I don't believe this is actually a problem. I think you're either mistaken or making this up. Got a citation I might believe this is actually causing any meaningful effects? Because if not, I think hospital staff have a duty to do everything in their power, within reason, to not harm their patients, or make pandemics worse. Which is exactly what someone working with covid patents would do, turn one infection and 20 maybes into 22 infections.
> US medical staff would accept more of the treatment options available in other countries (Japan, India, etc) such as ivermectin.
I'm super hopeful ivermectin is proven to be a useful antiviral. Which it currently isn't. We're in dire need of useful antivirals, and it's only going to get worse. The US has a nasty history of experimenting on it's population, one we're rightfully very careful to make sure we don't repeat. So pretending ivermectin is anything other than uncontrolled experimentation is dishonest at best. There are times when experimental treatments are justified. Hospital capacity ethically speaking isn't one of them.
This may be me, but I like my first line treatments to be backed by large sample, peer approved research before they're used. Radical treatments for the critically ill is another topic; but that's not what we're talking about here is it?
> We treated your asthma attack, sorry about the covid that you got while you were here, hope those two things don't affect each other
I have to agree with the other commenter that you're either not arguing in good faith, or you're so blindly ideologically driven that you've thrown basic reasoning skills out the window.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...