Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

[MadonnaProject]

Well it seems you do think it's about winning.

You try to put yourself forward as some kind of expert to shut down conversation.

You tried to compare people to nazi's to shut down conversation, but just succeeded in trivializing nazi's.

Someone who was just sharing opinions wouldn't act the way you do.

Each society and religion have ideas that they impose on people, or punish them if they don't follow them. All of the countries you visited have different things they impose, I'm surprised you didn't come across any of them.

1. Omicron has infected people who are double jabbed. In quite high numbers.
2. Omicron is a VARIATION.
3. Oxford research has shown Pfizer and Astra Zenca vaccines are far less effective against omicron because ITS A VARIANT.

How, then, getting another "top up" of the same vaccine would be effective against this variant in any significant capacity? Simple answer is no one knows. Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective.

This is similar to eating 5 bowls extra of chicken soup when you have a cold, especially when most people can't decide if you starve a cold and feed a fever or the other way around.

I do hate capitalising but have to when speaking to the meek minded. Fact remains, forcing anyone to do anything is wrong.

P.s: The rest of what you said is BS. I don't care about psycho-analysis babble by keyboard experts.

 

[Lacius]

1. Omicron has infected people who are double jabbed. In quite high numbers.
2. Omicron is a VARIATION.
3. Oxford research has shown Pfizer and Astra Zenca vaccines are far less effective against omicron because ITS A VARIANT.

How, then, getting another "top up" of the same vaccine would be effective against this variant in any significant capacity? Simple answer is no one knows. Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective.

This is similar to eating 5 bowls extra of chicken soup when you have a cold, especially when most people can't decide if you starve a cold and feed a fever or the other way around.

I do hate capitalising but have to when speaking to the meek minded. Fact remains, forcing anyone to do anything is wrong.

P.s: The rest of what you said is BS. I don't care about psycho-analysis babble by keyboard experts.

Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.

Forcing someone to do something is often warranted and reasonable. Forcing parents to provide basic levels of stewardship for their children is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to wear clothes in public is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to get vaccinated before being able to have certain privileges is warranted and reasonable.

 

[MadonnaProject]

Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.

Forcing someone to do something is often warranted and reasonable. Forcing parents to provide basic levels of stewardship for their children is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to wear clothes in public is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to get vaccinated before being able to have certain privileges is warranted and reasonable.

Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.

Since we're comparing ostriches to oranges, by your logic forcing people to work in slavery as long as it creates fertile harvest, or build a tall building would be reasonable too? Let's not stop there what do you think about forcing people into sexual contact? As long as the other person is good looking it might produce a beautiful child right?

NO. Forcing another sentient being to do anything against their will is nothing but wrong.

Sort of nice to see how the american moral fibre has collapsed over the past 20 years. Penance for invading other countries and destroying them.

 

[appleburger]

Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.

Since we're comparing ostriches to oranges, by your logic forcing people to work in slavery as long as it creates fertile harvest, or build a tall building would be reasonable too? Let's not stop there what do you think about forcing people into sexual contact? As long as the other person is good looking it might produce a beautiful child right?

NO. Forcing another sentient being to do anything against their will is nothing but wrong.

Sort of nice to see how the american moral fibre has collapsed over the past 20 years. Penance for invading other countries and destroying them.

I think that's a bit black & white thinking. "Force" vs. "no force" is a gross oversimplification.

Mandates are not a new concept. I feel like your comments are beginning to lean towards anarchy, which I can't see benefiting us very well. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Mandates are useful in a society, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that. If the collective feels a mandate will protect the majority, then I think it's wise to lend some credence to that mandate.

The idea of never "forcing" anyone to do anything sounds like an anarchist, utopian concept to me. And I feel like a pandemic is about appropriate of a time as ever to have a mandate if it means keeping more of us alive.

I understand the whole "foot in the door" concept with mandates, but I personally think the Patriot Act was far more of a breach in that realm than a vaccine mandate, given that the vaccine mandate would actually save lives.

 

[Foxi4]

Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.

Forcing someone to do something is often warranted and reasonable. Forcing parents to provide basic levels of stewardship for their children is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to wear clothes in public is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to get vaccinated before being able to have certain privileges is warranted and reasonable.

Coercion has never been an acceptable part of medicine, but that aside, I would have to hear what you consider to be a privilege. If by that you mean walking around in public and operating in civil society then I’m afraid that’s a right, not a privilege. Access to public transport, if provided by the state, might be considered a privilege - it’s not an enumerated right, nobody is born with the right to get a lift on the state’s dime. Walking down a public road unimpeded without being harassed? That’s not a privilege, that’s just normal. Reclassifying inherent rights as privileges in order to slide authoritarianism under the table only works on the stupid, most people with a level of intelligence higher than that of a kumquat will have a few issues with your train of thought.

 

[subcon959]

In an effort to return to the topic, I just googled new cases in Austria and got this..

That actually surprised me as I expected there to be a continuing upward trend.

Edit: Silly me, I forgot they went through a lockdown so it makes sense.

 

[djpannda]

In an effort to return to the topic, I just googled new cases in Austria and got this..

That actually surprised me as I expected there to be a continuing upward trend.

..wait are you saying Mandating the Vaccine is *working*

 

[appleburger]

In an effort to return to the topic, I just googled new cases in Austria and got this..

That actually surprised me as I expected there to be a continuing upward trend.

If you look at 2020, Austria had the same bump (smaller numbers, but the bell curve there is very close and almost to the day).

 

[subcon959]

I added an edit to my post after I realised what the cause was.

 

[appleburger]

I added an edit to my post after I realised what the cause was.

Did they have a lockdown in 2020 as well? Because it looks like a very similar distribution of cases happened this exact time last year, as well.

 

[subcon959]

Did they have a lockdown in 2020 as well? Because it looks like a very similar distribution of cases happened this exact time last year, as well.

It's possible, I know we were in UK.

 

[appleburger]

It's possible, I know we were in UK.

I googled, and they did have a lockdown in November of 2020

 

[subcon959]

Yeah, so all that graph tells us is that lockdowns work.

 

[appleburger]

Yeah, so all that graph tells us is that lockdowns work.

Yeah, no surprise there. I'd expect numbers affected from vaccines to take some time to catch up. That should naturally be delayed from the lockdown, and you'll need some time to pass for new infections to hit the population, get recorded, and then show up on these graphs. Even then it's all obviously correlative, so you need some time to let it cook before you can start making educated guesses.

 

[Lacius]

Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.

https://www.who.int/news-room/event...vading-immunity-and-what-are-the-implications

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/15/world/covid-omicron-vaccines

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-vaccine-too-study-suggests-but-boosters-help

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ose-vaccine-protects-omicron-variant-rcna7970

Since we're comparing ostriches to oranges, by your logic forcing people to work in slavery as long as it creates fertile harvest, or build a tall building would be reasonable too? Let's not stop there what do you think about forcing people into sexual contact? As long as the other person is good looking it might produce a beautiful child right?

NO. Forcing another sentient being to do anything against their will is nothing but wrong.

The examples you provided are, of course, immoral. However, just because these things are bad doesn't mean other unrelated things are also bad.

If you want to go out in public, you generally have to wear clothes. If you want to have children, you generally can't be negligent (particularly when it comes to the health and safety of the child). If you want to ride a plane, go to a restaurant, etc., you should have to be vaccinated.

Slavery and forced copulation, to use your odd examples, are immoral because they're violations of one's right to autonomy. However, a vaccine mandate is no more a violation of one's right to autonomy than a clothes mandate. You have a right to be unvaccinated, but that doesn't mean you should have the right to be unvaccinated in a public space. I have a right to be naked, but it doesn't mean I have a right to be naked in a public space.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Lacius]

Coercion has never been an acceptable part of medicine, but that aside, I would have to hear what you consider to be a privilege. If by that you mean walking around in public and operating in civil society then I’m afraid that’s a right, not a privilege. Access to public transport, if provided by the state, might be considered a privilege - it’s not an enumerated right, nobody is born with the right to get a lift on the state’s dime. Walking down a public road unimpeded without being harassed? That’s not a privilege, that’s just normal. Reclassifying inherent rights as privileges in order to slide authoritarianism under the table only works on the stupid, most people with a level of intelligence higher than that of a kumquat will have a few issues with your train of thought.

I have a right to free speech; I generally don't have the right to recklessly shout "fire" in a crowded room where there isn't one.

I have a right walk down a public road; I generally don't have the right to walk down a public road naked.

I have a right to enter a place of business like a restaurant. That doesn't mean I can or should have the right to enter the restaurant naked, unmasked, and/or unvaccinated.

Only a kumquat thinks rights are unlimited or without restrictions.

 

[Foxi4]

I have a right to free speech; I generally don't have the right to recklessly shout "fire" in a crowded room where there isn't one.

Horrible example from a case that’s been long since overturned. It was also penalising a citizen for his opposition to the draft, in case you’re unaware, which was in fact his civil right. The actual legal standard was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio and only includes speech likely to incite immediate lawless action. Nice attempt, but your camp really needs to refresh their copy pastas, they don’t reflect reality.

I have a right walk down a public road; I generally don't have the right to walk down a public road naked.

Liberals opposing the sexual revolution, we really do live in perpetual Opposite Day. The actual legal standard broadly is indecent exposure, as in parading naked in public where one can be easily seen by others, although it differs wildly depending on states. Many areas are rather accepting of some degree of public nudity, and if I’m not mistaken, it is the political left that advocates for freeing the nipple, so you’re cutting the branch you’d otherwise comfortably sit on.

I have a right to enter a place of business like a restaurant. That doesn't mean I can or should have the right to enter the restaurant naked, unmasked, and/or unvaccinated.

Since a restaurant is a private establishment, all of those things are actually up to the owner of the property. If you feel like opening a nudist restaurant, legally speaking there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so.

Only a kumquat thinks rights are unlimited or without restrictions.

Rights are unlimited and without restriction, that’s what makes them rights, as opposed to privileges, which are granted by the state. Privileges are selective and conditional, rights are inherent and unconditional.

 

[appleburger]

Horrible example from a case that’s been long since overturned. It was also penalising a citizen for his opposition to the draft, in case you’re unaware, which was in fact his civil right. The actual legal standard was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio and only includes speech likely to incite immediate lawless action. Nice attempt, but your camp really needs to refresh their copy pastas, they don’t reflect reality.
Liberals opposing the sexual revolution, we really do live in perpetual Opposite Day. The actual legal standard broadly is indecent exposure, as in parading naked in public where one can be easily seen by others, although it differs wildly depending on states. Many areas are rather accepting of some degree of public nudity, and if I’m not mistaken, it is the political left that advocates for freeing the nipple, so you’re cutting the branch you’d otherwise comfortably sit on.
Since a restaurant is a private establishment, all of those things are actually up to the owner of the property. If you feel like opening a nudist restaurant, legally speaking there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so.
Rights are unlimited and without restriction, that’s what makes them rights, as opposed to privileges, which are granted by the state. Privileges are selective and conditional, rights are inherent and unconditional.

Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo. They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away. Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind. You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well. These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.

It's just American marketing, in my eyes. But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools. That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department. And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book. It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.

I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument. People are free to feel it's not fair - but having a right? Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context. There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives. Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives. I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo. They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away. Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind. You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well. These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.

It's just American marketing, in my eyes. But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools. That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department. And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book. It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.

I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument. People are free to feel it's not fair - but having a right? Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context. There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives. Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives. I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.

Basic human rights do exist and we are entitled to happiness when we work for it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, the US has hit many bumps in the road, have had our good and bad times, but we're much better than we were in the pass, even though we have more assholes now, and no country is without it's faults. We're certainly not the first country in history to make mistake and we won't be the last. In the end though, there is a difference from making rules to prevent crime vs. forcing someone to take a experimental vaccine to make others "feel better".

 

[appleburger]

Basic human rights do exist and we are entitled to happiness when we work for it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, the US has hit many bumps in the road, have had our good and bad times, but we're much better than we were in the pass, even though we have more assholes now, and no country is without it's faults. We're certainly not the first country in history to make mistake and we won't be the last. In the end though, there is a difference from making rules to prevent crime vs. forcing someone to take a experimental vaccine to make others "feel better".

Sure, I'll grant you that rights as an idea technically exist - but I'm saying that in the context of what the government actually grants us, it's really just privileges, effectively.

Rules for preventing crime is one category - there are more categories. You and I both know this.

The vaccines aren't experimental. Their functions are well understood and documented, and that's not a matter of opinion. Vaccines have been experimental and riddled with issues in the past, but it's all very well documented for you to look over. The only issues that come from them at this point are extremely rare, and often due to immune responses, not due to the contents of the vaccine itself.

If I were to steelman your argument, I'd instead say that vaccinations come with a risk - now that is true. You just need to understand that the point of issue typically comes from people's immune responses - not the vaccine itself. Same thing happens with, say, peanuts.

So, we know they come with a risk. So why mandate that? Kinda scary, right? Because the risk with COVID is very extreme. We haven't lost this many lives on the planet in a very long time. We have now surpassed World War II with deaths.

And our fix for World War 2? It was sending Americans into battlezones. Talk about some serious risk. And the US banded together to make that fight happen. We were willing to take the odds on, because we knew it was the better of the 2 poisons.

Now, for some reason when we're fighting an "invisible" enemy, we see people wanting to ignore the risk. It's somehow not as obvious as the Nazis were. I think that's due to survivorship bias, personally. It's easy to mentally flip a switch to wanting to be left alone and carry on when you can't actually see bodies dropping.

But - that's the reality. You are suggesting we don't march on the soil, and instead take our chances with an enemy that's far more dangerous than the Nazi party ever was. If we don't actively fight COVID, then you're looking at one of the worst human massacres in history.

I'm honestly shocked there are even people around that don't see this the way I do.