[_heimdall]

You're raising drastically different scenarios in what I'm pretty sure would be a strawman argument, though yes people with Ebola do still get medical treatment. They are generally isolated and/or treated at a temporary unit setup during an Ebola outbreak, they aren't told no at the door because they're sick.

[estearum]

At the time people were talking about restricting COVID visitors, we really didn't know if we were dealing with something most similar to a seasonal cold, a serious flu, or the Spanish flu.

> They are generally isolated and/or treated at a temporary unit setup during an Ebola outbreak, they aren't told no at the door because they're sick.

Obviously this would be the result of not allowing unvaccinated people into hospitals. It is literally illegal in this country for us to simply "tell them no at the door."

[_heimdall]

People weren't calling for temporary hospitals being stood up or wings allocated just for unvaccinated people, they were calling for people to be denied care.

Your Ebola example still doesn't hold, the death rate and transmissibility is drastically different between the various colds/flus and Ebola. Not to mention you're justifying blocking individuals from care because we didn't know what we were worrying about yet and because they chose not to take an experimental vaccine using a new technology that was rushed through testing (and reasonably so, I get why they rushed to EUA but that does make it more effective or better understood).

I assume you don't agree with the ACA, medicare for all, or healthcare as a right. All of those ideas are based on ensuring everyone has access to healthcare, and that preexisting conditions can't be considered.

[estearum]

As we all know, when people on the Internet are calling for things, a reasonable expectation is for them to fully specify the end-to-end implementation plan. And if they don't provide, then you can definitely just presume the absolute worst case scenario!