Singapore not giving free treatment to anti-vaxxers

[Whose]

stops paying for Covid treatment for people who are unvaccinated by choice | The Independent" www.independent.co.uk/asia/southeast-asia/singapore-free-covid-treatment-unvaccinated-b1954077.html?amp

AIBU to think this fair enough?

Currently, unvaccinated persons make up a sizeable majority of those who require intensive inpatient care, and disproportionately contribute to the strain on our healthcare resources,

(Those who haven't had the vaccine because they medically can't are excluded from this)

I think it's fair enough too.

That's the risk they choose to take by not getting vaccinated.

Do you think it's fair to not give free treatment to other people who have taken risks? Perhaps those who chose to play a dangerous sport? Or a child who chooses to climb a high tree? What about someone who steps out into the road with our looking? Or perhaps someone who doesn't eat fruit and vegetables?

All these things are choices that carry a risk. Why is not having a vaccination different?

Absolutely agree. Our spineless government would never introduce this though sadly. Or enforce it.

@KylieKoKo

Do you think it's fair to not give free treatment to other people who have taken risks? Perhaps those who chose to play a dangerous sport? Or a child who chooses to climb a high tree? What about someone who steps out into the road with our looking? Or perhaps someone who doesn't eat fruit and vegetables?

All these things are choices that carry a risk. Why is not having a vaccination different?

Maybe because if you fall from a tree and hurt yourself you are only putting yourself at risk? You can't spread a broken leg.

@KylieKoKo

Do you think it's fair to not give free treatment to other people who have taken risks? Perhaps those who chose to play a dangerous sport? Or a child who chooses to climb a high tree? What about someone who steps out into the road with our looking? Or perhaps someone who doesn't eat fruit and vegetables?

All these things are choices that carry a risk. Why is not having a vaccination different?

Singapore doesn’t have completely free healthcare. It made an exception for covid specifically and the government paid for all treatment. They’ve now removed that benefit for those not vaccinated. So I do think you have a point, but it’s not the case that the unvaccinated are the exception (as would be the case if they were charged in this country), the vaccinated are the exception to the rule. Singapore doesn’t give free treatment for any of the things you list.

No, sorry. I don't agree with anti-vaxxers in any way but nor do I believe healthcare should be withheld because we disagree with others moral choices. Doesn't matter if it's vaccinations, organ donations, blood donations, what charities you donate to or what companies you work for. Accessible healthcare is either a basic right or it is not. I would hope we all agree it is.

No I don't think it's fair enough unless you extend it to obese people, those who abuse alcohol and drugs, those who drive recklessly and endanger their own and other peoples' lives - ultimately you could even extend it to those who break their legs ski-ing or twist an ankle running.

Where does it end? I can see the logic, but it's a very dangerous slippery slope. Either you provide care or you don't.

And even if you pay for everything else in Singapore, they are still coercing people into having medical treatment - ie the vaccine. The vaccine can and has killed people - and so it should always be a choice whether to have it.

I think people need to know that there is no NHS in Singapore and free Covid treatment was brought in as a stand-alone. That being the case I think it’s fair.

@SockFluffInTheBath

I think people need to know that there is no NHS in Singapore and free Covid treatment was brought in as a stand-alone. That being the case I think it’s fair.

I know nothing about the healthcare system in Singapore, so if this is right then I wouldn't really argue against it. I don't think it should translate to how we do things with our national system though.

@KylieKoKo

Do you think it's fair to not give free treatment to other people who have taken risks? Perhaps those who chose to play a dangerous sport? Or a child who chooses to climb a high tree? What about someone who steps out into the road with our looking? Or perhaps someone who doesn't eat fruit and vegetables?

All these things are choices that carry a risk. Why is not having a vaccination different?

You're not going to give the person treating you a broken leg aswell if you go in with that.

@ColinTheKoala

And even if you pay for everything else in Singapore, they are still coercing people into having medical treatment - ie the vaccine. The vaccine can and has killed people - and so it should always be a choice whether to have it.

No they aren't. They are saying that if you make a choice to go against all sensible medical advice and put yourself and others at risk then there is a consequence to that.

The choice is still up to the individual.

Yes, in Singapore with the health system they have it is fair.

@KylieKoKo when was the last time the health service ground to a halt, and ICU was overflowing because people were falling out of trees?

I think it's fine. They arent saying you wont be treated, just you'll have to pay for it. As most antoi vaxxers are convinced they wont need ICU because zinc/ivermectin/snorting vit c they probably wont care. They are unlikely to care very much at the point they are fighting to breathe either.

I think it is fair enough.

Comparing it to people who take risks through extreme sports, certain life style choices etc just doesn't work, it would be impossible to draw the line in those scenarios, what would be an acceptable level of unhealthy or risky life choices and what wouldn't? Hospitals are not at capacity with people falling off trees or in skiing accidents, they are at capacity with (unvaccinated) covid. Yes there are people who in hospital from drug use, alcoholism and poor diet but there are often complex socio economic, culture, education/ awareness issues and psychological issues surrounding this, so again impossible to draw a line.

To be vaccinated and to not be vaccinated is very black and white, it isnt subjective and the line is clearly there to determine inclusion or exclusion for free covid care.

Also, as stated before Singapore does not have a completely free health care system, they made a covid exception. If you choose not to get vaccinated you choose to take the risk of having more chances of getting seriously Ill and not having free treatment should that happen.

@SockFluffInTheBath

I think people need to know that there is no NHS in Singapore and free Covid treatment was brought in as a stand-alone. That being the case I think it’s fair.

I get this, can’t really argue with it but I agree with lockhart this is not something i want to see in the NHS

They can pay for their covid treatment if they do not want the vaccine. They still have a choice. The Singapore government are just saying they are not going to give free treatment anymore. This isn't taking people's choices away.

SO BASICALLY ITS OK TO BE AN ANTIVAXER AS LONG AS YOU AREN'T POOR!!! Well this is a terrifying slope the world is going down, bullying the poor, moral judgements on who gets to work and who gets medical treatment. Everyone who supports this should be ashamed - and yes Im vaccinated and happy to be!

I can't get the link to work.

Singapore is a city state, people live on top of each other and few have cars, they take public health very seriously. They banned smoking on busses and in cinemas in the 1970s and have considered banning smoking from near windows inside people's homes.

You can be fined for dropping chewing gum or not flushing the toilet.

@ColinTheKoala non of the things you list infect other people do they?

I think it sounds fair, though I've not looked at details indepth.

They aren't removing free healthcare for unvaccinated as such; they are offering free healthcare for those who are vaccinated.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

They arent targeting the poor. The government just arent prepared to continue footing the bill for peoples poor decisions to not get vaccinated. If you are worried about being seriously Ill from covid but cant afford the medical bills, just get the vaccine. Sorted!

They have stated it's the unvaccinated taking up most of the resources now, considering how easily avoidable that is it makes sense for them to impose this rule.

@Lockheart

No, sorry. I don't agree with anti-vaxxers in any way but nor do I believe healthcare should be withheld because we disagree with others moral choices. Doesn't matter if it's vaccinations, organ donations, blood donations, what charities you donate to or what companies you work for. Accessible healthcare is either a basic right or it is not. I would hope we all agree it is.

I can’t agree that refusing the vaccine for no medical reason is a ‘moral’ choice. More likely a stupidity/ignorance choice IMO, usually fuelled by anti-vax crap on social media.

I think most of the world's poor would be delighted to get free medical treatment which is generally unavailable to them @OnlyFoolsnMothers Most of them havent been offered a vaccine either.

I’m an ICU dr.

I find this disgusting. Entirely unethical.

If we don’t offer free treatment to everyone who’s contributed to their own illness….we’d treat hardly anyone for free.

There is also, IME, a very strong correlation indeed between poor levels of education and anti-vaxx views. I’m not interested in punishing people because they have had significantly less education that I’ve had.

The day I start judging patients like this is the day I leave medicine. I’ll know I’ve become a deformed soul.