None of us had a hand in this misfortune except for the people responsible for the origins of this virus.  No one innocent of its origins should be punished.  The actions or inactions of the vaccinated or the unvaccinated did not lead to this.  More beds, more volunteers, more medicine, more people working with one another, instead of against one another is whats needed.

If an unvaccinated and a vaccinated person showed up at the same exact time for a bed, equally ill, then coin flip that shit.  

We're all responsible for how the pandemic managed to affect the whole world. Well maybe not those who were living isolated off-grid already. However the actions of everyone led to the current situation.

And yep more beds etc is needed. Why are we still at capacity well over a year after this started. (Surgeries getting cancelled/postponed again due to Covid overload) Why is their no global coordination to get everyone vaccinated, not just the first world. It's all about the money in the end. Heck, that slippery slope is considered normal practice when it comes to health insurance. Good luck getting coverage with underlying conditions.

Vaccine passports are popping up left and right as well, the segregation nobody wanted is already here.

Anyway, get vaccinated, it certainly helps against needing hospitalization when you do catch it. It's not stopping the spread though, so you're still stuck with masks etc until numbers actually go down.

Alberta, just under 60% fully vaccinated
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/boiling-point-alberta-doctors-warn-of-health-system-collapse-as-covid-19-cases-climb-1.5578501

Cuba started vaccinating children as young as 2 years old, and is hoping to get to 90% fully vaccinated in November
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/cuba-begins-vaccinating-children-as-young-as-two-for-covid-19-1.5578909

Whether the numbers Cuba reports are reliable, don't know. Their cases are going up again since the start of September.

How quickly your argument changes.

That's like saying if a person is in a motorcycle crash, is wearing a helmet, and crashes and dies from cranial trauma, they bear no responsibility because they didn't invent motorcycles.

If there is something you can easily do to prevent a particular negative result from befalling you, and you chose not to do that, it is (generally) your responsibility at least in part. 

If both people had taken the vaccine there is a strong likelihood there would have been a bed available. The person who was vaccinated should not die due to someone else's stupidity.

But hey, let's put this theory to the test. Two people need a lung transplant, and there ain't that many lungs to go around.  A person who has smoked four packs of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years, and a person who works out, eats right, and doesn't smoke. All of their other factors are the same.

Currently, our system would in almost all circumstances give the lung to the non-smoker. Are you suggesting we should flip a coin instead ? After all, neither of them are responsible for the origin of lung cancer are they? 

My argument has not changed. First come first served. Equal treatment. I don't believe in discriminating for any reason.

Your argument was that we can't choose based on responsibility. Now it's just that noone is responsible for getting a disease we have a vaccine for.

But, ok, we'll roll with it. Again, guy smoking 5 packs a day and guy that ate right, exercised, and didn't smoke. Currently the latter would get the transplant. You are in favor of changing that then?

My argument was that it should not be decided who is and isn't entitled to treatment. It's not any more complicated than that.

If that was your argument I know why you analogized it to the obese and addicts, where the illness is specifically linked to voluntary behaviors. 

But, like I said, we're rolling with it. So, again, guy smoking 5 packs a day and guy that ate right, exercised, and didn't smoke. Currently the latter would get the transplant. You are in favor of changing that then? Simple yes or no question, and an obvious answer if you're gonna be consistent. 

I'm in favor of both individuals being on the list and whoever is first in line gets the lung first. The second in line waits for theirs.  

The problem is this goes beyond just a few health concerns. Everything in their lives basically needs to be taken into account.

What if one is/was a rapist and the other is/was a child molester? What if that's known about them or not? Does the smoking really matter anymore?

If someone can have their career totally destroyed today or be refused business because they said something stupid 20 years ago, perhaps as an unwise teen like most, when what they said back then wasn't widely seen anywhere near as negative as it is today, then you'd need to take everything about the patients lives into account.

The best way to deal with this unfortunately due to privacy, is just take who's at the front of the line first and have hope for the rest. It's either that or do away with privacy entirely when it comes to healthcare, but then where else will it be done away with as well?

It goes based on life expectancy. Which might not be fair but making the most 'use' out of the organ is the priority.