Looking for stats on % of unvaccinated people in ICU with underlying conditions

Here you go - from earlier today:

@Donald Trump would you mind posting links to the sources for those stats?

Bit of false dichotomy there, I think. The single most effective thing you personally can do to protect others from Covid is to get yourself vaccinated. If you could get yourself vaccinated (vaccines are available, you don't have medical issues which prevent you being vaccinated, etc) but choose not to then, obviously, you have to accept some ethical responsibility for the risk that you thereby create for others. And I don't think you can absolve yourself of that responsibility by saying that someone else could and should have intervened to protect others from the risk that you posed. Yes, of course the operators of hospitals should be taking steps to guard against the risk of infections being transmitted within the hospital. But that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility for creating the risk of infection in the first place.

(Not "you" as in foxsake; "you" as in the hypothetical person who chooses not to be vaccinated.)

Even if it were the case that people are catching COVID in hospitals it is not necessarily the case that this represents a "failure" of the hospitals, in the same way that when someone in a household catches it from someone else in a household I wouldn't necessarily call it their "failure".

For instance, someone may admitted in an emergency before they can be tested, or after a negative test whilst they were still incubating. How exactly is this supposed to be avoided? We've seen from mandatory hotel quarantine failures (not just in Ireland but in Australia and NZ) that even when testing and quarantine is used on healthy people who can be segregated in private rooms, transmission can still happen. Now consider a a hospital setting with wards and waiting rooms full of sick people.

I'm not giving the HSE a pass on this, but I think it is OK to give hospitals and their staff the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence of poor infection control.

Thanks. I think this is the CSO report that article is referring to.

One thing I find hard to believe is people with conditions, over 50ish, are not getting vaccinated.

People under 40, completely healthy, not availing of the vaccine, I get that. But over 50 odd. Not a beacon of health. Its not making sense to me.

1) Why are you conflating "underlying conditions" with immunocompromised. They are not the same thing. Your immune system may well be able to fight off the virus all else equal, but the rest of your body might not be up to the task of surviving long enough to allow it to do so!

2) Why are you ignoring that simple fact that many of the unvaccianted, even with underlying conditions, would not have caught the virus, and even if they had, would not have ended up in ICU, had they chosen to be vaccinated.

Let's take another analogy (made up figures). Suppose we look at the last 100 cases of people who died in car accidents. We find that say 50% of them were wearing seat belts and 50% were not. Then we see that 80% of them were driving cars and 20% were in the passenger seat. Applying similar logic to yours, you would conclude that because 80% of the people who died were driving cars anyway, that there is no point wearing a seatbelt if you are a driver.

(To explain the analogy explicitly for anyone confused: "wearing seatbelt" = vaccinated. "not wearing seatbelt" = unvaccinated. "driving car" = underlying condition, "passenger seat" = no underlying condition )

You seem to be approaching this from a blame perspective.

Flipping the argument around, assuming that hospitals are applying all reasonable infection control measures, then they are on receiving end of lack of infection control in the community.

This is an argument I have seen from healthcare professions: "we are doing everything we can but it's incredibly frustrating to see people refusing to take reasonable precautions", e.g. vaccination or wearing masks on public transport.

Everyone has a moral responsibility to take reasonable measures to help control infection in a pandemic.

FWIW I'm not in favour of masks in primary school either. Or secodary school, for that matter. Maybe I'm contradicting myself, but why should school kids wear masks when people are drinking and dancing in pubs and nightclubs without them?

This sh!t again. You can't "shed virus" if you're not infected, and vaccination reduces the probability of being infected.

If you want to be able to choose not to participate and you refuse to take the vaccine to help society, then society should be allowed to put you to the back of the cure for medical help when you get it.

Segregate medical facilities. Put aside 6% of ICU beds for those who choose to be unvaccinated. Because it is statistically a self-inflicted condition. There was a tweet on the other page that 35% in ICU are vaccinated. Given that the vaccinated are about 16x the unvaccinated, then reduce the 65% to the equivalent of 3% (which is nearly 50% more than they should get pro-rated). Or only allow one-in-twelve of those an ICU bed and leave the other eleven in the carpark. ICU capacity problem solved

We shouldn't be taking resources from other services for other patients (cancer etc.) to waste on the scroungers. If we could avoid that, then we wouldn't need the same restrictions in day-to-day life.

You start with junk, then you apply junk logic to it. Are you not embarrassed that you can't understand it still?

I used your assumptions. Tell me why the "Chelsea Fans" have an 11x probability of ending up in ICU once everyone is vaccinated 🤣

If everyone is vaccinated, why would 38/88 in ICU come from 6% of the population when there was nothing else to distinguish them from the other 94% which contribute 50/88

Who ever said they weren't entitled to the same?

I said they were entitled to the same. They are not entitled to extra. Pro-rated is fair. 6% of the population get 6% of the ICU covid beds put aside for them and 94% of the population get 94% of the ICU covid beds put aside for them

Make your choice and accept the consequences. You can't get fairer than that

Man, I'm embarrassed for you.

Use a different label if the "soccer" confuses you. Call 6% redheads and 94% brunettes.

The 6% currently supply 50% to ICU (under your assumptions - not mine. The real number is higher). The 94% supply 50% to ICU.

Your assertion is that were the 6% to get vaccinated, they would instead supply 43% to ICU. And the other 94% would now supply 57%. Even though they are now equal in terms of covid protection.