I worked at a grocery store for years, and I never once had a company ID.
The spit sample was in response to comments about how “they” would know whether or not you were a smoker. Clearly they can test spit for nicotine, and if the test existed back in 1980, there’s probably a rapid test now.
The car insurance point was in response to the health insurance comments pointing out that there are other consequences to being a smoker, that might cause one not to want to be known as a smoker if that were not the case.
False premise: insurance companies are already “allocating health care” by penalizing people who use tobacco or have “pre-existing conditions”, a nebulous term that could mean you once had a bout of pneumonia or were pregnant. UHC or other forms of insurance mandate that everyone has access to health care. There remains the quality and ready availability of health care but the clients of the vast majority of UHC and mandate systems seem to have relatively few complaints compare to the American ‘free market’ system, and overall better statistics on infant mortality, child health and immunization, end of life care, and overall ready access to care, notwithstanding that in these systems virtually no one goes bankrupt trying to pay for routine procedures and treatment of normal illnesses.
Stranger
Not a false premise. It’s okay when private insurance companies restrict access to health based on personal characteristics and life choices. But the bugbear is that government will do the same under a UHC system.
Yes, but in the first place you indicated you were a smaker, and in the 2nd, you have never smoked.
No, she didn’t. She said she was in a longitudinal study on smoking.
Note RivkahChaya said truth about being a smoker. Not truth about being a **non-**smoker.
Are you hung up on this?
Because RC could have answered “No” to the question and they would still be checking whether they were telling the truth.
I admit the phrasing was a little odd, but to keep on about it afterwards is a pointless hijack and needlessly confrontational, IMO.
Right. When I said “To see whether I was telling the truth about being a smoker,” I meant that in the academic sense: “What did I say about being a smoker?” “Yes or no?” “Was it true?”
In my case, I said “No, I wasn’t,” and it was true.
For the record, I’m probably allergic to tobacco. I broke out in a rash in the tobacco building the one time I went to the Kentucky state fair, and if I’m in a smoker’s house, even when no one is actively smoking, if there are lots of full ashtrays around, my skin itches, and my eyes and nose run; if I stay there long enough, I start to get red blotches on my face, neck shoulders and torso.
I’m allergic to a lot of plants, including most grasses. If the neighbors cut their grass, and I get something in my eye from the bits blowing around, it’ll get a thick, sticky discharge, and all swollen and puffy.
Liver disease isn’t contagious. Covid is.
Yet another instance of how the supply vs. demand situation has pitted groups against each other. (See the recent thread about Oregon putting teachers ahead of senior citizens.)To be clear, New Jersey didn’t put smokers ahead of teachers and transportation workers because smokers are more likely to spread the virus. That may or may not be true and is probably dependent on a variety of factors, such as occupation and living situation. Smokers were put ahead of others because smokers are at higher risk for COVID complications, according to the state…
Smoking is one of 10 conditions that get priority in Jersey. Another one is obesity, yet there’s little or no outcry against obese people (nor should there be), perhaps because obesity, unlike smoking, doesn’t endanger the lives of those around obese people and so didn’t engender as much resentment pre-COVID.
The state says smokers comprise the largest group of those 10 conditions. There are a whopping 2 million smokers in NJ, or almost 1/4 of the state population. Vaccinating them sooner would have a big impact, yet it also means, given the shortages, that others, including those with compromised immune systems, may well have to wait much longer than otherwise to get vaccinated.
None of this would matter if there were adequate supplies of the vaccine. Since there isn’t and people are desperate, it’s unfortunately no surprise that people are turning on each other like this.
That is really the key takeaway, and the failing of the federal government overall, specifically but not limited to the previous administration in not both funding the development and construction of standby vaccine production facilities and developing the infrastructure and communication with state health departments on how to distribute vaccines and provide consistent and timely public health data reporting. to surveil an outbreak. Epidemiologists have been warning that an epidemic like this was coming for several decades now and yet it rarely gets the necessary funding and priority while we don’t blink at spending trillions of dollars fighting a “War on Terrorism” that could never present the kind of threat to Americans overall that even this fairly mild pathogen has.
We need to start treating infectious disease and the potential for global pandemics with the same seriousness we treat national defense, because they are really part of the same problem, and with displacement and migration due to climate change effects we should have the expectation that the potential for pandemics is going to be come significantly greater.
Stranger
I just realized I made a grammatical error in my post, and it’s bothering me. It should have read,
None of this would matter if there were an adequate supply of the vaccines. Since there isn’t…
Sorry.
Look at it this way. You’re in the ER for chest pains and shortness of breath, and so is another person, but he’s a smoker. Should you get to be seen first, even though he’s in greater danger due to his smoking, because you don’t smoke (and are at lesser risk)? After all, it’s his own fault for smoking, right?
Saw in the paper that vaccs were going to open up for people under 65 with various health conditions. Was a little surprised to see “smoking” listed as a health condition. They said they would not require proof of a condition, but were relying on the honor system.
Seriously - some idiot’s smoking gets them a place in line ahead of me? So al I need to do is buy a pack of cigs, roll them up in my sleeve, and I’m good to go?
Why buy the cigarettes? Think they’re going to frisk you?
But seriously, there’s been a couple convos here about it. It comes down to thinking of the vaccine as a reward rather than a public health tool. We’re trying to keep people out of hospitals even if you think you deserve a vaccine more than a smoker.
If people who smoke are more likely than the general public to get seriously ill or die from COVID-19, I don’t have a problem with it. Like @FigNorton said, the point isn’t to reward people for being “good” or “smart,” it’s to reduce the number of people getting seriously ill or dying. (And smoking is only considered a bad habit in the first place because it is bad for your health; if it had no health effects one way or the other, you wouldn’t be referring to smokers as “idiots.” IOW, it already carries its own negative consequences, and we don’t have to pile on other consequences on top of those.)
It’s all about relative risk. If a person being a smoker puts them at greater relative risk for getting COVID then they get the shot before someone at lesser risk. It’s not a moral judgement thing.
Here’s another thread from earlier this month asking a similar question.