Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

[deinonychus71]

Easy to say, hard to define. If you're aiming for human rights where you get to do whatever you want whenever you want, I'd invite you come out from under your rock. On the other hand, if we pursue human rights as an optimization to allow the most amount of freedom for everyone in society as a *whole*, the vaccine mandate falls completely under that.

Right and there's many cases where "your human rights" are removed from you if you are deemed a danger to society.
Where we draw the line is really where the discussion should be. Not a hard "these are my human rights" because this isn't an argument by itself.

 

[Foxi4]

Right and there's many cases where "your human rights" are removed from you if you are deemed a danger to society.
Where we draw the line is really where the discussion should be. Not a hard "these are my human rights" because this isn't an argument by itself.

The line is not difficult at all. There are two rights in question here - bodily autonomy and right to be protected from disease (which I find questionable since the government isn’t God, but sure, let’s roll with it). In my estimation, the right to be protected from disease is fulfilled by easy and free access to vaccination which provides a huge boost to one’s immune system and, for the most part, shields them from disease. Problems arise when you take that intention of protection too far and begin infringing on the right to bodily autonomy. Providing a vaccination scheme is great, forcing people to participate is one step too far. That’s what differentiates a country that values liberty from an authoritarian shit pit.

 

[tabzer]

Lmao, do you act the same way for other actions that hurt people around you?

"Oh my god! the government has MANDATED that I must drive sober. My body my choice, I CAN DRIVE DRUNK IF I WANT TO"

YoU WOulDn'T VaCciNaTe a CaR.

Agency over my body is my right. In most places that aren't Austria, anyway.

 

[deinonychus71]

The line is not difficult at all. There are two rights in question here - bodily autonomy and right to be protected from disease (which I find questionable since the government isn’t God, but sure, let’s roll with it). In my estimation, the right to be protected from disease is fulfilled by easy and free access to vaccination which provides a huge boost to one’s immune system and, for the most part, shields them from disease. Problems arise when you take that intention of protection too far and begin infringing on the right to bodily autonomy. Providing a vaccination scheme is great, forcing people to participate is one step too far. That’s what differentiates a country that values liberty from an authoritarian shit pit.

Again, these people are undermining the global effort to get rid of a global pandemic. Clusters are created primarily by these people. You're oversimplifying the problem by reducing it to a person to person issue. Individualism will not solve this.

Also, I'm assuming you're calling Austria a shit pit now? Or maybe the whole of Europe for imposing a Covid pass that can actually be verified?
These shit pit countries you're talking about may enforce strict rules during a global pandemic, but they also get access to universal healthcare, free education and strong work ethics. In some of these "shit pit" countries lobbies can't pay elections either, so you get that "right" back.
When talking about "freedom" i'm not sure they're on the losing side.

 

[tabzer]

just provide a source that shows not getting vaccinated doesn’t have harmful effects on others around the Individual.

This is braindead drivel that equates not doing something to spreading covid.

 

[Foxi4]

Again, these people are undermining the global effort to get rid of a global pandemic. Clusters are created primarily by these people. You're oversimplifying the problem by reducing it to a person to person issue. Individualism will not solve this.

Also, I'm assuming you're calling Austria a shit pit now? Or maybe the whole of Europe for imposing a Covid pass that can actually be verified?
These shit pit countries you're talking about may enforce strict rules during a global pandemic, but they also get access to universal healthcare, free education and strong work ethics. In some of these "shit pit" countries lobbies can't pay elections either, so you get that "right" back.
When talking about "freedom" i'm not sure they're on the losing side.

Any country that violates human rights by decree is a shit pit, yes. The depth of the shit pit can be measured by how often and how egregious those violations are. Nobody is obligated to care about any global effort to do anything. Human rights *are* a person to person issue, and you don’t get to violate them just because it makes you feel safer. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[deinonychus71]

Any country that violates human rights by decree is a shit pit, yes. The depth of the shit pit can be measured by how often and how egregious those violations are. Nobody is obligated to care about any global effort to do anything. Human rights *are* a person to person issue, and you don’t get to violate them just because it makes you feel safer. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I completely disagree with your "estimation", every person dying during the 5th and next waves are dying because we haven't eradicated this shit, and we're slower at eradicating it BECAUSE of behaviors like that.
There is absolutely a correlation where the anti vax are directly impacting the freedom/survival of others.

And EVEN if you disagree, you don't get to pick where you draw the lines and then use that subjective line to decide what is a shit pit or not...
We as a society decide of common rules to abide by through elections which again the countries you're talking about have it way healthier than some other countries, including the US. If theses countries vote for their government to be more interventionist, they will. If the US population wants to live with no government intervention, it's their prerogative.
And If they thought they went too far the government gets kicked out next time. But a government can absolutely mandate things like that for the good of all.

And yep, the driving argument is on point. You don't get to drive like an idiot because it can affect other people. "Oh but they just wanted to be there, knowing driving is dangerous" just doesn't fly. You could be a very good driver abiding the law, if someone is endangering on purpose they can kill you, and so we have rules to avoid that.
Same with murderers.
Same with every single rule that restricts our freedom for the sake of others. It's not a finite number of rules and is never meant to be.

EDIT: Few edits to avoid diverting from the point

 

[Foxi4]

I completely disagree with your "estimation", every person dying during the 5th and next waves are dying because we haven't eradicated this shit, and we're slower at eradicating it BECAUSE of behaviors like that.
There is absolutely a correlation where the anti vax are directly impacting the freedom/survival of others.

And EVEN if you disagree, you don't get to pick where you draw the lines and then use that subjective line to decide what is a shit pit or not...
We as a society decide of common rules to abide by through elections which again the countries you're talking about have it way healthier than some other countries, including the US. If theses countries vote for their government to be more interventionist, they will. If they thought they went too far they get kicked out next time. But a government can absolutely mandate things like that for the good of all.

And yep, the driving argument is on point. You don't get to drive like an idiot because it can affect other people. "Oh but they just wanted to be there, knowing driving is dangerous" just doesn't fly.
Same with murdered.
Same with every single rule that restricts our freedom for the sake of others. It's not a finite number of rules and is never meant to be.

Oh, I understand. You think we can eradicate the virus, still. Now your post makes more sense, I’ll blame lack of up-to-date information and estimates for this. We cannot, at this stage it’s virtually impossible, or at least highly unlikely, so I hope you’ll eventually find some comfort. It’s a global pandemic, there are far too many carriers and multiple strains - it’s not going away. You can make peace with that thought, or you can support gradually chipping away at civil liberties. What other medical procedure is good for me? Maybe a vasectomy - the world *is* overpopulated, right? Let me stand right in the queue, for society! Good grief.

In any case, to extrapolate this to a simple example, you can prevent all murder and disease if you lock everyone up in single person rooms (here on Earth we call those “cells”) and deliver them food to the door. You will save millions upon millions of lives every year, nobody ever needs to die again from any causes other than natural, and the only thing you’re sacrificing is all your freedom. Are you okay with that? Let’s assume no.

There is a balance between no freedom and freedom to do anything at all, and people fall on different points of that scale in regards to what they are willing to sacrifice. I am not willing to give the government an inch because I expect it to take a mile, you on the other hand are trusting of the government, which I find odd. It has always been globally accepted that the government cannot force anyone to undergo medical procedures without consent, and this is no exception, particularly not when only select individuals are affected by the pathogen. At some point this circus has to end, and if given the choice, I would like to still have some rights left once it’s all over in an increasingly tyrannical world. Different strokes for different folks. Besides, honey works better than vinegar. If you want people to vaccinate, you should incentivise it.

Of course y’all should still get a jab, it’s safe and it works.

EDIT: As a side note, there is no enumerated right to drive, only a right to travel. Murder is an infringement of the right to life, of course we have laws against it - we all want to live. As for governments, there are authorities that go far beyond your local government, and even more authorities above those. A law that violates other laws of the land or infringes upon civil liberties is unjust by definition, should be met with dissent and opposition and, as far as I’m concerned, can be ignored by the population. The land belongs to the people, the government is only elected to be in charge of it on the proviso that it will defend the people’s rights. If it does the opposite then it’s doing the opposite of its job and there are mechanisms to disband it.

If your entire point is that “my right to be protected from disease is only partially fulfilled by vaccination because the government doesn’t put people who don’t think like me in prison” then that’s textbook authoritarianism, which is not an uncommon thing to revert to when a person feels in danger and logical thinking goes out the window. I sympathise, but wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[tabzer]

Is your body inspected and licensed? *snip!*

EDIT: No need for insults. -Foxi4

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

Actual literal fascism.

Antifa awfully silent though

 

[Alexander1970]

First, the vaccines have undergone extensive safety testing for closer to two years, not one year. Second, the Pfizer vaccine has gotten full FDA approval in the United States and has met the same rigorous safety standards as any other vaccine. Third, and perhaps most notably, the vaccine is completely out of your system within days/weeks of getting your last dose. The science is very clear that the risk of long-term effects from the vaccines is nearly zero, and that's far from the risk of long-term effects associated with actually contracting COVID-19. If your goal isn't to get sick, isn't to be hospitalized, isn't to spread the disease to others, isn't to suffer long-term effects, and isn't to die, vaccination is by far your best bet.

To get a little more on topic, vaccine mandates are a good thing, they work, and we already have a precedent for them in most countries I can think of.

Funny:
Biontech/Pfizer never said "We can guarantee that mRNA Vaccines do not alter the DNA or better said never connects to the genetic "make-up".

They said literally "The possibility that the genetic make-up of the vaccinated person is changed via mRNA is practically zero."

But all Medicines/Doctors I have asked said "The Vaccine is 100% safe..."


Like you always say....

 

[subcon959]

The video is also saying that it's not been confirmed at all and that everything is just a big old "maybe".

That maybe is where I find myself embedded. By the way, thanks for the well considered and respectful response, it's a breath of fresh air compared to the usual attacks to questioning anything around here.

 

[deinonychus71]

Oh, I understand. You think we can eradicate the virus, still. Now your post makes more sense, I’ll blame lack of up-to-date information and estimates for this. We cannot, at this stage it’s virtually impossible, or at least highly unlikely, so I hope you’ll eventually find some comfort. It’s a global pandemic, there are far too many carriers and multiple strains - it’s not going away. You can make peace with that thought, or you can support gradually chipping away at civil liberties. What other medical procedure is good for me? Maybe a vasectomy - the world *is* overpopulated, right? Let me stand right in the queue, for society! Good grief.

In any case, to extrapolate this to a simple example, you can prevent all murder and disease if you lock everyone up in single person rooms (here on Earth we call those “cells”) and deliver them food to the door. You will save millions upon millions of lives every year, nobody ever needs to die again from any causes other than natural, and the only thing you’re sacrificing is all your freedom. Are you okay with that? Let’s assume no.

There is a balance between no freedom and freedom to do anything at all, and people fall on different points of that scale in regards to what they are willing to sacrifice. I am not willing to give the government an inch because I expect it to take a mile, you on the other hand are trusting of the government, which I find odd. It has always been globally accepted that the government cannot force anyone to undergo medical procedures without consent, and this is no exception, particularly not when only select individuals are affected by the pathogen. At some point this circus has to end, and if given the choice, I would like to still have some rights left once it’s all over in an increasingly tyrannical world. Different strokes for different folks. Besides, honey works better than vinegar. If you want people to vaccinate, you should incentivise it.

Of course y’all should still get a jab, it’s safe and it works.

EDIT: As a side note, there is no enumerated right to drive, only a right to travel. Murder is an infringement of the right to life, of course we have laws against it - we all want to live. As for governments, there are authorities that go far beyond your local government, and even more authorities above those. A law that violates other laws of the land or infringes upon civil liberties is unjust by definition, should be met with dissent and opposition and, as far as I’m concerned, can be ignored by the population. The land belongs to the people, the government is only elected to be in charge of it on the proviso that it will defend the people’s rights. If it does the opposite then it’s doing the opposite of its job and there are mechanisms to disband it.

I do keep myself heavily informed, although not exclusively through the news of one country, so I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of the situation in at least Europe and the US where I currently live. Even since Covid started the latter tends to get a repeat of what Europe suffered from a few weeks prior, so we'll see how it works this time.
Regardless whether it can be fully eradicated or not, non vaccinated people are factually more likely to create a cluster, therefore endangering people.

Like you said, there's a balance, Europe chose to confine heavily during the first few phases of the pandemic, and while you will never be able to prove that it saved lives, let's just reasonably assume that not all scientists of the planet and not every single person in a government is corrupt and that the numbers are right, and it did save lives.
The balance is there like you said, and it's entirely politics. This is where the debate is.

But twisting the debate into a simple "this is a violation of human rights" when yourself just admitted it's a question of balance seems disingenuous. If It's a question of balance, it can and should be debated.

And yep, I tend to trust my government more than the average American does, maybe also because unlike them (and assuming you're from the US) I got to experience what a government can do to place safety nets around people. I consider the freedom of education, work safety and healthcare to trump the freedom the anti vax claim they're losing over doing their part during a global pandemic, interventionism be damned.

 

[Foxi4]

I do keep myself heavily informed, although not exclusively through the news of one country, so I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of the situation in at least Europe and the US where I currently live. Even since Covid started the latter tends to get a repeat of what Europe suffered from a few weeks prior, so we'll see how it works this time.
Regardless whether it can be fully eradicated or not, non vaccinated people are factually more likely to create a cluster, therefore endangering people.

Like you said, there's a balance, Europe chose to confine heavily during the first few phases of the pandemic, and while you will never be able to prove that it saved lives, let's just reasonably assume that not all scientists of the planet and not every single person in a government is corrupt and that the numbers are right, and it did save lives.
The balance is there like you said, and it's entirely politics. This is where the debate is.

But twisting the debate into a simple "this is a violation of human rights" when yourself just admitted it's a question of balance seems disingenuous. It's a question of balance, it can and should be debated.

And yep, I tend to trust my government more than the average American, maybe also because unlike them (and assuming you're from the US) I got to experience what a government can do to place safety nets around people. I consider the freedom of education, work safety and healthcare to trump the freedom the anti vax claim they're losing over doing their part during a global pandemic, interventionism be damned.

You generally reach a balance at a point where nobody’s rights are being infringed upon and everybody gets a piece, a golden mean, if you will, which can indeed be debated. If you inject anyone with anything that they don’t want in their body, you have by definition violated their bodily integrity, which opens the doors to a myriad of other such violations “for the greater good”. “For the greater good” would be a great quote for a tombstone if it wasn’t so ironic.

I’m not from the U.S., I’m also from Europe and reside in the U.K. which is also increasingly turning into a shit pit, but in our case it’s freedom of speech that’s being violated - bodily integrity is (for now) protected by the Public Health Act, but we’ll see how long that lasts.

There’s no “twisting” going on - the government is providing you with a vaccine that boasts 96%+ efficacy, and boosters to boot if your immunity starts to diminish over time, which seems to be the case. That is the extent to which they can provide you with protection from disease, anything past that point forces people to undergo medical procedures that they don’t want or care about. It doesn’t even matter how infinitesimally small the risk of various side effects is - yes, the disease is more dangerous, but that’s not your risk/reward calculation to make. If the government is willing to force people to vaccinate, it should with the same breath accept any and all negative outcomes that come with such a program and prepare to pay in the millions for those affected by vaccine injury, which is a known quantity in all vaccinations, not just in regards to COVID - that’s not what’s happening. In fact, manufacturers are 100% shielded from liability. If I get in a car wreck and my air bag fails because of poor design, I can sue the car manufacturer for selling me a faulty product. If I get the jab and I’m that one in a billion person who gets myocardia, or any of the other known possible side effects, I have nobody to blame and no restitution. Will society pay the tab in regards to my medical bills? Will you provide food and lodge to my family? Because the government won’t - the opposite is true. How is this not a violation of the public’s trust is beyond me - any medical procedure *requires* informed consent.

Of course let’s not forget that the sample size of the vaccine is in the billions now, it hardly ever results in any side effects beyond the usual groggy feeling after a jab and we should all go for it. Just not without a gun to our backs.

 

[deinonychus71]

You generally reach a balance at a point where nobody’s rights are being infringed upon and everybody gets a piece, a golden mean, if you will, which can indeed be debated. If you inject anyone with anything that they don’t want in their body, you have by definition violated their bodily integrity, which opens the doors to a myriad of other such violations “for the greater good”. “For the greater good” would be a great quote for a tombstone if it wasn’t so ironic.

I’m not from the U.S., I’m also from Europe and reside in the U.K. which is also increasingly turning into a shit pit, but in our case it’s freedom of speech that’s being violated - bodily integrity is (for now) protected by the Public Health Act, but we’ll see how long that lasts.

There’s no “twisting” going on - the government is providing you with a vaccine that boasts 96%+ efficacy, and boosters to boot if your immunity starts to diminish over time, which seems to be the case. That is the extent to which they can provide you with protection from disease, anything past that point forces people to undergo medical procedures that they don’t want or care about. It doesn’t even matter how infinitesimally small the risk of various side effects is - yes, the disease is more dangerous, but that’s not your risk/reward calculation to make. If the government is willing to force people to vaccinate, it should with the same breath accept any and all negative outcomes that come with such a program and prepare to pay in the millions for those affected by vaccine injury, which is a known quantity in all vaccinations, not just in regards to COVID - that’s not what’s happening. In fact, manufacturers are 100% shielded from liability. If I get in a car wreck and my air bag fails because of poor design, I can sue the car manufacturer for selling me a faulty product. If I get the jab and I’m that one in a billion person who gets myocardia, or any of the other known possible side effects, I have nobody to blame and no restitution. Will society pay the tab in regards to my medical bills? Will you provide food and lodge to my family? Because the government won’t - the opposite is true. How is this not a violation of the public’s trust is beyond me - any medical procedure *requires* informed consent.

I can understand the risk factor you're describing. And to me it already sounds better than negating any sort of action from the government "by principle". If there is a legit risk (and there is, although infinitesimal like you said) you got yourself a point.

But then, out of curiosity, are you also against confinement for unvaccinated people?

 

[Lacius]

Funny:
Biontech/Pfizer never said "We can guarantee that mRNA Vaccines do not alter the DNA or better said never connects to the genetic "make-up".

They said literally "The possibility that the genetic make-up of the vaccinated person is changed via mRNA is practically zero."

But all Medicines/Doctors I have asked said "The Vaccine is 100% safe..."


Like you always say....

mRNA vaccines do not alter your DNA.

 

[Foxi4]

I can understand the risk factor you're describing. And to me it already sounds better than negating any sort of action from the government "by principle". If there is a legit risk (and there is, although infinitesimal like you said) you got yourself a point.

But then, out of curiosity, are you also against confinement for unvaccinated people?

It’s a violation of the right to freedom of movement, so yes. The land belongs to the people, not to the government - I get to traverse it unimpeded, otherwise I am not truly free. Private establishments can bar me from entry for whatever reason - their property, their rules. If you are afraid of the unvaccinated, you should take reasonable precautions to protect your health until the disease diminishes. I still wear my mask, I have great personal hygiene and no fear. Once I have some spare time I will also book an appointment to get my jabs up to date, since it seems reasonable to me. That is what I am willing to do for my safety and the safety of others, I am not willing to penalise others for their life choices, even if I disagree with them. It is their risk, not mine.

 

[deinonychus71]

It’s a violation of the right to freedom of movement, so yes. The land belongs to the people, not to the government - I get to traverse it unimpeded, otherwise I am not truly free. Private establishments can bar me from entry for whatever reason - their property, their rules. If you are afraid of the unvaccinated, you should take reasonable precautions to protect your health until the disease diminishes. I still wear my mask, I have great personal hygiene and no fear. Once I have some spare time I will also book an appointment to get my jabs up to date, since it seems reasonable to me. That is what I am willing to do for my safety and the safety of others, I am not willing to penalise others for their life choices, even if I disagree with them. It is their risk, not mine.

As I said before, due to the travel ban I haven't been able to see my family for almost 2 years. I'm sure you could say it's the fault of the different governments in place for forbidding it. Truth is though, even with a booster shot and even with a mask i'm still at risk due to a personal condition.
And you're telling me it's okay for me to either risk my life or be penalized because should there be no travel ban I'd be forced to be around these people just to see my family -when it could have been preventable or at least the risk could have been reduced-?

For the sake of people who don't care if others around them get infected and die?

I don't share your conception of freedom and its limits.

 

[Deleted member 507653]

Of course it does, the Austrian government doesn’t have the right to detain people without due process, especially if they haven’t committed a crime. You have zero evidence that someone who’s not vaccinated has the disease, or that they can transmit it to you, or that you’re even under any risk of catching it. Your analogy doesn’t apply - you’re penalising people for having pockets where they may or may not carry a knife. You don’t know if they have one, let alone whether they can swing one at you or not. You’re operating under the assumption that everyone is guilty unless proven innocent, which is psychotic and counter to all the rules of civilised society. You’re not under threat, you’re just a hypochondriac, and nobody is under any obligation to humour your neuroticism. If you are vulnerable, or feel vulnerable, the onus is on you to take necessary precautions in order to ensure your own personal safety. Please demonstrate the harm you are personally experiencing. Might be difficult considering not being vaccinated does not translate into spreading the disease.

I didn't realize that you think being under lockdown = being detained, so now your reaction makes a lot of sense.

My analogy is not like someone having or not having pockets, because knives don't magically drop down from the sky into your pockets. There is not "guilty" or "not guilty" because the virus affects you by chance which is why the best case scenario would be to protect everyone.

 

[Foxi4]

Under lockdown = detained lmao. This whole paragraph is just, tell me you have 0 understanding of public health without telling me you have 0 understanding of public health.

Lockdown =/= confinement. At no point during the U.K. lockdown was I ever prohibited from leaving my home and moving about. Confinements equals sequestering a section of the populace in a facility that they cannot leave. We already have that, it’s called prison. Locking someone in their own home by welding the door shut may pass as acceptable in totalitarian China, here we do not tolerate tyranny. As a side note, “the public” can kiss my ass - it’s overwhelmingly fat around here. Nobody gets to tell me what is and is not healthy when they could benefit from losing a hundred pounds.

As I said before, due to the travel ban I haven't been able to see my family for almost 2 years. I'm sure you could say it's the fault of the different governments in place for forbidding it. Truth is though, even with a booster shot and even with a mask i'm still at risk due to a personal condition.
And you're telling me it's okay for me to either risk my life or be penalized because should there be no travel ban I'd be forced to be around these people just to see my family -when it could have been preventable or at least the risk could have been reduced-?

For the sake of people who don't care if others around them get infected and die?

I don't share your conception of freedom and its limits.

You risk your life by crossing the street. There’s a degree of acceptable risk, operating day to day is acceptable. I also didn’t visit my family - I didn’t attend my father’s wedding, not just due to travel restrictions but also because travelling abroad during the peak of COVID season would’ve been unwise. It is regrettable since he’ll only ever have one wedding, but that was my risk/reward calculation and I think I made the right decision. I won’t make your decisions for you, however.