Austria’s powerful Constitutional Court has demanded detailed data from the Government Health Ministry justifying the coronavirus response. News.com.au has the story.
The 14-member court issued 10 sets of questions to the Health Ministry on January 26th in order to prepare for a “possible oral hearing” into a number of complaints it has received against Austria’s COVID-19 measures.
The Health Ministry has until February 18th to respond.
Austria plans to ease some restrictions from Tuesday as its nationwide vaccine mandate, the first in Europe, comes into effect.
But in order to justify his Government’s heavy-handed rules, the court has asked Health Minister Wolfgang Mückstein to provide data across a broad range of topics including hospitalisations and deaths ‘with’ as opposed to ‘from’ COVID-19, the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and evidence supporting the now-rescinded ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’.
“The ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’ is likely to be based, among other things, on the consideration that persons without Covid vaccination have a higher risk of hospitalisation than vaccinated persons, which is likely to entail a higher risk for the healthcare system,” the court wrote.
“What is the effect of the ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated on the hospital burden, expressed in percentages?”
The court asked for information on which virus variants were associated with these numbers, a breakdown by age cohort, and for “percentage allocation” outlining where infections occurred, such as family, work, shopping or leisure activities.
Another question asked, “By what factor does wearing an FFP2 mask indoors or outdoors reduce the risk of infection or transmission?”
A number of other questions related to vaccines, with the court requesting data on their efficacy in reducing severe illness, preventing transmission, and the durability of protection.
“By what factor does Covid vaccination reduce the risk of severe disease?” the court wrote.
“In media reports, there was talk of up to 95%. Now, the general risk of dying from Covid-19 (not differentiated by age and health status) currently appears to be 0.1516%.
“What does a stated vaccination efficacy of, for example, 95% refer to? What do absolute and relative risk reduction mean in this context?”
The letter also requested the Covid-related hospitalisation risk over a one-year period for an unvaccinated 25-year-old compared with a double-vaccinated 25-year-old, and the same for a 65-year-old.
It concluded with a question about Austria’s excess mortality statistics.
In December, the Der Standard newspaper reported that there were one-third fewer COVID-19 deaths in 2021 compared with the previous year, but that weekly excess mortality was higher.
“Is this true?” the letter asked. “If so, what was the total excess mortality in 2021 that could not be explained by COVID-19 deaths, and what is the explanation for this excess mortality?”
Austria has seen record high case numbers in recent days, fuelled by the Omicron variant.
Good to see a high court taking a detailed interest in these technical questions, unlike our own largely supine and deferential judiciary. Also good to see an interest in the unexplained wave of non-Covid excess deaths this winter. The Government’s response will be interesting, as will the court’s ruling.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Vote for independent candidates.
I suspect in some places this is just an excuse for councils to do less work and spend the money on vanity projects and other rubbish
And all those 6 figure salaries the bosses award themselves, with taxpayer funded final salary pensions, for doing a job which is a monopoly, without any risk of being sacked for incompetence.
The weak-minded thinking that says if it’s natural then it must be good.
Take all these fools and tie them to posts in the Congolese jungle to be “rewilded”.
They are just saving on manpower costs, nothing else. Weeds are easily got rid of by other means, like manually removing them or using heat via a weed burning flame gun. Personally I don’t like to use glyphosate or pesticides in my garden, but it certainly isn’t full of weeds.
Have they never heard the old adage, “one year’s seeding equals seven years weeding”?
Incidentally, our local council tried this last year. It was sadly ironic to see they had left a ‘wild strip’ of unmown grass around the rec to ‘encourage wildlife’, but then put in dozens of mole traps because they didn’t like the mole hills! Obviously some forms of wildlife are less acceptable. (I went and kicked all the traps out of the ground. They’ve never used them again.)
It’s a personal choice what you use in your garden, but I’ve looked into the science on glyphosate and claims about it being harmful to micro organisms in the soil or other forms of life are junk science. Almost anything can cause cancer with repeated exposure to very large amounts. You’d probably have to be drinking glyphosate on a weekly basis for years before it increased the chances of you getting cancer.
If I lived in Brighton I would happily weed my bit of pavement using Glyphosate. The risks are tiny unless you are an agricultural or horticultural person regularly using it whilst ignoring all safety precautions.
I am watching this happening on the highways and pavements in my area.
Has it not occurred to any of the people in charge just what damage this will do as the weeds push out kerbstones, slabs, concrete and tarmac? And the cost to repair.
Suggest a few Brighton people start suing the council as you can do for trips on uneven pavements and potholes.
Mind you, with “global warming” the problem may soon be solved by urban bush fires.
I also love their complaint that immigration rules have meant they can’t import cheap staff. Bl××dy hypocrites.
But it’s not “your bit of pavement” to be doing anything with.
Maybe the council would like to change the definition of ownership so that everyone can own everything and therefore nobody own anything, but I for one would prefer to care for what’s mine and no more. Otherwise, the council might take it the wrong way and decide they should be “caring” for my property, too!
Principles are important.
Having lived all my life in small rural communities which our councils rarely remember exist, we are used to just “getting on with things”.
This was what communities did until the 70s and 80s when the government started to interfere in everyone’s lives, charge more tax, take over community groups and say “we can do this better” and destroy community cohesion.
People stepped back because it was easier that trying to stop councils getting involved and f@@@@king things up.
Of course they couldn’t/wouldn’t deliver what people wanted it didn’t fit their agenda. The “woke”, diversity issues mean they have charged us more and more for less and less of what we really need.
Cottage hospitals? Keeping an eye out for you neighbour? Sweeping the snow off your elderly neighbours path? Better not, because if they then slip and fall you will get sued.
Can you imagine what would happen if a community did take it into their own hands and use glyphosate to stop their elderly neighbours falling and ending up in hospital?
Now they have destroyed community cohesion they can isolate us and instead of us helping each other they now get us to spy on each other.
So we end up saying “not MY pavement”.
I wouldn’t mind doing all that community thing but I don’t want to pay the council at the same time. Just try choosing to do only the former! So we’re agreed: The New World is needed!
Peter Hitchins puts in the first part of his post, more eloquently than I can, what I have been trying to say.
I worked in Local Government from 1976 to 2004 and witnessed this first hand. It was heartbreaking as far as I was concerned which was why, in the end I resigned.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12499743/PETER-HITCHENS-Militants-turned-town-halls-concrete-corridors-mediocrity.html
If we had a government that was even slightly “conservative”, they would insist that every local authority reduced their staffing levels to what they were in 2000, unless they could demonstrate that additional statutory duties needed more “human resources”.
Not that things were good in 2000, but at least we could avoid paying for all the “diversity” officers, “climate change” officers and the rest, which are almost certainly ultra vires anyway.
Then we could wind it back to, say 1990 and get rid of the ‘nuclear free zone’ officers.
Might start getting a bit of value for money and deflating some swelling Empires.
Obviously, some changes in Local Authority remits would assist.
How about insisting that the ONLY things that were “recycled” were those very few for which there was any use and value of the things “recycled”?
Yes, Peter Hitchens nails this. Looking back now it is impossible not to see how the radical destabilisation and undermining of societies was deliberate. The eradication of centuries old counties, destroying the grammar schools etc were all intended to break us apart and destroy communities.
It worked.
Don’t forget though, with ownership comes liability.
In my home city, the council has mowed a portion of the grass in public areas once this year. They haven’t touched any trees since before the lockdowns. I’ve been mowing a portion of the council land to the side of our house, because it runs up to our side wall and weeds were getting everywhere. Grass and other weeds were five feet high and we ivy going up the wall. After the one cut that was done, I’ve kept the side of the house mowed. However, at the bottom of our garden is another open area and the council didn’t bother to cut it. The weeds were growing through our fence. There’s a wild patch, overrun with weed that’s about 15 feet tall. I weeded all along our fence and tackled the worst of it with a chainsaw to create an eight foot buffer zone. But I have to be careful, because it’s not our land and the council uses eco-bollocks as an excuse for their negligence.
When you drive around the city, it’s noticeable that everywhere is overgrown and unkempt. Weeds are growing out of the pavements, out of drains and walls. Roundabouts are overgrown and diminishing visibility of other vehicles. Trees are dangerously oversized and their branches are often down to pavement level. There are patches where you have to step into the road because the pavement has been made impassable by trees or bushes. It looks like some post-apocalypse scene in a film, where most of the human race has died.
Worse, it’s led to many people not tending to their own gardens, so everywhere has a feel of neglect. I’d have cleared the weeds on the edge of our garden and in cracks of the pavement and road immediately beyond with a pressure washer, but the council instigated a hosepipe ban at the end of April, before it even got warm. I’ve done some of it by hand.
When I was growing up, all the way up until within the last decade, the council did the trees and undergrowth once a year, the grass once a month from about April to October. Since the lockdown, it’s like the country died. Councils chuck a ton of money at Pride Month, but spend barely a penny on civic pride.
I would certainly agree with you about the trees. We live by a beautiful, but massive, plane tree, which is so enthusiastic about its growth that anything higher than your average car is brushing the branches. It needs a severe haircut, but I can’t see that happening until there is an accident or claim for damage.
We pay the council a bloomin’ fortune in council tax, where does it all go? I know…don’t ask
It’s the same here too. The only bit they seem to be passionate about mowing is the one tiny patch in our godforsaken city where Bee Orchids grow. As soon as you see the flower spikes you know the mower will be round next day.
“It looks like some post-apocalypse scene in a film, where most of the human race has died.”
That is the intention. Another way to undermine moral. Or maybe it is just simply preparation for a coming post apocalyptic World.
I don’t rule anything out these days.
Cannabis is a known carcinogen yet the Greens almost want consumption to be mandatory. Glyphosate is fine if used according to instructions.
I am in California just now and at tge first hotel we stayed there was a State mandated plaque warning about chemicals from everyday plastics which might cause cancer.
I wonder what is the risk from tripping over weeds or being scratched by weeds or stung by the insects that live among them.
daft.
A metaphor for the rot that’s set in everywhere we look. A shabby disgrace.
Brighton’s awful: dirty, run-down and car-parking charges are outrageous.
Do yourself a favour and stay well away.
Now there is a job that illegal migrants could do to help pay for their accommodation.
“[people] who are all as passionate as you about looking after our beautiful city.”. So the Council are not then, they don’t care? Yet the Council’s one and only duty is to ‘look after the city’ and it’s people.
Isn’t it just the ‘new way’…..get rid of what worked in the past with absolutely no notion of having an alternative?
Do the drongo’s we have in charge at every level of Government go to some sort of classes or on courses to learn how to do this??
The snobbish elites are ‘presentists’ who believe that they are the most sophisticated human beings who have ever lived. In their mind, the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years is ‘savagery’ and should be destroyed. Net Zero is essentially a corporate rebranding of Pol Pot’s ‘Year Zero’. Currently, cancelling educated people is being used instead of murder, but when you look at what ‘teachers’ are telling a generation of children, you can see there will be murder in a generation’s time.