Austria mandatory vaccines and new lockdown

[dj230]

saw on the news Austria just began another lockdown and has made vaccines mandatory

 

wonder if other countries will follow suit 

[Rookiescot]

19 hours ago, dj230 said:

saw on the news Austria just began another lockdown and has made vaccines mandatory

wonder if other countries will follow suit 

Really hope that other countries do not follow suit. Personally I am double jabbed with Pfizer but I strongly disagree with it being compulsory. 

[PBS]

20 hours ago, dj230 said:

saw on the news Austria just began another lockdown and has made vaccines mandatory

wonder if other countries will follow suit 

An article below covering this question.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/not-just-austria-which-countries-have-made-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory/ae9fda34-e19f-43b1-aa5c-5bddd41fec9a

Unless further advances are made in a timely manner for Covid 19 vaccine technology, quite possible mandatory vaccination / enforced lockdowns for the unvaccinated will become more prevalent.  Australian government has utilised existing bio security law to back up lockdown and so on. I assume same path will be used by other governments.

https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/covid-19-emergency-measures-extended-for-a-further-three-months-0

In Australia children, as in Thailand, must have certain vaccinations to attend school, in other words 'mandatory', Personally I have no objection to mandatory Covid vaccination, unless medically exempted. A few weeks back in Oz  I read around 10,000 had applied for medical exemption , only approx 125 were granted.

Edited November 20, 2021 by PBS

[mickkotlarski]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Really hope that other countries do not follow suit. Personally I am double jabbed with Pfizer but I strongly disagree with it being compulsory. 

Ditto. Word for word.

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, mickkotlarski said:

Ditto. Word for word.

I am genuinely searching for a reason behind this move from a medical or social perspective. 

Then it occurred to me. Particular ethnic groups and religions are reluctant to get vaccinated.

Is this a way of forcing these people out of the country?

[Rookiescot]

5 hours ago, PBS said:

An article below covering this question.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/not-just-austria-which-countries-have-made-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory/ae9fda34-e19f-43b1-aa5c-5bddd41fec9a

Unless further advances are made in a timely manner for Covid 19 vaccine technology, quite possible mandatory vaccination / enforced lockdowns for the unvaccinated will become more prevalent.  Australian government has utilised existing bio security law to back up lockdown and so on. I assume same path will be used by other governments.

https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/covid-19-emergency-measures-extended-for-a-further-three-months-0

In Australia children, as in Thailand, must have certain vaccinations to attend school, in other words 'mandatory', Personally I have no objection to mandatory Covid vaccination, unless medically exempted. A few weeks back in Oz  I read around 10,000 had applied for medical exemption , only approx 125 were granted.

I fully understand what you are saying and part of me agrees. Health workers also have to have certain vaccinations before they are allowed to start work (at least in the UK but I imagine Aus will have the same rules).

However these are historically tried and tested vaccines. The risks are known. What seems to worry anti vaxxers is that they believe the vaccines are not safe. Particularly the mRNA.

Also certain religions have come out and said that they should not get a vaccine. Lets not open that can of worms please.

So ultimately Austria will be asking people to choose between their faith or beliefs v getting vaccinated.

That for me is unfair.

Now I think if you wish to remain unvaccinated it is reasonable to enforce certain restrictions but forcing vaccination is a step too far for me.

[mickkotlarski]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I am genuinely searching for a reason behind this move from a medical or social perspective. 

Then it occurred to me. Particular ethnic groups and religions are reluctant to get vaccinated.

Is this a way of forcing these people out of the country?

A wee tribute to rational thought.You're not the only person with these questions RS.

So many permutations and combinations but often there is a common theme. Some people have something to gain from other people's (masses) hardship.

We could discuss this for hours but when I hear that 93% of the FDA's monetary input comes from Big Pharma. How easier to displace a person than to make them illegal.

[Rookiescot]

12 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

A wee tribute to rational thought.You're not the only person with these questions RS.

So many permutations and combinations but often there is a common theme. Some people have something to gain from other people's (masses) hardship.

We could discuss this for hours but when I hear that 93% of the FDA's monetary input comes from Big Pharma. How easier to displace a person than to make them illegal.

I suspect that Austria has done this not from a financial point of view but from one of "racial purity".

It does have previous form in this subject. 

[mickkotlarski]

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I suspect that Austria has done this not from a financial point of view but from one of "racial purity".

It does have previous form in this subject. 

In part highly possible. I'm wondering if Germany follows suit.

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Really hope that other countries do not follow suit. Personally I am double jabbed with Pfizer but I strongly disagree with it being compulsory. 

I too would not want to see it made it compulsory, but I do favour the unvaxxed being denied access to facilities where they may present a threat to the vaxxed. 

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I too would not want to see it made it compulsory, but I do favour the unvaxxed being denied access to facilities where they may present a threat to the vaxxed. 

I have said for a while that unvaxxed people will need to get used to the limits society puts upon them.

However these same guys see no issues with the limits society puts upon people like smokers so their argument is somewhat disingenuous. 

[Changnam43]

Compulsory is a step too far but I do not have a problem with discrimination based on vaccine status.

Workplace and public transport are a couple of areas where I think that approach is reasonable.

Would you want to be treated by a doctor, dentist or nurse who is unvaccinated?

[JohninDublin]

33 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So ultimately Austria will be asking people to choose between their faith or beliefs v getting vaccinated.

The problem that I have with this is how rational those beliefs might be.

The Indian Mutiny started because someone spread a rumour that cartridges used in the latest rifles were coated in pork fat, so Muslims could not bite into this. Simultaneously, another rumour was that it was beef fat, so Hindus could not use them. Clearly, at least one of these claims were untrue.

Then you have the loonies like Alex Jones making all sorts of claims about the ingredients contained in vaxxes, while trying to promote his own cure, a toothpaste.

The real problem I have with "beliefs", is that those who have them will invariably look for info that confirms their beliefs, and they are a lot of "zealots" (to describe them kindly) who will tell them what they want to hear for the furtherance of their own agendas.

Regardless, I don't favour compulsion, but I do believe in separation of the vaxxed from the unvaxxed.

[Mudshark]

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/11/09/1053889069/singapore-medical-bills-covid-19-patients-unvaccinated-by-choice

 

Singapore draws a line.
"Those who are "unvaccinated by choice" will have to start paying for their own COVID-19 treatment starting Dec. 8, the Ministry of Health announced on Monday, citing the strain they are putting on the nation's health care system. "Currently, unvaccinated persons make up a sizeable majority of those who require intensive inpatient care, and disproportionately contribute to the strain on our healthcare resources," it said in a statement. Singapore's government has been covering the medical bills of COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. But it says unvaccinated people will soon be on their own"

Austria has reportedly been also eyeing similar legislation as Singapore is enacting. With hospital costs massive & wuhan surging, why should society pay the costs of the willfully unvaccinated? The unvaccinated which are driving this latest surge.

Like Singapore the US is paying astronomical medical costs for Wuhan flu. Yet the non vaccinated make up 80 per cent or more of the hospitalized in the last half year. This socialist safety net cannot continue, sorry Joe. The willful unvaccinated need to shoulder their own medical costs and not depend on a socialist nanny state for a free ride. Sometimes tough love is the only real love.

 

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

The problem that I have with this is how rational those beliefs might be.

The Indian Mutiny started because someone spread a rumour that cartridges used in the latest rifles were coated in pork fat, so Muslims could not bite into this. Simultaneously, another rumour was that it was beef fat, so Hindus could not use them. Clearly, at least one of these claims were untrue.

Then you have the loonies like Alex Jones making all sorts of claims about the ingredients contained in vaxxes, while trying to promote his own cure, a toothpaste.

The real problem I have with "beliefs", is that those who have them will invariably look for info that confirms their beliefs, and they are a lot of "zealots" (to describe them kindly) who will tell them what they want to hear for the furtherance of their own agendas.

Regardless, I don't favour compulsion, but I do believe in separation of the vaxxed from the unvaxxed.

With all respect I think the reasons for not wanting a vaccine (be they rational or not) is asinine.

They will not get one regardless. I agree they have been influenced by others with their own agenda. Which is shocking when you think these influencers would see many die just to line their own pockets or further a cause.

However, how society deals with that is going to be an issue. 

[JohninDublin]

24 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I have said for a while that unvaxxed people will need to get used to the limits society puts upon them.

However these same guys see no issues with the limits society puts upon people like smokers so their argument is somewhat disingenuous. 

Don't quite get the bit about smokers, as they are pretty much ostracised in many western countries.

Ireland was the first country in Europe to place stringent restrictions on them. As a consequence, pubs got creative and built outdoor smoking areas attached to the pub. The smokers were driven out of the warm bars and just like Native Americans, driven to the worst part of the icy reservation, often in unheated marquees, while the non-smokers were allowed to enjoy the centrally heated interior of the pub. Come summer, the analogy with Native Americans was maintained. Like those white men who discovered Gold on the reservations, they discovered warm weather. It was time for the Indians to be moved to another reservation because they didn't like people smoking near them now that they had decided to eat out doors while the weather was nice. Come the winter, they give the land back to the Indians.

Speaking as a smoker, I don't have problem with being excluded from places where my habit might represent a risk to others health. Now bear in mind that smoking illnesses are cumulative and take years to develop: What are the chances that my smoking in a room fool of non-smokers is likely to lead to them catching a serious illness within days. What are the chances that if I am in a room with someone who is unvaxxed and infected, that I might catch CV.

If I can accept the restrictions on myself as a smoker who poses little real risk to others, I am more than willing to insist that where possible, those who are unvaxxed who pose a much greater risk should be separated. If I want to enjoy the warmth of the pub in winter, I am forbidden from smoking there. Simple as that really. 

[mickkotlarski]

32 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I have said for a while that unvaxxed people will need to get used to the limits society puts upon them.

However these same guys see no issues with the limits society puts upon people like smokers so their argument is somewhat disingenuous. 

I am in virtually 100 % agreement with both yourself and JohnDubin but in the back of my mind there is something that brings be to the middle. "We still don't have a vaccine" only an emergency one.

Working in Africa I had 10 compulsory vaccinations apart from malaria. All these vaccines worked. Six of them were totally effective against contracting the respective diseases and viruses. I was ordered by my company to do so and had no objection as they worked.

Should humanity come up with an actual vaccine then the restrictions placed are to be adhered with confidence. But RS pointed out some obvious facts. There is a discrimination of sorts against those that chose not to vaccinate.

Yet another topic where forum members have presented an accurate and common sense argument but I feel uneasy discriminating against people because they choose not to invest in a vaccine that is not foolproof.

Rules are there for a purpose but more and more freedom of choice is again compromised. I will get another booster (probably Moderna) but my bad feelings towards non vaxers is over. Agree or disagree I respect their choice.    

In closing a word of praise for Rookiescot wrt the forum on the shooting of protestors. .... Well done!!!

In plain layman's terms...Rookiestar your a star mate.

 

 

 

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Don't quite get the bit about smokers, as they are pretty much ostracised in many western countries.

Ireland was the first country in Europe to place stringent restrictions on them. As a consequence, pubs got creative and built outdoor smoking areas attached to the pub. The smokers were driven out of the warm bars and just like Native Americans, driven to the worst part of the icy reservation, often in unheated marquees, while the non-smokers were allowed to enjoy the centrally heated interior of the pub. Come summer, the analogy with Native Americans was maintained. Like those white men who discovered Gold on the reservations, they discovered warm weather. It was time for the Indians to be moved to another reservation because they didn't like people smoking near them now that they had decided to eat out doors while the weather was nice. Come the winter, they give the land back to the Indians.

Speaking as a smoker, I don't have problem with being excluded from places where my habit might represent a risk to others health. Now bear in mind that smoking illnesses are cumulative and take years to develop: What are the chances that my smoking in a room fool of non-smokers is likely to lead to them catching a serious illness within days. What are the chances that if I am in a room with someone who is unvaxxed and infected, that I might catch CV.

If I can accept the restrictions on myself as a smoker who poses little real risk to others, I am more than willing to insist that where possible, those who are unvaxxed who pose a much greater risk should be separated. If I want to enjoy the warmth of the pub in winter, I am forbidden from smoking there. Simple as that really. 

No. I used smokers as an example nothing else. And it is a good example. Look how society and venues changed. I am a smoker too. However I had to adjust to the changes society put upon me.

Anti vaxers will simply have to do the same.

[mickkotlarski]

9 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Don't quite get the bit about smokers, as they are pretty much ostracised in many western countries.

Ireland was the first country in Europe to place stringent restrictions on them. As a consequence, pubs got creative and built outdoor smoking areas attached to the pub. The smokers were driven out of the warm bars and just like Native Americans, driven to the worst part of the icy reservation, often in unheated marquees, while the non-smokers were allowed to enjoy the centrally heated interior of the pub. Come summer, the analogy with Native Americans was maintained. Like those white men who discovered Gold on the reservations, they discovered warm weather. It was time for the Indians to be moved to another reservation because they didn't like people smoking near them now that they had decided to eat out doors while the weather was nice. Come the winter, they give the land back to the Indians.

Speaking as a smoker, I don't have problem with being excluded from places where my habit might represent a risk to others health. Now bear in mind that smoking illnesses are cumulative and take years to develop: What are the chances that my smoking in a room fool of non-smokers is likely to lead to them catching a serious illness within days. What are the chances that if I am in a room with someone who is unvaxxed and infected, that I might catch CV.

If I can accept the restrictions on myself as a smoker who poses little real risk to others, I am more than willing to insist that where possible, those who are unvaxxed who pose a much greater risk should be separated. If I want to enjoy the warmth of the pub in winter, I am forbidden from smoking there. Simple as that really. 

I think it was just an analogy John and not necessarily directly linked. 

[JohninDublin]

24 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

With all respect I think the reasons for not wanting a vaccine (be they rational or not) is asinine.

They will not get one regardless. I agree they have been influenced by others with their own agenda. Which is shocking when you think these influencers would see many die just to line their own pockets or further a cause.

However, how society deals with that is going to be an issue. 

As I've said already, I have sympathy with the "Wait and see" group. Of course there then becomes the question of how long should we wait and see? And those who look for answers will seek out the answers that suit their own mindset. 

I remember when the compulsory seat belt laws were introduced. An acquaintance (he was far too stupid to be thought of as a friend) of mine complained because of the "attack" on his personal freedom. He said to me, "Suppose I am wearing a seat belt and I have a crash and the car catches fire and I've broken both my hands. How am I going to undo the seat belt"? I said a better question in that scenario would be, "How are you going to be able open the car door"?

[Rookiescot]

9 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

I think it was just an analogy John and not necessarily directly linked. 

Given I am a smoker too it was certainly not a criticism. Its simply an example of how people have to respond to the wants of wider society. As anti vaxers will have to do.

[JohninDublin]

15 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

No. I used smokers as an example nothing else. And it is a good example. Look how society and venues changed. I am a smoker too. However I had to adjust to the changes society put upon me.

Anti vaxers will simply have to do the same.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. As far as I can tell, we both seem to agree that we would not support compulsion, but we would support separation. Am I right?

[JohninDublin]

15 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

I think it was just an analogy John and not necessarily directly linked. 

I understand that, but my initial impression was that he did not endorse separation for the unvaxxed? He seems to have got the same idea about me.

[mickkotlarski]

7 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I understand that, but my initial impression was that he did not endorse separation for the unvaxxed? He seems to have got the same idea about me.

Your opening statement still stands. No drama John.

[JohninDublin]

2 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Your opening statement still stands. No drama John.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I never thought we were arguing from different standpoints on this.