is to avoid “stigma,” which causes a person to leave the profession. For example, prior to vaccination, older Covid patients died at a much higher rate than younger people. But no one wants to take the elderly out of the hospital, right? That would be disgusting. Or, as a group of Swiss cultural experts he objected last spring, you can distinguish between the “first methods,” such as population, and the “second method,” the subtleties that can only be ruined – two patients, the same in every way, the same mindset, the same disease. But the choices you have to consider are very much false. If it is healthy, how do you check it? How can socioeconomics affect the disease, and can you respond appropriately? What social scientists and the Texas community are floating around, in particular, if the vaccine could be a second-line tolerance — even, to be clear, one of the main points is that the vaccine could not, by itself, be a separate standard.
Among other things, it’s because the whole idea comes with a little warning, well, Texas. Of course, only a small number of people with the vaccine get very sick. But no one knows if he is very sick vaccine people have better outcomes – more survival – than even serious illness without vaccination people. It seems that when you are sick enough to stay in the hospital, you are sick enough to stay in the hospital. But as far as I know, nothing like this has been published. “I also have the same opinion because of what I have seen, but this is very early on. No peer-reviewed research has shown this, “says Fine.” That’s why one has to be careful. “
Very carefully. A big part of the concept of triage guidelines is inconsistency, so individual physicians should not rely on their own assumptions. “Covid has taught us a lot, but the fact is that there are a lot of medical preferences, and that is a result of Covid,” says Lo. “And we don’t want this to happen.”
In addition, the way we all understand and sympathize with the anger and frustration of health-conscious workers, who are at risk of illness — anything we can say would be compromised. “We know people are frustrated and angry, but it’s not the basis for decision making,” Fine said.
Vaccination, as Fine points out, is far more serious than anger can permit. “I think we have to be very careful in saying that someone has decided not to get vaccinated. Some people say so, “says Lo.” But there are some people who are having difficulty making contact, who do not know the internet, who do not speak English as their mother tongue. , their pay is up. ”And doctors who attempt to take a vaccine can do so even if it means doing so.
For this reason, even people refuse vaccinations because they think they will not get sick, or if they do, then horse deworm medicine it could save them, or the vaccine has 5G magnets that Bill Gates can turn into wolves (That’s not it! That’s not the case!) – those people are being deceived by leaders they trust. Errors are cheap; the more common ones are the more expensive. And as bad as Covid’s numbers may be in the southern hemisphere, anger could be directed at political leaders who reject basic health care instead of the people who suffer as a result.
Information From WIRED on Covid-19
[ad_2]
Source link
