Austria mandatory vaccines and new lockdown

[mickkotlarski]

28 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

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?

 Not necessarily. Simply looking at valid points from both perspectives.

[PBS]

9 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

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.

The underlying vaccine technologies for Covid have been developed and researched over many years, it is a false claim to say they are untested. Take a look at the following example of Fact Check.

While it’s true that mRNA vaccines are new, the technology is not. The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are mRNA vaccines.

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/are-the-covid-vaccines-experimental

Personally I find it ludicrous to claim exemption on religious grounds. The group who refuse blood transfusions, only effects their life expectancy, but demanding exemption which will affect others in society is not on. Those that refuse vaccination who are in the workforce and are dismissed, then go on to claim welfare benefits; is that fair, I don't think so. Unvaccinated people appear to have no concern whatsoever with spreading Covid, many believe in conspiracy theories from the right of centre - the bottom line it's politically motivated.

"I think if you wish to remain unvaccinated it is reasonable to enforce certain restrictions"

The point is the unvaccinated are demonstrating as they refuse to accept any restrictions. 

 

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, PBS said:

The underlying vaccine technologies for Covid have been developed and researched over many years, it is a false claim to say they are untested. Take a look at the following example of Fact Check.

While it’s true that mRNA vaccines are new, the technology is not. The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are mRNA vaccines.

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/are-the-covid-vaccines-experimental

Personally I find it ludicrous to claim exemption on religious grounds. The group who refuse blood transfusions, only effects their life expectancy, but demanding exemption which will affect others in society is not on. Those that refuse vaccination who are in the workforce and are dismissed, then go on to claim welfare benefits; is that fair, I don't think so. Unvaccinated people appear to have no concern whatsoever with spreading Covid, many believe in conspiracy theories from the right of centre - the bottom line it's politically motivated.

"I think if you wish to remain unvaccinated it is reasonable to enforce certain restrictions"

The point is the unvaccinated are demonstrating as they refuse to accept any restrictions. 

Mate I think we are in heated agreement here.

Some people do not want to get vaccinated. Full stop. We can try and educate or convince these people but we are probably wasting our time.

But. Society has a right to protect itself from their choice. They can demonstrate all they want but they will either comply or face sanctions.

[billywillyjones]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Mate I think we are in heated agreement here.

Some people do not want to get vaccinated. Full stop. We can try and educate or convince these people but we are probably wasting our time.

But. Society has a right to protect itself from their choice. They can demonstrate all they want but they will either comply or face sanctions.

Why don' t you read the recently posted article here on Thaiger about payouts for adverse side effects. Duh...

[Rookiescot]

5 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

Why don' t you read the recently posted article here on Thaiger about payouts for adverse side effects. Duh...

Why dont you keep a civil level of debate rather than being childish?

[billywillyjones]

14 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Why dont you keep a civil level of debate rather than being childish?

And your point is?  I am suggesting an article that is totally relevant to the conversation.  What is childish is your runaway don't answer comments.  Why don't you explain the context of the article about adverse side affects as you are posting about how safe things are... 

[Rookiescot]

20 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

And your point is?  I am suggesting an article that is totally relevant to the conversation.  What is childish is your runaway don't answer comments.  Why don't you explain the context of the article about adverse side affects as you are posting about how safe things are... 

I dont have to explain anything. The vast majority of society have decided to get vaccinated. They will impose restrictions on those who chose not to be.

Deal with it.

[billywillyjones]

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I dont have to explain anything. The vast majority of society have decided to get vaccinated. They will impose restrictions on those who chose not to be.

Deal with it.

 It appears you have no respect for minority rights.  In you eyes if the majority has a rule all must follow.  

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, billywillyjones said:

 It appears you have no respect for minority rights.  In you eyes if the majority has a rule all must follow.  

Welcome to the real world. Following your logic smokers should be free to smoke wherever and whenever they want. Is that what you are advocating? 

[billywillyjones]

43 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Welcome to the real world. Following your logic smokers should be free to smoke wherever and whenever they want. Is that what you are advocating? 

Nice try. 

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

Nice try. 

Nice non answer.

[billywillyjones]

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Nice non answer.

Sorry I am not going to wade into the shallow end of the think tank where you are most likely drown proofing lol. 

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, billywillyjones said:

Sorry I am not going to wade into the shallow end of the think tank where you are most likely drown proofing lol. 

No what you are trying to do is portrait yourself as a victim when society imposes sanctions for your decision. That is not going to wash. You have no answer as to why society should accommodate your choices while not doing so for other groups. This is pure hypocrisy. 

You dont want a vaccine. Fair enough. Accept the consequences. 

[billywillyjones]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

No what you are trying to do is portrait yourself as a victim when society imposes sanctions for your decision. That is not going to wash. You have no answer as to why society should accommodate your choices while not doing so for other groups. This is pure hypocrisy. 

You dont want a vaccine. Fair enough. Accept the consequences. 

Cigarette smoking is not comparable and should of course be controlled through regulation as it is proven to harm others.  Are you aware that for decades the medical community deemed it safe and you would even see doctors openly endorsing it in ads etc.?  So if you were around way back then would you be defending it vehemently because someone told you it is okay? 

Now get your head around that vaccines as all are not created equally.  The mRNA vaccine is not a traditional type of vaccine and has not gone anything near normal long term testing as required prior to release.  It was rushed to combat the virus.  I am not saying it will be harmful long term as we must wait and see but I am saying it is wise to be cautious and to evaluate every case on an individual basis.  Someone who has had covid and has antibodies or a young healthy person will have a much different profile than someone who has preconditions, is overweight, has type 2 diabetes, etc.     Recent data has indicated the vaccinated are now carriers and can actually spread the virus.  It has little to do with the issue of personal freedoms but is more about examining the science behind the vaccines.  Do some due dillegence and perhaps you will realize these facts instead of being some type of vaccine cheerleader pushing it on eveyone.  I understand why someone is motivated to take it and I also understand why some are cautious.  Make your own decisions but base it on a thorough investigation and analysis of your indivicual case.

[Rookiescot]

15 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

Cigarette smoking is not comparable and should of course be controlled through regulation as it is proven to harm others.  Are you aware that for decades the medical community deemed it safe and you would even see doctors openly endorsing it in ads etc.?  So if you were around way back then would you be defending it vehemently because someone told you it is okay? 

Now get your head around that vaccines as all are not created equally.  The mRNA vaccine is not a traditional type of vaccine and has not gone anything near normal long term testing as required prior to release.  It was rushed to combat the virus.  I am not saying it will be harmful long term as we must wait and see but I am saying it is wise to be cautious and to evaluate every case on an individual basis.  Someone who has had covid and has antibodies or a young healthy person will have a much different profile than someone who has preconditions, is overweight, has type 2 diabetes, etc.     Recent data has indicated the vaccinated are now carriers and can actually spread the virus.  It has little to do with the issue of personal freedoms but is more about examining the science behind the vaccines.  Do some due dillegence and perhaps you will realize these facts instead of being some type of vaccine cheerleader pushing it on eveyone.  I understand why someone is motivated to take it and I also understand why some are cautious.  Make your own decisions but base it on a thorough investigation and analysis of your indivicual case.

Pure hypocrisy. 

I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you that you are wrong. You need to accept that society is putting restrictions on you because of your choice.

Man up and deal with it. 

[billywillyjones]

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Pure hypocrisy. 

I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you that you are wrong. You need to accept that society is putting restrictions on you because of your choice.

Man up and deal with it. 

It appear you are unable to challenge your mindset through research and investigation.  Back to the little league for the rookie:)

[9S_]

How can the vaccinated be protected against Covid-19 when you have unvaccinated people walking around?

Exactly

[NidNoi]

16 hours ago, Changnam43 said:

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?

I don’t care if my doctor is not vaccinated. I care if he is a good or a bad doctor, period. People skills are more valuable than their vaccination status. In Canada vaccine mandates have been cancelled for healthcare workers in a couple of provinces due to lack of trained staff. Same with school boards who can’t assume education to students for lack of teachers.

As in other countries the economy is falling apart, companies can’t find workers and have to shrink their operations in terms of hours and give incentives for people to work overtime. All this mess is totally political.

Now we are told we have an epidemic of the vaccinated but we are told the hospitalized vaccinated have not covid but suffer from other ailments. 

The border with the US has reopened for the vaccinated Canadians but Canada requires a PCR test taken 72 hours before returning to Canada. So nobody goes to the US because the test is $200.00. Americans need also a PCR test to enter Canada. So the US complains because border was opened mostly for cross-border shopping and nobody comes to shop in the US. So Canada has decided to remove the mandatory PCR test on Nov.30 for Canadians staying less than 72 hours in the States….but Americans still need the PCR test to enter Canada??? And now we learn that Canada will accept travellers vaccinated with Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines while everybody knows the poor efficacy of these vaccines.

https://travel.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/destination/international/canada-to-accept-travellers-vaccinated-with-covaxin-from-nov-30/87813794

As we all know this totally political: Trudeau released Weng Manzhou, Huawei CFO and open the borders officially to Chinese and Indian travellers (in fact the air traffic between China and India has never been so active than during the pandemic because these people have double citizenship and been able to travel back and forth while we were in total lockdowns).

https://www.ackahlaw.com/news/canada-fast-track-to-permanent-residency-for-foreign-healthcare-workers

https://www.mondaq.com/canada/work-visas/1027856/canada39s-prime-minister-makes-bringing-in-healthcare-workers-a-top-priority

So evidently the sanitary measures are just political and done to please Trudeau’s electorate and his master Xi-Jiping.

 

[Shark]

4 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

Why don' t you read the recently posted article here on Thaiger about payouts for adverse side effects.

The 620 million baht of which most have been allocated to Bangkok where the vaccination rate was the lowest where did you think the money went... be honest you know the answer.... if only 1% has reached the people really needing it was already a lot but sponsoring your family money for free because it comes out of a "government powered fund".

[cmsally]

You are essentially asking the unvaccinated to take responsibility for the ills of the populace and the stability of the health system, when the pharmaceutical companies won't even take responsibility for their own products.

 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

It appear you are unable to challenge your mindset through research and investigation.  Back to the little league for the rookie:)

And you appear both childish and immature. 

[Rookiescot]

44 minutes ago, DeepPool said:

When is it to much? When will you fight back?

So I am supposed to help the anti vaxers who refuse to help themselves or society?

Not going to happen.

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Mate I think we are in heated agreement here.

Some people do not want to get vaccinated. Full stop. We can try and educate or convince these people but we are probably wasting our time.

But. Society has a right to protect itself from their choice. They can demonstrate all they want but they will either comply or face sanctions.

I have on occasion cited the case of Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary), who was a carrier of Typhoid and also a cook who infected and even killed some of her employers families. She refused to stop working as a cook, so the alternative was for her to have her gall bladder removed, and that would resolve the problem. She refused to have the procedure as well as refusing to accept the science (sounds familiar) so she was taken into medical custody, where she spent the rest of her life. 

Clearly, there is precedent for dealing with those who present an ongoing risk to public health. I don't suggest that anti-vaxxers should be taken into custody, but I am very much in favour of reducing the risk they represent to the public, by denying them access to places such as bars, restaurants etc that the vaxxed inhabit. And if someone wants to cater to the possible 30% of the population by opening bars etc to cater for this section, let them do so.

[JohninDublin]

5 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

Why don' t you read the recently posted article here on Thaiger about payouts for adverse side effects. Duh...

I don't think anyone has said that the vax is risk free. However, if you are looking at in cash terms universally rather than one territory, I think the evidence is clear that the vax is self-financing. Just one example, those who are vaxxed and then infected have massively better outcomes and spend far less time in treatment than the unvaxxed.

[JohninDublin]

5 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

And your point is?  I am suggesting an article that is totally relevant to the conversation.  What is childish is your runaway don't answer comments.  Why don't you explain the context of the article about adverse side affects as you are posting about how safe things are... 

And you don't think that the addition of "Duh" to your comment is childish?