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)

@CheeseMmmm *singapore

@CheeseMmmm - size of flat is all relative - lots of places in London and new builds are small in uk. Some flats are pretty spacious. Shared gardens and playgrounds are an efficient use of space. I did wfh living with 2 small kids and 2 other adults in spacious 2 bed flat in during pandemic.

@onlychildhamster - over in U.K. where I am housing is in short supply. I think there was a policy of councils selling off housing stock but not being able to build new houses (my husband said this was thatcher?). Instead private developers buy large chunks of land then hoard it and build on it at a snails pace, to keep prices high. If councils or govt body did a building program then there there would not be this issue.

If the take up of measles vaccine continues falling away though then it will become more of a problem.

I can't see there being an appetite for creating a class of people in society here who are unable to eg work/ get benefits if needed/ not get NHS/ or whatever people are thinking.

There's also the issue that it would indirectly affect certain groups in society more than others. Some groups that were targeted via SM with disinformation/ scare stories etc.

Both of those things I think would really divide society which wouldn't be good overall.

In the end I'm a carrot rather than a stick person though.

Really interesting namenic thank you!

On the second part yes it was Thatcher. The housing situation here is a constant and big issue. So many different things that are making lives really difficult for people. Lots of profiteering for sure. It's a mess really.

@CheeseMmmm this is a 110 sq m 5 room flats. The new builds are smaller than the older flats cos I guess families are smaller...
esales.hdb.gov.sg/bp25/MNHG/eamnh19/5room.html

@CheeseMmmm it was an eye opener buying property in the UK. I did not understand how a country that provides free healthcare would allow ordinary citizens to struggle to buy their home and instead prefer to spend billions on housing benefit for landlords. I was told on Mumsnet that this was because healthcare is a right but property ownership wasn't (and property ownership was about adding value and gardens and responsibility and what I was suggesting was frankly dangerous and socialist etc etc). I never thought of it that way; for me, property can absolutely be a way to earn money, my dad owns commercial property in Singapore and he has flipped condos. But surely the government should ensure that everyone with a job should own at least a basic home so they don't pay rent in retirement and the cheapest way of doing that is actually building it rather than leaving it to the private sector who are beholden to shareholders.if people want large houses with big gardens or flats with rooftop pools, they can buy it themselves and there are plenty of such properties in Singapore as well.

And while I could afford to buy my flat in London, I do wish it was much cheaper (and that it had an extra bedroom) and without government intervention, I don't see it ever being affordable for most young people, even if prices have stagnated quite a bit.

@CheeseMmmm - hehe, yes my British husband tries to persuade me that carrots are better motivators (I’m not convinced! I grew up in Singapore - quite literally with the stick approach - though I think this is not common now). But culturally the outlook is different, so it’s easy to see why they systems in the 2 places are very different.

@onlychildhamster - yes, shelter really ought to be seen as a basic right in U.K. the supply of properties has not kept pace with population growth and people are too attached to having a house and garden (though I have a house and garden).

CheeseMmmm there are quite a few countries where not having your children given the standard childhood vaccines means they cannot access schools and nurseries. And actually, I am not opposed to that idea as long as there are robust medical exemptions. Woo and religion should not count. I have zero time for antivaxxers of any kind. If they want to opt out of society, they should do it properly.

@Namenic 'stick' works better in singapore. Cos people aren't just motivated by the 'stick', they are also more likely to be influenced by their relatives' fear of the stick and in singapore, people are much more likely to succumb to social pressure as families are more close knit. Like in sngapore, its common for children and family members to pay for the elderly's healthcare costs. I remember one of my aunts being unwilling to get additional health insurance because she thought it was a waste of money, her son retorted that getting the insurance wasn't for herself, it was for him and his sister as they would be responsible for all medical costs (and may end up with a big bill if she didn't get the insurance). There were some truly ridiculous reasons that anti vaxers in singapore gave when interviewed by the media:

1. They were so old and sick anyway that it didn't matter if they died
2. she didn't want to go out of the house, she needed their son to take her, she didn't know where the vax centre and she didn't want to trouble the son

If their families were sensible in any way, they would not allow their family members to go on without a vaccination now that fees will be charged. Its very different in the UK, even if we started charging for covid treatment or even decreed that anti vaxers would lose their jobs (already happening for care workers and nhs), the true anti vaxers would still refuse to vax because their loss in income is their business and their business only. They may just go on benefits (unlikely as there would always be job vacancies in the gig economy). but even benefits is the worst that could happen.. people don't succumb to social pressure the same way here.

There was a stampede at an event featuring P Diddy in 1991 which resulted in 9 dead

www.legalrightsadvice.com/best-of-99-puff-daddy-heavy-d-found-liable-for-deadly-stampede/

He was found jointly liable after trying to shift the blame elsewhere for failings in security.

Its hard to see how Travis will get out of being found liable.

I also note that 8 out of the 9 deaths for this previous event were settled out of court.

Given Travis's offer so far, I can't see that endeering him to out of court settlements on behalf of survivors and relatives. Of course when offered large amounts of money some minds will be changed, but this has a different sense.

The crowd seems to have been a blamed for its behaviour in this previous incident. This time all the footage makes it hard for that to happen...

@RedToothBrush

Wrong thread?

A leading scientists has claimed that covid could very well hamper the next 5 Christmases in the UK.

Was it one of the same leading scientists that predicted there would be over 100,000 cases a day in the summer when the mask mandates were removed in England?

@bumbleymummy

A leading scientists has claimed that covid could very well hamper the next 5 Christmases in the UK.

Was it one of the same leading scientists that predicted there would be over 100,000 cases a day in the summer when the mask mandates were removed in England?

Probably

Great video on singapore healthcare for those interested.

Yes it should go for any unnecessary risk without benefit if you want NHS to pay. Playing football for example, you may break a leg but has benefits that outweigh the risk.

However, if you are very overweight you shouldn't be covered for any obesity related condition free if charge as it's a lifestyle choices

NHS should be contingent on what you paid in and how you looked after yourself. EMG. If you never worked and don't have a disability you only get basic level care. If you pay tax you get more choice in In your care. If you have a BMI in normal range you are covered but if you are fat you dont get covered for joints, heart, type 2 diabetes as your lifestyle choices make it more likely you will use the NHS.

@Brieandcamembert

Yes it should go for any unnecessary risk without benefit if you want NHS to pay

No-one in Singapore expects the NHS to pay.

HTH.

'Yes it should go for any unnecessary risk without benefit if you want NHS to pay. Playing football for example, you may break a leg but has benefits that outweigh the risk.'

Does it?

Let's see the figures on sport/ injury etc.

My old job men were off all the time because they fell down mountains. Skiing, mountain biking etc

Pita.

They ate a LOT of avocado, steak and eggs though. Yay?

Diets. Etc.

@Brieandcamembert

Yes it should go for any unnecessary risk without benefit if you want NHS to pay. Playing football for example, you may break a leg but has benefits that outweigh the risk.

However, if you are very overweight you shouldn't be covered for any obesity related condition free if charge as it's a lifestyle choices

NHS should be contingent on what you paid in and how you looked after yourself. EMG. If you never worked and don't have a disability you only get basic level care. If you pay tax you get more choice in In your care. If you have a BMI in normal range you are covered but if you are fat you dont get covered for joints, heart, type 2 diabetes as your lifestyle choices make it more likely you will use the NHS.

OH!

I've had loads of expensive NHS treatment due to congenital abnormality as child. Years. Must have cost fucktons.

That fucked me up tbh.

So. All that work and cost should be written off and MH results should be left to be...

I think that's what you mean?

@Soyouthought

"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?
Because you aren’t usually putting others at risk in these scenarios."

++++++

So on that logic should children that have not been vaccinated against chicken pox be denied treatment for it or for that matter measles etc .

Or going with your "putting others at risk thesis", if a drunk driver crashed killing or injuring a passenger and injured himself, aside from prosecution should he also be denied medical treatment for his injuries? I mean on your logic he has taken a risk (driving drunk) that has put others (the passenger) at risk including himself.

We need to be very careful on the path we chose here, access to medical care should not be judgemental on the patient's risks taken or life style choices, so why should it be any different for Covid.

@Brieandcamembert to my knowledge, there is no developed country in the world where health treatment is determined on the basis of your lifestyle choices. You either have an insurance/savings model or a free at the point of access model. The insurance model can vary based on how 'egalitarian it is', on one end of the spectrum you have American which has a private insurance model with a safety net (Medicare) only for the poorest and thousands uninsured and at the other end of the spectrum you have countries like Germany which basically functions like a NHS system where comprehensive insurance that covers all conditions is compulsory and available to all; even if you are unemployed, the state will pay your insurance premiums and your premiums are based on your income unless you get private insurance. Singapore is at the middle of the spectrum; the forced saving of as much as 37% of your income (employer +employee contributions) with a large portion of that (10% of income) ringfenced for healthcare is the 'personal responsibility' element, it means that even the poorest would have some healthcare savings for a rainy day as even gig economy workers in singapore have to contribute to medisave. But yet at the same time, there is a cap to how much you can take out of medisave so that is why health insurance is also compulsory to singapore, to cover the shortfall. And actually medisave and basic health insurance + medifund (awarded to the very poorest to cover their healthcare bills on a case by case basis) count for very little of healthcare spending in Singapore; the vast majority of spending is still government health subsidies, the three Ms just act as price controls. So even in a system where the central principle is 'personal responsibility', an obese person is not asked to pay while a healthy person does not pay- the level of government subsidy is still determined by (a) his income (means testing) and (b) the class of ward he chooses . So an obese poor person could possibly get 100% of health costs covered (esp if really very poor) while a rich person with healthy bmi would still have to pay 40% of all health costs even if he chooses the cheapest ward and may even have to pay for a lot of it out of pocket if he chose not to get good insurance.