Austria unvaccinated lockdown

[MRex]

How is this expected to actually work in practice? I have only seen basic UK news articles, interested mostly to understand the practical implications.

Personal views without knowing detail: I simply don't see any way this can be achieved without infringing on personal freedoms of unvaccinated and vaccinated quite significantly. I'm very pro-vax in general and for covid, but I hope the UK doesn't start anything like this, seems like it would just have anyone digging their heels in and cause a lot of social unrest issues.

[quote Caspianberg]@PAFMO - there is a very easy availability of the vaccine here in Austria. It’s just a large % I guess didn’t get it. I think the current restrictions are designed to allow freedom for vaccinated and make those not choose to get it as it is difficult to now work if your aren’t.
Whether that’s right or wrong, it does seem to be increasing those now getting the vaccine.

Also number wise, Vienna is now vaccinating age 5 and over, the rest 12+ at the moment ( double vaccine). So remember the % of vaccinated is over 5/12, not over 17 or whatever as in some countries which does sway statistics a bit.

I think there will be a last minute vaccine panic before the ski season starts as well ( in certain regions it’s one of the main income sources, which was already restricted last year)[/quote]
Thank you!

I was also pilloried for continuing to going to work throughout. We've been open throughout with one case of Covid (mild) since the pandemic began. I didn't want schools to shut either. Perhaps not the same people now saying working in a health setting is fine if not vaccinated 🤷🏼‍♀️

Sad that some people only cared about those aspects of lockdown that affected themselves and their families.

I didn’t just care re my dc but thought as a group dc were adversely affected, which concerned me.

I did do things I found hard though for other people, so many did, so I don’t think we are as selfish as some posts say

Of course, when vaccine lies and misinformation do get spread, HQ are pretty good at deleting as well. After all, they wouldn't want it later to be found they were allowing their forum to be used to spread potentially dangerous anti-vax myths.

I don’t agree that posting information in relation to waning immunity against infection from vaccines (from reliable sources) is in any way anti-vax. The vaccines are holding up well in preventing serious illness - except in older/vulnerable people but the booster campaign is going well - but I think it’s important that people know that they are still at risk of infection, particularly after a few months. Clearly, there are still some people who think they can not be infected if they’ve been vaccinated. Knowing that vaccine immunity against infection wanes may actually encourage some more cautious behaviour in the vaccinated eg taking tests before visiting vulnerable relatives. So rather than this information being ‘dangerous’, it could actually save lives.

@PAFMO

The news last night said there had been a higher number of vaccine take up in the Austrian regions where the new restrictions will be implemented.

Maybe the posters who live there who were posting on the thread will be able to tell us more?

Ironic that people protesting against restrictions for themselves are also advocating putting restrictions on other people. Anybody else as long as it's not them. And it's the same people who've been mithering about the "othering" for months towards them for nor having the vaccine. A veritable conundrum.

@Colin56, no good coming up with facts. You'll have noticed the lack of "if the vaccinated catch the virus in the first place, which would be unlikely" on every post by Bumbleymummy. It's always helpful to point it out though, in case other posters might think what she (cleverly) doesn't say means the vaccinated are as much of a risk as the unvaccinated and choose not to take the vaccine based on what somebody on MN says.

Of course, when vaccine lies and misinformation do get spread, HQ are pretty good at deleting as well. After all, they wouldn't want it later to be found they were allowing their forum to be used to spread potentially dangerous anti-vax myths.

I am not imposing restrictions on anyone.

Every one should have personal choice over their bodies that dont come with strings attached.

If you are vulnerable but triple jabbed its your choice to stay in or go out. As its their body.

Any one that doesn't want the vaccine should have to have it. As its their body.

Its such a strange phenomenon that people who will be triple vaxed soon are scared to death of people that have not had the vax. Yet are not bothered about catching it off some one who is also triple vaxxed - as we know they can still be contagious.

Your last paragraph is really manipulating - almost as if you are expecting MN to be reading and act on your hidden threat.

Do you realise how you are coming across - its incredibly controlling.

I also wanted to point out that here people are getting a third full dose, not a half dose, as a booster. Whereas in the UK it’s a mix of both, I know people who got a full dose, others just 1/2. It’d be interesting to read about why each country is approaching this differently.

should't ** have to have it

[quote PAFMO]@MarshaBradyo
@Refractory

www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-republicans-spin-nih-letter-about-coronavirus-gain-of-function-research/

There's the debunking report on the lie told by the Intercept.[/quote]
Firstly, the 'fact checkers' are not disinterested observers in that they have been 'debunking' the lab leak theory from the outset and they are funded by/affiliated with the very same people who fund Peter Dasak and Eco-Health Alliance, and are funded by/affiliated with the people who wrote the extremely misjudged letter to the Lancet in April 2020 saying that the lab leak theory was unfounded.

Secondly, this entire 'debunking' rests with the definition of 'gain a function' research and even the debunkment concedes that this is a subjective matter.

I'm reminded of Marrion Webster updating the definition of 'sexual preference' as a slur within hours of a Trump Supreme Ct appointee using the term in her Senate confirmation hearing.

Yes. And @Colin56 was talking about the likelihood of a vaccinated person becoming infected in the first place

Not in the post I was replying to. S/He was talking about how if you aren’t vaccinated you shouldn’t be allowed to partake in ‘vaccinated life’ and is clearly very pro vaccine passports. S/he didn’t seem to be aware that you can still be infected after vaccination and be a risk to others and quoted ONS figures in relation to reinfection to prove their point. Why didn’t you correct them?

Its such a strange phenomenon that people who will be triple vaxed soon are scared to death of people that have not had the vax.

Yep.

Your last paragraph is really manipulating - almost as if you are expecting MN to be reading and act on your hidden threat.

I agree. Quite a strange thing to write.

@bumbleymummy

They end up in hospital primarily because of unvaccinated people.

They end up in hospital because they come in contact with infected people who could be vaccinated/unvaccinated/not eligible for vaccine (eg young children). Thankfully we’re rolling out the booster vaccines to vulnerable people quite quickly and we can see hospitalisations in older age groups starting to drop.

It's much less likely to be from vaccinated people - but you know that.

At this point any encouragement or carrot / stick is best targeted at boosters rather than younger unvaccinated

Eileen just thinking more re caring I also really found older people isolated in care homes incredibly difficult even though my parents are o/s, university students isolating in small rooms too and I agree those in shared accommodation should have had support in person. I’m more on side of looking at mh impact rather than dismissing it. Although care homes were very difficult as it could let Covid in.

At this point any encouragement or carrot / stick is best targeted at boosters rather than younger unvaccinated

Agree.

Also agree re mental health impact.

@bumbleymummy

*Its such a strange phenomenon that people who will be triple vaxed soon are scared to death of people that have not had the vax.

Yep*.

Do you also agree that the vulnerable and elderly (by definition, the triple vaxxed) should be confined while the unvaccinated are not?

Actually just with the encouragement part - I’m not a fan of the carrot/stick approach!

Yes it is contentious I agree

I don’t agree with anyone being ‘confined’. I think it’s worth pointing out that they are the ones more at risk though and they may decide to be more cautious/go out less because of that.

@bumbleymummy

I don’t agree with anyone being ‘confined’. I think it’s worth pointing out that they are the ones more at risk though and they may decide to be more cautious/go out less because of that.

It makes no sense unless they make this assessment on an annual basis; for example we know that 2008 was a comparable year to 2020 for excess death but no one was warning the elderly to not go out.

It's completely irrational.

@bumbleymummy

Of course, when vaccine lies and misinformation do get spread, HQ are pretty good at deleting as well. After all, they wouldn't want it later to be found they were allowing their forum to be used to spread potentially dangerous anti-vax myths.

I don’t agree that posting information in relation to waning immunity against infection from vaccines (from reliable sources) is in any way anti-vax. The vaccines are holding up well in preventing serious illness - except in older/vulnerable people but the booster campaign is going well - but I think it’s important that people know that they are still at risk of infection, particularly after a few months. Clearly, there are still some people who think they can not be infected if they’ve been vaccinated. Knowing that vaccine immunity against infection wanes may actually encourage some more cautious behaviour in the vaccinated eg taking tests before visiting vulnerable relatives. So rather than this information being ‘dangerous’, it could actually save lives.

It isn't. It's a fact. Why have you presumed I was talking about you?

(fwiw, I haven't reported you for some time)

@bumbleymummy

Yes. And *@Colin56* was talking about the likelihood of a vaccinated person becoming infected in the first place

Not in the post I was replying to. S/He was talking about how if you aren’t vaccinated you shouldn’t be allowed to partake in ‘vaccinated life’ and is clearly very pro vaccine passports. S/he didn’t seem to be aware that you can still be infected after vaccination and be a risk to others and quoted ONS figures in relation to reinfection to prove their point. Why didn’t you correct them?

Because that's personal opinion. Scientific fact is different.

Sorry, the point about "shouldn't be allowed out" is opinion.
Did you provide a link to show the ONS data from @Colin56 was incorrect? It's pretty serious if the ONS are publishing incorrect data.

Well, your comment straight before that one was about me and you keep trying to insinuate that I’m ‘anti-vax’ despite my repeated posts about the benefits of the vaccine so .

I didn’t say the ONS data is incorrect. It’s about reinfections in previously infected people though, not, as she was talking about, breakthrough infections after vaccination.

@MauraandLaura
I report lies by anti-vaxxers.
HQ delete lies by anti-vaxxers.
I'm not controlling or manipulating anyone, but I'll continue to show an interest in facts and lack thereof.
Don't recall having seen anything from you that I've wanted to interact with.