Vaccinations to made a legal requirement in Austria from Feb 2022

[littlelordfuckleroy]

Days after Austria imposed a lockdown on the unvaccinated, it has announced a full national Covid-19 lockdown starting on Monday.

Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg said it would last at least 10 days and there would be a legal requirement to get vaccinated from 1 February 2022.

Jesus. I'm shocked by that. I'm not an antivaxxer but I still very concerned that a country could make any vaccine a legal requirement! I feel it's a step too far.

You say the benefits outweigh the risks but you don’t know the long term risk here as it’s still in the clinical trial stage.

This again @Sally090807?

There is no biological rationale for side effects that will suddenly crop up months after being vaccination. mRNA/cDNA is degraded extremely rapidly. It does not hang around. If you are going to have an advese event, it will be apparent within

Although it’s not ideal I can see why they’ve done it.
I do feel that if governments put more effort into educating people on why getting the vaccine is a good idea, nobody would be having to enforce anything.

It is a grey area though, if we were talking about Ebola for example I’d be 100% on board with an enforced vaccine. Although myself and everyone I know has had both jabs for Covid and I agree that it is very serious, I wouldn’t put it at ‘legal requirement’ serious. But then I’m not a doctor.

Forced sterilisation

Well you could say it would be good be for the greater good, with the environmental crisis to do this after one child. It's not for me, see that's how you can justify crazy measures.

The people who are happy with the measures like Austria are happy until anything starts affecting them and then they throw the toys out.

*Say what?
The people you know and associate with are more likely to be liars that randoms on MN?
You know some very strange people if that's your idea.

SM (and forums like this) are, I imagine made up of far more lies than real life interaction. By definition. That's without factoring in the shills and astroturfers.*

Not really what I said. Like most people, I don't ask friends and acquaintances what their vaccine status is. Online we discuss these things and people won't feel uncomfortable saying they're unvaccinated because it's anonymous.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

I get this and on first glance I totally agree. I guess I just also wonder whether you could consider that you impinge on someone's bodily autonomy when you arguably expose them to a greater risk of contracting a potentially deadly disease? Is denial of bodily autonomy by omission not quite close to denial by commission? That's why I see this as uncomfortable complicated.

As a sort of analogy, what if you could state on a percentage basis that a member of any given community (sex, age, class, background, history etc.) was reasonably likely to hurt or kill somebody, just be dint of being a member of that 'class' sharing those characteristics?

Would you say that the state had a right to lock them up in advance, to avoid exposing innocent people (as they themselves, indeed, currently are) to what they might do to them, based on statistics?

I know people will call me crazy for juxtaposing locking people up with forcing them to have a vaccine (which has, don't forget, killed at least 9 people) against their will - but if you're going to deny people their basic liberties and bodily autonomy anyway, who is to say where the line should be drawn?

All good points I think and no I wouldn't say that unless there was 100% chance (which I'm not sure there ever could be). That said, we do have some quite similar systems. I worked with a man who had been caught in a sting operation going to meet a '12 year old boy' (grooming). He had not actually had any contact with a child and was adamant he would not have followed through and actually done anything. I didn't believe him TBH but he was jailed for intent not really action (not the right legal language but I think you probably know what I mean). I think it was right that he was as it worked as a significant deterrent for him and even if it hadn't might well have done so for others.

But we will, of course, deny some CEV their basic liberties if they don't feel able to go out due to the increased risk to them.

It's awful that the vaccine has killed 9 people but I don't think we should discuss that without all discussing the number of people which Covid has killed, or perhaps will likely continue to kill (as that's lower now given improved treatments). Any one-sided conversation is likely to be unhelpful as we try to move towards solutions which create the kind of societies we actually want.

Shocking and will delete Austria to my countries to visit. That is fucking outrageous.

There are two things that I saw this week that made me really think about where we are today.
The first was a montage on YouTube to show how many tv news programmes were sponsored by Pfizer. I wonder how impartial they can be?
The other was an article in the bmj titled “Covid-19: Spreading vaccine “misinformation” puts licence at risk, US boards tell physicians”. The article explained how ‘misinformation’ is not defined and practitioners are afraid to speak up if they have any alternative opinions in case it’s taken as misinformation.
I agree that misinformation is dangerous but medically qualified practitioners should still be able to discuss professional opinions surely?

I agree it’s a risk benefit thing. If you think about it, we are already restricted in lots of ways - some people are not allowed to drive due to medical conditions or being banned. When we drive, it has to be under strict rules and we can’t park anywhere we like. Gun ownership is restricted. We also have rules regarding compulsory treatment for active TB - I am guessing this is from a previous era where it caused huge numbers of deaths.

I’m pretty sure that if corona- had a case fatality rate like ebola, we would be willing to put in stricter measures. I guess the question is - where are the boundaries in society that people agree to? Do we accept that healthcare for everyone will be worse (due to bed shortage, ITU full) and let people have more freedom? Or do we become v strict to reduce cases so that fewer people die? Or do we go for a middle ground where we introduce and release restrictions according to case rate and hospital capacity? There is no absolute right or wrong, it’s just opinion.

@DayKay

There are two things that I saw this week that made me really think about where we are today. The first was a montage on YouTube to show how many tv news programmes were sponsored by Pfizer. I wonder how impartial they can be? The other was an article in the bmj titled “Covid-19: Spreading vaccine “misinformation” puts licence at risk, US boards tell physicians”. The article explained how ‘misinformation’ is not defined and practitioners are afraid to speak up if they have any alternative opinions in case it’s taken as misinformation. I agree that misinformation is dangerous but medically qualified practitioners should still be able to discuss professional opinions surely?

I agree that misinformation is dangerous but medically qualified practitioners should still be able to discuss professional opinions surely?

Depends what you mean. Discussing the current state of evidence for a particular treatment, of course.

Deliberately misinterpreting evidence and prescribing drugs for which we don't have robust evidence for efficacy (i.e., ivermectin), no of course not. You see this time and time again, and the key people involved in this predictably are anti-vaccine and COVID-minimising too.

That article is also from Peter Doshi alone, who I would argue hasn't exactly been bias-free recently...

Trying to coerce people to have a vaccine when they are already at low risk from the virus and the vaccine isn’t that great at preventing infection/transmission (so the ‘greater good’ argument completely falls on its face) is a completely different matter.

The evidence suggests that the vaccine is fairly effective at reducing infection severity and rate. Ill people may still transmit but if we have fewer ill people there is less transmission. I don't think it's right to say that the greater good argument has fallen on its face though if there were proved to be no greater chance of transmitting via any route, then I think the only thing left to consider is the greater potential of unvaccinated people to become seriously ill and to use NHS resources (not suggesting that in itself is an argument for compulsory vaccination, just that it needs to be added into the mix of things to consider).

As for people saying they’d never get it through Parliament. Well, they got the Iraq War through Parliament based on a pile of misinformation.

@supermoonrising

As for people saying they’d never get it through Parliament. Well, they got the Iraq War through Parliament based on a pile of misinformation.

Exactly.

Also remember there’s no opposition anymore as they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet.

This from the Guardian today.

'Support for a pass showing proof of vaccination to attend large sporting events and concerts ranged from 57% of respondents in France to 59% in Germany, 62% in Italy and 64% in Spain and Britain, with only Poland (45%) falling below 50%.'

YouGov survey.

www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/nov/19/covid-news-live-macron-says-locking-down-frances-unvaccinated-not-necessary

It's really interesting to know that the UK is up there with compliance, though you wouldn't think so by the comments on this thread.

My cousin would have probably been seriously ill in hospital from Covid had she not had her double vaccinations. She was given a month off work and her doctor as superb.

@ExConstance
and others supporting Austria's decision to mandate vaccination,
Why?
Do you genuinely think that will be the end of covid?
It's spreading perfectly happily among the vaccinated (of which I am one).
I would be concerned that coercion will mean that long term less people will wish to have boosters etc.
Vaccination should have a personal health benefit (as well as a public health one) and definitely be voluntary.

Trying to coerce people to have a vaccine when they are already at low risk from the virus and the vaccine isn’t that great at preventing infection/transmission (so the ‘greater good’ argument completely falls on its face) is a completely different matter.

As ever, the majority of infections are prevented by the vaccines mix we currently have, against delta.

There is also more information coming out on secondary transmission - I’ve just read a study from the National Infection Service that has interesting findings. It’s still mixed but there may be at least some impact on secondary transmission from two doses of vaccine.

NIS found two doses reduced risk (with caveats) by around 27% for household transmission relative to unvaccinated.

Not at the 63% from the Dutch report, but not insignificant either. Obviously neither are absolutely conclusive or without caveats.

That’s obviously on top of the 100% reduction in secondary transmission from every primary infection avoided in the first place as a result of vaccination.

The study is in the Lancet for anyone who fancies a read.

@riveted1
Deliberately misinterpreting evidence and prescribing drugs for which we don't have robust evidence for efficacy (i.e., ivermectin), no of course not. You see this time and time again, and the key people involved in this predictably are anti-vaccine and COVID-minimising too.

The scientists have been “misinterpreting’ (albeit not deliberately) the date re. Covid for the last two years. The “facts” constantly change as new knowledge comes to light. Scientists are often at loggerheads with one another - it’s at the very core of scientific enquiry. When you start throwing around like “Deliberately misrepresenting” to simply rubbish a viewpoint/interpretation of statistics with which you personally disagree - because that’s what’s happening here - and then arguing in favour of censorship due to that …. that doesn’t sound like a free society to me.

@placemats
And at the very least several dozen people (more likely several hundred) would be alive today if they hadn’t taken the vaccine. Who are you to mandate which risk other people should take?

The scientists have been “misinterpreting’ (albeit not deliberately) the date re. Covid for the last two years. The “facts” constantly change as new knowledge comes to light.

I don’t think that’s quite fair to most scientists. Most datasets and studies I’ve seen have had very heavy caveats throughout the pandemic.

There have been those scientists of course who have strong views - on all sides - on how that information should be applied to policymaking, and their preferred policy solutions, and there has definitely been cherry-picking on all sides of the policy debate.

But I don’t think that’s the same as saying the ‘facts’ have been misleading - the evidence has been the evidence, with huge limitations, and it’s improving continuously.

[quote supermoonrising]@riveted1
Deliberately misinterpreting evidence and prescribing drugs for which we don't have robust evidence for efficacy (i.e., ivermectin), no of course not. You see this time and time again, and the key people involved in this predictably are anti-vaccine and COVID-minimising too.

The scientists have been “misinterpreting’ (albeit not deliberately) the date re. Covid for the last two years. The “facts” constantly change as new knowledge comes to light. Scientists are often at loggerheads with one another - it’s at the very core of scientific enquiry. When you start throwing around like “Deliberately misrepresenting” to simply rubbish a viewpoint/interpretation of statistics with which you personally disagree - because that’s what’s happening here - and then arguing in favour of censorship due to that …. that doesn’t sound like a free society to me.[/quote]
Deliberately misrepresenting” to simply rubbish a viewpoint/interpretation of statistics with which you personally disagree - because that’s what’s happening here

Did you read any of what I wrote?

In the example I gave - there is not robust evidence ivermectin in treating COVID. There is by evaluation of the current evidence, with inclusion of new data as and when it comes out.

Science is science. Good quality science can be deliberately misinterpreted and poor quality science can be misused in the same way.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.

You also seem to have deliberarely cut out half my reply @supermoonrising

I agree that misinformation is dangerous but medically qualified practitioners should still be able to discuss professional opinions surely?

Depends what you mean. Discussing the current state of evidence for a particular treatment, of course.

Deliberately misinterpreting evidence and prescribing drugs for which we don't have robust evidence for efficacy (i.e., ivermectin), no of course not. You see this time and time again, and the key people involved in this predictably are anti-vaccine and COVID-minimising too.

The YouGov survey I've just looked at is showing getting on for three quarters of respondents broadly in favour of additional restrictions for the unvaccinated in the UK.

Superb post at 15.36, MarbleQueen There's a strange and very disturbing McCarthyism which has built up over Covid, whereby any departure at all from the preferred narrative - even the most rational of questions - is instantly damned

And worst of all, some seem entirely comfortable with this

I think the last paragraph of that post at 15.36 is disgusting personally.