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.

@doublemonkey yes, I've just (after my last post) had a really good look at the Together Declaration people, and they seem to be an eclectic bunch, of many political pursuasions, professional backgrounds etc. I couldn't see any evidence at all of homophobia or racism. Of course it's entirely possible individual signatories hold repugnant views, which should always be repudiated. But that's a separate issue from the declaration itself. I'd be utterly horrified if I'd signed something that supported any kind of prejudice. But, fortunately I don't think I have. Phew!

Don't worry, they're not. It's a common cancel culture tactic used to demonize, delegitimize and deplatform people.

@doublemonkey

I didn't comment on this aspect of the Together group - far more important to focus on what they are campaigning for, if they are spreading misinformation, and whether their claims are evidence based.

You seem to be ignoring the issues with this group calling for no suppression measures.

They are calling for no testing, no masks, no COVID status passports (i.e., where evidence of a negative test or a previous infection would be an alternative to vaccination) , no lockdown measures, no suppression measures like social distancing, no vaccination for teens, and that no information/public awareness campaigns for vaccination should be held.

Pretending the pandemic isn't happening won't make it go away. Indeed, the removal of any measures that will help control numbers are what will lead to far more damaging restrictions like lockdown being needed as an emergency measure.

I don't understand why posters don't see this so far into the pandemic.

[quote bumbleymummy]@ollyollyoxenfree in the context of a pandemic, if you’re trying to reduce spread, you would require testing for everyone and not exempt people just because they’ve had a vaccine that doesn’t actually prevent infection/transmission.[/quote]
Not really sure what you're arguing here for @bumbleymummy - think you haven't followed the thread

A COVID status passport could include several iterations including what you have described.

I don't understand why someone who has chosen not to be vaccinated would also refuse to provide a recent negative test or evidence or a previous infection.

The Together group (what was being discussed) are anti any form of this policy.

@ollyollyoxenfree - you're once again twisting the truth.

Anyone who's interested should have a read and make up their own minds togetherdeclaration.org/

[quote doublemonkey]@ollyollyoxenfree - you're once again twisting the truth.

Anyone who's interested should have a read and make up their own minds togetherdeclaration.org/[/quote]
How am I twisting the truth?

The things they are campaigning for (which I have listed) are detailed on their website and SM

Not really sure why me stating exactly what they're asking for can be referred to as "twisting"

That AWitchCalledMeg's incoherent drivel is hailed as "best comment on this thread" just proves that it is full of nutters who think Covid isn't real
How does it?
I don't think the majority of people are denying covid, they're just really concerned governments are mandating what adults and children, have to put in to their own bodies.
I agree it's a slippery, dangerous slope. Covid vaccine today, but what about in the future?

I've just (after my last post) had a really good look at the Together Declaration people, and they seem to be an eclectic bunch, of many political pursuasions, professional backgrounds etc. I couldn't see any evidence at all of homophobia or racism.

You’re right, the only issues with the site itself is a certain level of economy with the truth.

My worry would be the opacity about how it’s organised and who those organisers are. The first signatory is an avowed homophone but he may be just a signatory, it’s very hard to tell from the website. It was an assumption on my part that the first signatories were the organiser, that may very well be wrong.

Regardless, if people are in line with all those policies, and aren’t uncomfortable about the transparency around it, then sure, put their names to it. I suspect the link was deleted because of the long-standing rule that petitions are restriction to the petitions section of the site.

@ollyollyoxenfree the point is that the passport makes no sense when all it does is act as an exemption for testing for someone who can still be carrying/transmitting the virus. If the point of passports is to reduce the spread then they should purely be based on people having a negative test, regardless of their vaccine status.

[quote bumbleymummy]@ollyollyoxenfree the point is that the passport makes no sense when all it does is act as an exemption for testing for someone who can still be carrying/transmitting the virus. If the point of passports is to reduce the spread then they should purely be based on people having a negative test, regardless of their vaccine status.[/quote]
Did you read my reply?

A COVID status passport could include several iterations including what you have described.

I don't understand why someone who has chosen not to be vaccinated would also refuse to provide a recent negative test or evidence or a previous infection.

The Together group (what was being discussed) are anti any form of this policy.

Yes, I read your reply. Those ‘several iterations’ should not allow vaccinated people to gain access without having proof of a negative test if the aim is to keep spread to a minimum.

You’re basically allowing lower standards of entry for people simply because they are vaccinated.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, I read your reply. Those ‘several iterations’ should not allow vaccinated people to gain access without having proof of a negative test if the aim is to keep spread to a minimum.

Uhuh....so as I've said multiple times, that could be an option for a COVID status passport.

Really not sure what you're arguing, just seems like you're keen to keep the "vaccines don't prevent 100% of transmission" posts going

@bumbleymummy

You’re basically allowing lower standards of entry for people simply because they are vaccinated.

I'm not allowing for anything, really not sure who you're having this conversation with

My point was, the Together group are anti any form of this policy. Proof of vaccination, previous infection, negative test, presence of ABs, for anyone, vaccinated or unvaccinated.

@JassyRadlett

I've just (after my last post) had a really good look at the Together Declaration people, and they seem to be an eclectic bunch, of many political pursuasions, professional backgrounds etc. I couldn't see any evidence at all of homophobia or racism.

You’re right, the only issues with the site itself is a certain level of economy with the truth.

My worry would be the opacity about how it’s organised and who those organisers are. The first signatory is an avowed homophone but he may be just a signatory, it’s very hard to tell from the website. It was an assumption on my part that the first signatories were the organiser, that may very well be wrong.

Regardless, if people are in line with all those policies, and aren’t uncomfortable about the transparency around it, then sure, put their names to it. I suspect the link was deleted because of the long-standing rule that petitions are restriction to the petitions section of the site.

Yup so they are deliberately opaque about who is involved in the group with no names listed (presumably to make it harder to understand who is leading it)

Together is a nationwide alliance of campaign groups, business leaders, professionals, and citizens of the UK, united in opposition to the unnecessary authoritarian Government response to Covid-19

Clare Craig, pseudoscientist of HART, is one of the members as she leads a video. So you can assume HART is one of the "campaign groups", and I would expect UsforThem, FLCCC, BIRD, and all the usual suspects are also involved.

But without transparency, who knows?

I’m keen to keep the ‘vaccine passports don’t make any sense and won’t stop spread’ posts going.

If you’re going to exempt vaccinated people, you may as well not bother with them at all.

@bumbleymummy

I’m keen to keep the ‘vaccine passports don’t make any sense and won’t stop spread’ posts going.

If you’re going to exempt vaccinated people, you may as well not bother with them at all.

Except none of my posts said that

For the fifth time, my point was, the Together group are anti any form of this policy. Proof of vaccination, previous infection, negative test, presence of ABs, for anyone, vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Yes, Olly, I can read what you’ve written. Not sure why you can’t understand my response.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, Olly, I can read what you’ve written. Not sure why you can’t understand my response.

Because it makes no sense in regards to my posts..?

If you’re going to exempt vaccinated people, you may as well not bother with them at all.

This is only true if you take a risk elimination rather than a risk minimisation approach.

But you know that already, because we’ve discussed this before.

It is a shock to read.

But, in extreme times, lots of things are made compulsory to protect the population, so it is not without precedent or, necessarily, unreasonable.

Compulsory seatbelt wearing was once thought of as unreasonable, as were drink drive laws. The idea of a policeman making you blow into a bag on mere suspicion is actually quite hard core.

We vaccinate babies without giving them any say in the issue, rather than letting them grow up and then decide for themselves.

Personally, I think that, if compulsory vaccination ends COVID for all, it is a price well worth paying.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

It is a shock to read.

But, in extreme times, lots of things are made compulsory to protect the population, so it is not without precedent or, necessarily, unreasonable.

Compulsory seatbelt wearing was once thought of as unreasonable, as were drink drive laws. The idea of a policeman making you blow into a bag on mere suspicion is actually quite hard core.

We vaccinate babies without giving them any say in the issue, rather than letting them grow up and then decide for themselves.

Personally, I think that, if compulsory vaccination ends COVID for all, it is a price well worth paying.

Sadly, if every single person in the world were vaccinated simultaneously tomorrow, it wouldn't "end COVID for all".

It won't end it though, we'll have set quite a scary precedent and covid will still be with us.

@Battenburg77,

You cannot know that.

All it takes is an r number below one for a disease to die out, not the prevention of every single case.

Wishful/magical thinking I'm afraid, the vaccines we have are allowing far too much transmission to take place for covid to "die out".

@TheReluctantPhoenix

It is a shock to read.

But, in extreme times, lots of things are made compulsory to protect the population, so it is not without precedent or, necessarily, unreasonable.

Compulsory seatbelt wearing was once thought of as unreasonable, as were drink drive laws. The idea of a policeman making you blow into a bag on mere suspicion is actually quite hard core.

We vaccinate babies without giving them any say in the issue, rather than letting them grow up and then decide for themselves.

Personally, I think that, if compulsory vaccination ends COVID for all, it is a price well worth paying.

Wearing a seatbelt versus being forced to have a vaccination that doesn’t stop you having or spreading something with no long term data are 2 completely different things

To be honest if mumsnet is representative of society and we are willing to give up body autonomy based on this then there is no hope for us