Austria planning mandatory vaccination for all, with prison for non-compliance.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
The government said it was preparing the legal groundwork for a general vaccine mandate to come into effect from 1 February.

Those refusing to be vaccinated are likely to face administrative fines, which can be converted into a prison sentence if the fine cannot be recovered.

Currently, you are only "fully" vaccinated if you have all and every dose of the vaccines.

www.theguardian.com

Austria plans compulsory Covid vaccination for all

Country goes into fourth lockdown amid soaring cases and announces jab mandate from February 2022
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
How on earth will that be policed?
 
Sharron1 said:
How on earth will that be policed?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there'll be edge cases, but in principle it's not too hard, is it? They know who their citizens are, and they know who's been vaccinated. So they issue fines to those who haven't been vaccinated. (I'm sure that's not perfect, since do they really know who's in the country, and what about people who've been vaccinated outside the country.)

I presume they're hoping they won't have to issue any fines anyway, and this is a rather heavy shove towards getting vaccinated.
 
Amity Island said:
Hi Sharron1,

I'm not entirely sure that mandates could be realistically brought in. If we look at the results of a parliamentary debate at the beginning of the year, they seem to have agreed that mandating isn't permitted, so mandating certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the debate's conclusions.

See section 7.3 and sub-sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 below:

7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;

7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;

7.5.2 is also interesting....

use vaccination certificates only for their designated purpose of monitoring vaccine efficacy, potential side effects and adverse events;



Click to expand...

That's a resolution, so more of a guideline.
And if Austria decide not to adopt the resolution, they can bring any law they want to in.
 
travellor said:
That's a resolution, so more of a guideline.
And if Austria decide not to adopt the resolution, they can bring any law they want to in
Click to expand...
Still sounds like a nightmare. Covid casts a very long shadow. That is my polite version for this thread.
 
Sharron1 said:
Still sounds like a nightmare. Covid casts a very long shadow. That is my polite version for this thread.
Click to expand...
I don't suppose the politicians were happy about doing it. I'm sure they're well aware that there'll be protests.

But (as in many countries) there's ITU capacity being expensively used by people who could so easily not be there, and people dying easily preventable deaths (causing PTSD among the medical staff treating them).

I've no idea how to effectively persuade everyone in wealthy countries to take the vaccine. Trying this kind of coercion doesn't feel right, but I find it hard to be sure. Like the rest of the last couple of years we've not done anything much like this before. I'm sure lots of places will be watching to see how this (and the US's various mandates together with the expected health insurance changes) work out.
 
Amity Island said:
Hi Sharron1,

I'm not entirely sure that mandates could be realistically brought in. If we look at the results of a parliamentary debate at the beginning of the year, they seem to have agreed that mandating isn't permitted, so mandating certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the debate's conclusions.

See section 7.3 and sub-sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 below:

7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;

7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;

7.5.2 is also interesting....

use vaccination certificates only for their designated purpose of monitoring vaccine efficacy, potential side effects and adverse events;



Click to expand...
I find this very worrying. Usually when our government test the waters they introduce new things in Wales or Scotland first before rolling it out to the U.K. which is what we have seen for instance with the anti smoking laws and now the vaccine passports. I’m already worried about possibly losing my job (NHS hospital pharmacy) in April 22 because I refuse the jab (I don’t want to tempt fate by taking a vaccine that is still unlicensed, under clinical trial until 2023 that still allows vaccinated people to contract and spread this virus but also knowing that viral infection plus genetic predisposition is usually a kick off for autoimmune conditions). I am not anti-vaccine, I am pro-choice as with most things in a truly democratic country but I am truly worried about the direction this seems to be going.. “Show me your papers“…
 
Leo said:
Usually when our government test the waters they introduce new things in Wales or Scotland first before rolling it out to the U.K. which is what we have seen for instance with the anti smoking laws and now the vaccine passports.
Click to expand...
The story is about Austria, not England and our Westminster parliament isn't responsible (well, not directly) for what Wales and Scotland do (this is a devolved issue).

(The Westminster government has mandated that certain workers in healthcare in England be vaccinated. I suspect that's more because they like attacking the NHS (perhaps to encourage the idea that it's just not working any more so needs radical reform) than anything else.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
I know this is going on in Austria currently and not the U.K. but it always spikes suspicion when this kind of coercion is happening in a European country ie coming to a country near you soon. I totally agree with your observation that our government may be using this to radically reform the NHS.
 
Leo said:
I know this is going on in Austria currently and not the U.K. but it always spikes suspicion when this kind of coercion is happening in a European country ie coming to a country near you soon.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sure people are watching.

As they should since nobody knows how to handle a pandemic like this one. Though I think if you asked a bunch of virologists they'd suggest taking a vaccine, since they work really well and are surely less risky than getting infected (probably repeatedly) without. (I've been listening to some of This Week in Virology where they say, over and over again, pretty much that: vaccines are how this pandemic ends. And they mean it for adults and children from 5 up.)
 
Most people are now vaccinated. This virus is still infecting and killing even vaccinated people. Much like Flu. Sorry but I’m still not buying it. I appreciate where you’re coming from but nope. When a virus kills less than 99% of people infected I sense disingenuousness. If this were a pandemic of Bubonic plague or Ebola that kill indiscriminately and the absolute majority of people infected with these would die I would understand… but it’s not. And if I choose not to be vaccinated then why would I pose a problem to somebody that has been vaccinated if as the government keep telling us vaccinated people will still contract this infection but it will lessen their symptoms therefore less deaths and hospitalisations?! None of this makes any sense?!
 
Leo said:
I find this very worrying. Usually when our government test the waters they introduce new things in Wales or Scotland first before rolling it out to the U.K. which is what we have seen for instance with the anti smoking laws and now the vaccine passports. I’m already worried about possibly losing my job (NHS hospital pharmacy) in April 22 because I refuse the jab (I don’t want to tempt fate by taking a vaccine that is still unlicensed, under clinical trial until 2023 that still allows vaccinated people to contract and spread this virus but also knowing that viral infection plus genetic predisposition is usually a kick off for autoimmune conditions). I am not anti-vaccine, I am pro-choice as with most things in a truly democratic country but I am truly worried about the direction this seems to be going.. “Show me your papers“…
Click to expand...
Your examples of the UK government trying things out in Scotland and Wales first are wrong. They can’t do that these days because health issues are in the remit of the countries health ministers.

Anti smoking laws are entirely devolved. They were introduced in Scotland before England, but that was entirely the decision of the Scottish Parliament. England copied them. Vaccine passports are also totally devolved, being a health issue. The English government won’t copy that, it’s far too sensible.

True, Thatcher tried out the Poll Tax in Scotland first, and we know how that trial went. It ended her career. But that was before Wales and Scotland got their own Parliaments.

I’m not bothered by vaccine passports, any more than I’m bothered about having my season ticket scanned before I go the football. And I assume you carry your ID in the hospital, and expect to be challenged if you don’t wear it.

I admire your determination to fight this on the grounds of the rights of individual choice, but that will result in you losing your job. It just so happens that your stance comes up against the fact that to do your particular job you must be vaccinated, just as the surgeons in you hospital must be vaccinated against Hepatitis B. With freedoms comes responsibilities.
 
Leo said:
I find this very worrying. Usually when our government test the waters they introduce new things in Wales or Scotland first before rolling it out to the U.K. which is what we have seen for instance with the anti smoking laws and now the vaccine passports. I’m already worried about possibly losing my job (NHS hospital pharmacy) in April 22 because I refuse the jab (I don’t want to tempt fate by taking a vaccine that is still unlicensed, under clinical trial until 2023 that still allows vaccinated people to contract and spread this virus but also knowing that viral infection plus genetic predisposition is usually a kick off for autoimmune conditions). I am not anti-vaccine, I am pro-choice as with most things in a truly democratic country but I am truly worried about the direction this seems to be going.. “Show me your papers“…
Click to expand...
I would like to update your knowledge about the covid vaccines in use in the UK (and most of the world as well). For use in the general public they are fully licensed. To use unlicensed vaccines in the general public is breaking the law. The information on the licenses is available on the Medicines and Health Regulatory Agency website. Also it is normal for any licensed drug, not just the covid vaccines, to have further clinical trials after being given a license. These further trials can be for a number of reasons though in general they are to widen the scope of any license (which still has to be approved by the regulators). However, when a drug/vaccine is given a license at least two organisations separate from the manufacturer assess the safety data gained during trials up to that point. So when given a license the drugs/vaccines are deemed safe for general use. Monitoring of safety does not stop there as there is a pharmacovigilance oversight for the life of the drug/vaccine. On the basis of this pharmacovigilance system the regulators (not the manufacturer) make an assessment of the continued use of the drug/vaccine and require the manufacturer to update the drug safety leaflet if it is allowed to be continued for use.

On your point about people can still catch covid and spread it after being vaccinated. This is correct but taken out of context (something people who hear only what they want to hear are prone to do and is a source of misleading information). ANY vaccine does not stop infection. What a vaccine does is to prepare your body to have a defence AFTER infection. The effectiveness of this defence depends on the efficiency of an individuals immune systems (which is also based on their general health). Those who catch covid after vaccinations are people whose immune defence system have not been 100% effective and not untypical (people who have had flu vaccine can still get a mild flu). However, the key point is that these people do not usually have a severe infection requiring intensive care. Data from the Office of National Statistics shows that vaccinated people are less likely to end up in hospital and die than unvaccinated. The number of unvaccinated people ending up in hospital and dying is scary. The high number of daily cases reported is misleading as you also need to look at numbers in hospital. In the UK the number of people in hospital is low compared to the number of cases (compare this with data from early in the epidemic or other countries like Austria where vaccination is low). This shows that in the UK the vaccination programme is working.

On your point about viral infection and genetic predisposition to autoimmune condition. Again technically correct but taken out of context. This is a very rare situation, and to put in perspective, you are more likely to die in a car crash than get autoimmune problems. Even ignoring this perspective it is more likely to occur in unvaccinated people than in those who have been vaccinated.

To continue the car analogy the vaccine is like a seat belt. When the seat was first made compulsory there was resistance to doing so. Arguments against were based on for example uncomfortableness, lack of freedom of movement, injury to the shoulder/neck in a collision. However, most people now would not consider driving without a seat belt after their proven ability to save lives. The covid vaccine is in the similar early stage of introducing the seat belt.

Apologies for the long reply but I thought it would be beneficial to further knowledge so that anyone reading this can make a more informed decision on whether to have the vaccine.
 
mikeyB said:
Your examples of the UK government trying things out in Scotland and Wales first are wrong. They can’t do that these days because health issues are in the remit of the countries health ministers.

Anti smoking laws are entirely devolved. They were introduced in Scotland before England, but that was entirely the decision of the Scottish Parliament. England copied them. Vaccine passports are also totally devolved, being a health issue. The English government won’t copy that, it’s far too sensible.

True, Thatcher tried out the Poll Tax in Scotland first, and we know how that trial went. It ended her career. But that was before Wales and Scotland got their own Parliaments.

I’m not bothered by vaccine passports, any more than I’m bothered about having my season ticket scanned before I go the football. And I assume you carry your ID in the hospital, and expect to be challenged if you don’t wear it.

I admire your determination to fight this on the grounds of the rights of individual choice, but that will result in you losing your job. It just so happens that your stance comes up against the fact that to do your particular job you must be vaccinated, just as the surgeons in you hospital must be vaccinated against Hepatitis B. With freedoms comes responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Society works by people respecting other peoples choices for individual choice as long as that choice does not harm the society they are in. Covid is harming our society as a whole. When someone kills another that is their individual choice. Should we applaud them for making an individual choice that harms other individuals in our society? People who decide not to be vaccinated against a disease that is known to kill solely on the basis that it is their freedom of choice not to be are ignoring the rights of the individual standing next to them. Their right is to not be infected from an unvaccinated person because that person decides not to have the vaccine. As such it is their right to shun the unvaccinated person for their own protection. Employers who require their staff to be vaccinated are supporting the rights of their workers/customers/patients who are vaccinated not to have their health put at risk from someone who is not vaccinated. They would rather not to have to take this approach but an individuals choice to not follow the aims of the society as whole to protect itself forces these decisions to be made.
 
Amity Island said:
They haven't been aspirating when giving the vaccine, which means the risk of the spike protein going into the blood is a possiblity.
Click to expand...
As I understand it that used to be the recommendation but isn't any more. I don't think anyone recommends against doing it (though it can cause a bit of discomfort) but it's no longer recommended.
 
Amity Island said:
Glen,

I think the problem is far more basic than all that.

The vaccines haven't been administered in the safest way possible. They haven't been aspirating when giving the vaccine, which means the risk of the spike protein going into the blood is a possiblity. It's basic medical practice to aspirate when giving a vaccine. Drawing back the plunger once the needle is in the arm to check no blood is present (to ensure vaccine goes where it is supposed to, into the muscle not into the blood stream).

Click to expand...
Aspirating as far as I am aware has not been done for a long time. Also if an vaccination is done the way you describe I would consider this as an unsafe practice. Just ask those who inject insulin on here if they aspirate. It certainly has not been done on vaccinations I have had by different doctors since at least 1980.

The main reason for injecting into muscle is so that the vaccine is not damaged in the blood before it triggers the immune system response. But some of the vaccine is likely to enter the blood system anyway.
 
Make the covid passport a hospital passport.
If some people don't want to be in the system, let them elect to leave it.

No vaccination, no admittance to hospital. No private insurance. Sort yourself out at home, by yourself.

It respects the choice of people who don't wasn't to be vaccinated, but it respects the choice of those waiting for other treatments and those who are vaccinated but still need hospitalisation for covid as well.
 
Amity Island said:
Your argument also assumes vaccination is somehow better than natural innate or acquired immunity. Does your ban also include kids too?
Click to expand...
You make your choice.

In a democracy, if you elect leaders, you follow the rules.
Not then think the elected leaders need to find arguments off the internet to justify their decisions.
If you don't like their choices, you vote them out next time.
If you want to have a country that runs on whatever you can find on the internet that day, you need to find a candidate that offers that sort of government.

But as I said earlier, full marks to Austria for the decision they have made.
At least they are still going to treat people that decide not to vaccinate.
 
Amity Island said:
The trouble with that argument is, it completely ignores both natural innate immunity and naturally acquired immunity.
Click to expand...
Which would be important if you were looking for reasons not to vaccinate people, but we have safe vaccines and (in wealthy countries) enough doses. (It was discussed early on in the vaccination campaign: whether it would make sense to check antibodies before offering the vaccine.)

Prior infection isn't a reason not to get vaccinated. On the contrary, recovery from infection followed by vaccination can provide really strong hybrid immunity (stronger than either infection or vaccination alone).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top