Why Austria has become the first European country to make vaccination compulsory - New Statesman
Please say thank you to the UK vaccinated, who have protected the population as well as themselves.
That article in the New Statesman doesn't answer the question it poses in its title.
Why not? Here's why: because its main message is IN its title. It is in the notion that Austria is the "first" European country to make Covid-19 vaccination compulsory.
That this is being said in the British media (in the Daily Telegraph as well as the New Statesman) is an extremely significant move. I have no doubt that it signifies that the plan is to impose the measure much more widely across Europe, including in Britain. That's the way they write in the media when they want to convey such a message. That's how they wrote about gay marriage, for example, when it started to be enabled in different countries. But they have never written in that fashion about the recommendation by a German state agency (the "Ethics Council") that incest between siblings be legalised.
Victory to the resistance in Austria!
I come back to another point I've made here too. Don't let's assume they always want everything they admit they're planning to be backed from the outset by 90%+ of the population. They don't. Sometimes they aim for somewhere much closer to 50%, so they can have a bit of a fight and be seen to win it.
That is how you push an envelope. That is one way to demoralise people, to "entrain" them into acceptance. It assists with the message "If you fight, you will lose". It's vital to understand this. Such an understanding should redouble the resolve of refuseniks to resist, including physically where necessary. And when the issue is of state goons holding us down to inject stuff into our arms without our consent, then the need to resist physically is absolutely beyond dispute.
This needs to be nipped in the bud VERY FAST - which can only happen if there is a powerful movement that scares the rulers into withdrawing this measure with their tails between their legs - or else people are going to get killed in the fight over this. (And the rulers know this very well.)
@star We don't want vaccine passports. But the best way to avoid them ever being considered necessary is voluntary vaccination.
However, the majority opinion on this website seems intent on rendering the population as vulnerable as possible by attacking almost any measure that would inhibit the virus.
Well if the vaccine has the claimed efficacy then with an IFR of < 1.5 the base vaccination rate (the rate to stop any community spread so end of pandemic) is less than 50%. Thats the science of public health vaccination. So why the huge push to get everyone vaccinated? If its not needed.
But if the vaccine does not have the claimed efficacy then it has a very high probability of providing no protection to those at high health risk from any potential SARs CoV 2 infection. Thats the science of vaccines and immunity. So why the huge push to get everyone vaccinated? If it does not work as a public health measure.
The only reason for the huge push is panic by the public health bureaucracy and its political master and as desperate measure to put off their day of reckoning as their house of cards collapses. All lies and ass covering for their incompetence.
So whats the risk you are talking about? There has been no huge upswing in viral respiratory infection moralities in the last two years. None. The risk to the general population, the attack rate and the IFR, for SARs CoV 2 is lower not only than previous pandemic influenza but apart from the over 70 cohort, lower than endemic influenza.
Some risk.
But there has been a large upswing in excess mortality rates in a few very specific categories. All associated with either the lcokdown or vaccines averse responses.
But you think its OK to try to force people to take completely untested and in the cases of mRNA vaccines little understood vaccines types just because you believe in the current mass hysteria. If you believe the propaganda you take it. But some of us read what the public health bureaucracy has said and when checked against the literature and science of the last 100 years plus little or none of bears any close examination. Its all politics and little or no medical science.
Are you capable of giving informed consent to the medical experiment you are part of? Go ahead, be a medical guinea pig. Because that is exactly what you are.
@jmc Almost every country in the world accepts this is a serious problem. So if you're going to claim that this is all 'just politics', you have to explain why such a diversity of governments, with diametrically opposed interests, have decided to agree on this one issue only.
In practice, you're pretty much forced to go for some version of the 'it's all because of a secret international elite' type of explanation.
There's no point in claiming that 50% vaccination should be enough when we can see from actual events that it's not. Very few countries have anything near 100% vaccination and in any case, immunity wanes over time.
On the other hand it's abundantly clear that (allowing for local variations) the more you vaccinate, the fewer cases you have, and the less serious on average.
It's very striking what a strong overlap there is between people holding a certain group of opinions ie:
- refusing to accept there is a pandemic
- arguing that herd immunity would fix everything anyway in 6 months
- refusal to accept the effectiveness of lockdown measures
- vaccine scepticism/fear of health risk
Logically, there shouldn't have been a link between people who refuse to accept covid is dangerous and vaccine scepticism. Yet in practice, sceptics tend to hold all of these opinions together - indeed, they oppose absolutely any measure of any kind that might actually reduce the impact of the pandemic.
This is remarkable!
According to surveys, there's a further overlap (although not as complete) with a range of other political viewpoints including climate crisis denial, supporters of autocrats such as Trump, Brexiters, and an assortment of right wing conspiracy theorists.
@jmc Almost every country in the world accepts this is a serious problem. So if you're going to claim that this is all 'just politics', you have to explain why such a diversity of governments, with diametrically opposed interests, have decided to agree on this one issue only.
In practice, you're pretty much forced to go for some version of the 'it's all because of a secret international elite' type of explanation.
There's no point in claiming that 50% vaccination should be enough when we can see from actual events that it's not. Very few countries have anything near 100% vaccination and in any case, immunity wanes over time.
On the other hand it's abundantly clear that (allowing for local variations) the more you vaccinate, the fewer cases you have, and the less serious on average.
According to surveys, there's a further overlap (although not as complete) with a range of other political viewpoints including climate crisis denial, supporters of autocrats such as Trump, Brexiters, and an assortment of right wing conspiracy theorists.
I wouldn't worry about JMC's 50% vaccination stuff. He has become all mixed up on the subject and is spouting nonsense.....he thinks IFR has something to do with the required vaccination rate.
Obviously he has mixed up IFR and R, which he will spot once he looks on google. Obviously he has just made up the R<1.5 which was never true at the beginning and it is much worse with delta variant. He has not considered the vaccine efficacy is less than 100%, non non homogenious take-up of vaccine. But that would have been far too difficult.
You can add "right to gun ownership" (on the basis of safety !!) to the list of correlated right wing views, judging by JMC's recent post. It does look like the whole scepticism thing is just a political stance.
I suggest you read up on the basic science in involved. Just because governments and their dependents indulge in mass hysteria does not make it "true".
Not one single basic "fact" propagated by the government public health bureaucracies since March 2020 can be confirmed or supported by the published public health literature or medical science literature of the last 100 plus years. They cannot even get the basic mathematics of epidemiology or vaccinology correct. Its all in the text books.
Yet every single public health policy decision has been based on a totally hysterical response to what is just another minor novel viral infection. According to all traditional public health criteria.
There is no public health science involved. Its been 100% politics from the very beginning. Very obvious from the volte face on every single issue.
At first no masks, because that was the science. Then masks because the politicians had to do something that was high visibility.
At first no lock downs, because that was the public health science, Then lockdowns because of a cascade of political panic worldwide started by a vicious personal political squabble in Lombardy.
Then all hospitals were cleared out because, "flatten the curve". Yet clinical papers had already been published in early March from Taiwan showing the that the R0 < 2 and only risk age > 70 so there was going to be no strong primary infection wave. So no need to clear the hospitals etc. Completely ignored, because it was 100% political panic by that stage.
Then the politicians were stuck in a lockdown catastrophe with no way out. The vaccinology science of pandemics is unless you have a mature vaccine ready to go at the start of the pandemic (like with influenza) vaccines will have zero effect on outcome. Zero.
But the politicians have to do something but human corona viruses have a long history of unsuccessful vaccines. So the politicians forced the population though brainwashing and coercion to get vaccinated with completely untested vaccines types which will have zero effect on any pandemic total mortality but will kill very large numbers of people due to side effects.
So show me where the actual science is anywhere in the decisions made since March 2020. There is none. And not just some credentialized sock puppet arguing from authority. I've dealt with enough of those self serving careerists in my day job over the decades. Ever dealt with expert witnesses. Enough said.
Well if the vaccine has the claimed efficacy then with an IFR of < 1.5 the base vaccination rate (the rate to stop any community spread so end of pandemic) is less than 50%. Thats the science of public health vaccination. So why the huge push to get everyone vaccinated? If its not needed.
But if the vaccine does not have the claimed efficacy then it has a very high probability of providing no protection to those at high health risk from any potential SARs CoV 2 infection. Thats the science of vaccines and immunity. So why the huge push to get everyone vaccinated? If it does not work as a public health measure.
The only reason for the huge push is panic by the public health bureaucracy and its political master and as desperate measure to put off their day of reckoning as their house of cards collapses. All lies and ass covering for their incompetence.
So whats the risk you are talking about? There has been no huge upswing in viral respiratory infection moralities in the last two years. None. The risk to the general population, the attack rate and the IFR, for SARs CoV 2 is lower not only than previous pandemic influenza but apart from the over 70 cohort, lower than endemic influenza.
Some risk.
But there has been a large upswing in excess mortality rates in a few very specific categories. All associated with either the lcokdown or vaccines averse responses.
But you think its OK to try to force people to take completely untested and in the cases of mRNA vaccines little understood vaccines types just because you believe in the current mass hysteria. If you believe the propaganda you take it. But some of us read what the public health bureaucracy has said and when checked against the literature and science of the last 100 years plus little or none of bears any close examination. Its all politics and little or no medical science.
Are you capable of giving informed consent to the medical experiment you are part of? Go ahead, be a medical guinea pig. Because that is exactly what you are.
You seem to be confused with your science lecture. What has IFR to do with required vaccination rate?
And we can ask - why is the stated intention to wait until February before imposing compulsory vaccination in Austria? What is the plan for between now and February?
It could be that once again it is the city of Paris that inspires a revolutionary movement internationally.
Does that sound unrealistic? Perhaps not, if our assessment is that President Macron may find that he is constrained to say "yes" or "no" to such a policy in France. And if that's the case, I can't envisage him saying "no". And an election is coming. Extrapolate from there.
President Macron may find that he is constrained to say "yes" or "no" to such a policy in France.
What other choice, beyond "yes" or "no" might he decide?
I guess Austria is hoping that people may come to their senses before the law take effect and get vaccinated.
I think they would been better off with incentives, like money to motivate people.
I think a higher tax rate for unvaccinated and a lower rate for the vaccinated would have been more effective.
It seems that in Rotterdam last night the Dutch police opened fire on protestors against the crackdown, wounding at least three. Let us hope that all of the victims survive.
Interesting to see that countries with low vaccination rates are having these problems.
One might believe there is a relationship.
