News Just In
How the battle to bully people into getting a COVID-19 vaccine keeps getting uglier
As if it weren’t bad enough that some people have called to make unvaccinated people pay for otherwise Medicare-funded healthcare or to deny them beds in the intensive care unit in the event that level of care is needed, the latest news blast seems to be even more spiteful that ever.
On the 1pm news update on a popular Top End radio station today (February 25th, 2022), they announced the recent approval of a new COVID-19 therapeutic. I didn’t catch the name and after scouring their website I can’t find the report in writing, however the name of the drug isn’t really relevant to the point of this post. The news report claimed this medication “prevents the COVID-19 virus from entering a person’s cells” and it will be used for people who “couldn’t get a vaccine” (who are these people given everyone has not only had the opportunity to get a vaccine, many have been mandated and there is virtually no pathway to absolute exemption) and those who are “immunocompromised”. Sounds harmless enough so far.
The news reader finished her report by saying “the medication will not be used for people who have no medical reason for not getting vaccinated”. Seriously?! So you want us to believe that this medication is a huge positive step in treating patients with COVID-19, but people with no medical reason for not getting vaccinated, don’t deserve it?! Wow. The spite is unparalleled.
We provide all other medical treatment options to all patients, regardless of their healthcare choices and/or the way their previous actions have adversely impacted others (and there is no compelling evidence to suggest an unvaccinated person adversely impacts others any more significantly that a vaccinated person could).
Let me give you an example. You could be an obese, chain-smoking, illicit drug-using, paedophile and serial killer serving a life sentence in prison and you will be offered all clinically indicated, taxpayer funded medical treatment you need, no questions asked (about your poor choices and criminal history, anyway). I am certainly not defending the actions of our hypothetical example, but this is absolutely how it should be. The moment we start refusing people treatment (either in part or entirely) based on their past behaviour, is the moment we step onto a slippery slope I suspect many people don’t realise could soon lead to them. It would seem that moment is now, and the first ‘step’ is the unvaccinated.
Shame.
'Othering' the targeted group is a crucial stage in preparing the rest of the population to commit atrocities against them.
Most people understand analogies better than abstract logical arguments, so I'm all in favour of using the analogy of the smoker who develops lung cancer, the alcoholic who crashes their car, the obese person who ends up with a gangrenous limb from diabetes etc, to remind those tempted to jump on the "antivaxx" othering bandwagon that they would be seen by others (and probably by themselves) as totally beyond the pale if they screeched that people shouldn't receive the treatment their taxes pay for, if their own behaviour caused their condition. (Not that remaining unjabbed actually causes a person to get COVID-19, as we're currently seeing!)