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



## Amity Island

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.









						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


----------



## Sharron1

How on earth will that be policed?


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Sharron1 said:


> How on earth will that be policed?


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.


----------



## travellor

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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html



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.


----------



## Sharron1

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


Still sounds like a nightmare. Covid casts a very long shadow. That is my polite version for this thread.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Sharron1 said:


> Still sounds like a nightmare. Covid casts a very long shadow. That is my polite version for this thread.


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.


----------



## Leo

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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html


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“…


----------



## Bruce Stephens

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.


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.)


----------



## 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.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

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.


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.)


----------



## Leo

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?!


----------



## mikeyB

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“…


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.


----------



## Glen More

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“…


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.


----------



## Glen More

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.


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.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

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.


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.


----------



## Glen More

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).


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.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

An account of what's happening in Austria (and why it's in such a mess quite so suddenly)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461935711951671298


----------



## travellor

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.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> Your argument also assumes vaccination is somehow better than natural innate or acquired immunity. Does your ban also include kids too?


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.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> The trouble with that argument is, it completely ignores both natural innate immunity and naturally acquired immunity.


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).


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> I am not saying don't get vaccinated, I am saying the argument for @travellor "No vaccination, no admittance to hospital" isn't based on science.


The idea of denying treatment isn't going to fly. We still treat people who're smokers, or who ride horses, climb mountains, etc., each of which increase some health risks.

I'm just suggesting that if you're a government, trying to get people to get vaccinated is rational. Wherever they start off, vaccination's going to make them less likely to get acutely ill, and (likely just as important if not more), less likely to get long term effects from infection.

Similarly, if you're offering health insurance (for example in the US) it's rational to encourage (charge less for) people who're vaccinated for the same reasons.

And in both cases there's a significant risk in trying to give equivalence to "natural infection" and vaccination, in that people might be encouraged to get infected, which is something you definitely don't want. (I guess health insurers might not care so much, but governments (who might end up paying for care for long term sickness) should.) This was one argument against our government's first moonshot idea of immunity certificates from mass antibody testing.


Amity Island said:


> @Bruce Stephens would you agree that taking any drug (be that insulin or anything else) must surely be based on need? or do we start taking prescription drugs "just in case" for this or that?


Vaccines are exactly in that category, aren't they? We want healthy people to take them, just in case (which is why the safety standards have to be so high). Similarly, I take a statin each day, even though I've never had any symptoms (that I'm aware of): it's a drug I take just in case.


----------



## mikeyB

Well, whatever Austria are doing (which is not the police sending people to prison, merely sending them home) there are huge queues forming at vaccination centres. They are getting vaccinated because essentially they are locked down if they aren’t. It seems that getting locked down in your home is a sight more persuasive than avoiding dying.

Yes, you need to carry your vaccine certificate - I do, it’s on my phone NHS App. So I can’t help but carry it around.


----------



## mikeyB

As an addendum, just to keep Amity Island happy, proof of previous infection also keeps you free In Austria.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> And, when I say don't need, I am talking about anyone who has already had the virus and those in the much younger categories and this is why the JCVI advised that the benefits didn't outweigh the risks for youngsters (athough the government went ahead anyway).


We seem to be an outlier in that, though. While it's accepted that there's this risk, it doesn't seem to be stopping many other countries from vaccinating children. The infection can also cause heart inflammation. The judgement seems to be (in other countries) that the risks of infection are larger than the risks of vaccination.

It's likely moot, however. We've chosen to allow the majority of children to be infected. I guess we'll see whether they're harmed relative to vaccinated ones from elsewhere in the (wealthy) world.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> Yes, @Bruce Stephens  I think we can agree on my point that people can't be denied treatment (although that is what has happened in Singapore for any unvaxxed with covid19) just because they haven't taken something they don't need. And, when I say don't need, I am talking about anyone who has already had the virus and those in the much younger categories and this is why the JCVI advised that the benefits didn't outweigh the risks for youngsters (athough the government went ahead anyway).
> 
> The government made a change to their advice last week regarding the proximity of taking the vaccines and prior infection due to risk of side effects of heart problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Singapore will stop covering the medical bills of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients
> 
> 
> Singapore's government will stop covering the cost of COVID-19 treatment for those who are "unvaccinated by choice" next month, citing the strain they are placing on its health care system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org



If they know they don't "need" vaccines, why do they expect to need treatment?
As you say, Singapore has decided to let people have that choice, and can then stand by their decision, as they aren't picking up the tab for anyone that later needs hospitalising because of their own free choice.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> It's not a choice unless it is a "free" choice and I mean absolutely free.
> 
> Free of coercion, be that threat of losing your livelihood, denied hospital treatment, being ostracised by friends and/family, being unable to go on holiday abroad, not being able to go into venues and certainly not for a donut, free meal or gift voucher.
> 
> Given just about everyone I know who has had the vaccines, took it for just about every other reason except for their health, says everything. Most i'd say took for either a holiday abroad or for social activities etc.


Ah, you mean free of any consequences of your choice?
Isn't that true anarchy?
Whereas every single thing you have listed above is a social activity, undertaken by people who have decided to have vaccinations, and have decided which social group they want to be in, and which rules apply to that group? 
Which is a democracy.

That's often the problem with wanting to dip in and out, and just thinking it's fair to only observe the only the rules you think are favourable to you alone.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Given just about everyone I know who has had the vaccines, took it for just about every other reason except for their health, says everything.


You don't know any old people, or people aware of the data? Just look at the lead causes of death, 





						Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics
					

Provisional death registration data for England and Wales, broken down by sex, age and country. Includes deaths due to coronavirus (COVID-19) and leading causes of death.



					www.ons.gov.uk
				




(Most people I know had the vaccine because of their health, but also because they want this to come to an end. And what's a better way for a pandemic to end than effective vaccines? How amazing is it that for this one, we got vaccines within a year of the thing starting? How sad is it that our problems are that we can't get enough doses quickly enough to people who desperately want and need them, and that so many people in places where there are plenty of doses won't take them?)


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> I'm not talking about tribes, anarchy or democracy.
> 
> I'm talking about taking medicines. Your view of "No vaccination, no admittance to hospital" isn't based on anything scientific. By that stance, anyone vaccinated with covid19 would be free to go into hosptial (which at the moment is the majority) and able to infect other patients, but anyone without covid19 with a good immune system innate or acquired immunity would be banned.



No one has rioted in Singapore over it, it seems to be a good working plan.
I'm sure it would work as well here.
And if you survive, as you say, it cures the unvaccinated issue one way or another.


----------



## Inka

I took the vaccines for health reasons - my own health, yes, but also to protect more vulnerable members of my family. I also took the vaccines because I want this pandemic to end sooner rather than later. I don’t know anyone who had the vaccine to go on holiday, etc. Yes, some noted that as a benefit, but it wasn’t the primary motivation for them to be vaccinated.

I don’t think vaccination should be compulsory but I admit that I don’t understand why some people are refusing to be vaccinated. Obviously, some have medical reasons, but I’m talking about those who don’t. I would never have expected this level of suspicion about the vaccines. Sometimes I imagine looking back at a historical pandemic and wondering what I’d think if I read that they had a vaccine but some people refused it.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> Do we then extend this policy to those who "refuse" to stop smoking? those who "refuse" to stop using their mobile phones whilst driving? what about criminals, they could harm others too?
> 
> Clearly what we need is a social credit system in place.



As per the Chinese system?
Overall, I would suggest democracy is better.


----------



## travellor

Inka said:


> I took the vaccines for health reasons - my own health, yes, but also to protect more vulnerable members of my family. I also took the vaccines because I want this pandemic to end sooner rather than later. I don’t know anyone who had the vaccine to go on holiday, etc. Yes, some noted that as a benefit, but it wasn’t the primary motivation for them to be vaccinated.
> 
> I don’t think vaccination should be compulsory but I admit that I don’t understand why some people are refusing to be vaccinated. Obviously, some have medical reasons, but I’m talking about those who don’t. I would never have expected this level of suspicion about the vaccines. Sometimes I imagine looking back at a historical pandemic and wondering what I’d think if I read that they had a vaccine but some people refused it.



Interestingly, I was talking to the guy in front of me in the queue for my booster at the weekend.
Two of his employees weren't vaccinated, he gave them a choice of getting it, or letting them go.
One got vaccinated, one left.
Why should he risk employing someone who could potentially infect him, or infect his customers, or workmates.


----------



## Inka

Amity Island said:


> Hi Inka,
> 
> I don't know either, but it could be something as simple as the lack of aspiration (to avoid injecting into the blood stream) which seems a valid concern from what Dr John Campbell was saying in his video. It could be we don't know the full ingredients in the vaccines, not just those listed. Who knows.



Sadly, I think many people are automatically suspicious for no real reason @Amity Island The concerns you’ve mentioned are actual concerns which can be addressed, but the anti-vaxxers I see on social media largely believe outlandish claims or are just motivated by a vague suspicion. They should be free to decide, but how can they make an informed choice if they can’t articulate genuine concerns or are motivated by myths or unfounded fears? 

All this crap about 5G, mysterious vaccine ingredients, Bill Gates and whatever makes me weep.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> There's science at work again! sacking people that may have natural immunity.



So?
Do other people owe you a living? 
Perfectly free choice. 
Respect the terms of the job, or leave.

My first job could have put me anywhere in the world.
I had everything in the book.
Cholera
Diphtheria
Hep A
Hep B
Meningococcal meningitis
MMR
Tetanus
Typhoid
Yellow Fever

Some for my protection, some to stop the spread if I actually caught one of them, some as a condition of travel into the country.
Again, it was either have them, or leave.
I also wasn't going to have a vague hope my immune system would be better at the job than the vaccinations either.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> We don't actually know what people have died from, because they include every death (with a positive test within 28 days) regardless of what they actually died from, not just "with" a positive test.


Nonsense. That's one measure. Another is looking at cause of death on death certificates. And the two match up pretty well. Not perfectly, but close enough that we can be pretty confident about the overall figures.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> How is Jab or no Job "free" choice? It's a choice and that's it.



It's a consequence of a choice you, personally, choose to make.

If you expect to have unlimited personal choices, with no regard to the consequences you cause, both to yourself and to others, can you explain how that would work across society?
Because at the moment, you seem to say you don't want a vaccination, as you "may" cope with your own immune system, but if you don't cope you still want a bed in ICU, even if you infect your boss, your colleagues, and your customers, and then return to work after that? Sick pay while in hospital as well?


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Do we then extend this policy to those who "refuse" to stop smoking?


We (in the UK) can't do that. I presume smokers pay more for health insurance in the US, just as they do in this country for travel health insurance. I'd expect that to extend to people who choose not to be vaccinated against this virus.

Closest I could imagine the UK to doing that would be some kind of tax change. Maybe a (presumably time limited) NI bump for people who decline vaccination. (I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it would be crazy: people refusing this vaccine are (statistically) increasing costs for everyone. And (unlike smokers) they aren't paying more tax in other ways. That's one nice property of some of the European mandates: you can either take the (free) vaccination, or you can pay to have a test each time you go to a restaurant, etc.)


----------



## travellor

Bruce Stephens said:


> We (in the UK) can't do that. I presume smokers pay more for health insurance in the US, just as they do in this country for travel health insurance. I'd expect that to extend to people who choose not to be vaccinated against this virus.
> 
> Closest I could imagine the UK to doing that would be some kind of tax change. Maybe a (presumably time limited) NI bump for people who decline vaccination. (I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it would be crazy: people refusing this vaccine are (statistically) increasing costs for everyone. And (unlike smokers) they aren't paying more tax in other ways. That's one nice property of some of the European mandates: you can either take the (free) vaccination, or you can pay to have a test each time you go to a restaurant, etc.)



The NHS do recover costs from insurers after some RTA's. The cap is around £55,000, to cover costs from the ambulance to in patient treatment.
So, the wedge is already in place for two tier treatment.
As you say, a variable NI, but probably more likely a partial privatisation of the NHS, with a basic NHS for all, and an insurance backed upgrade would be another option if the conservatives keep power for long enough.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Bruce, it's a rhetorical question.  I know that. just making a point that where a policy like that could be taken?


I think it's conceivable we'll have broader mandates, like all government employees must be vaccinated. (Similar to the US one.) Maybe also (again, following the US) large employers might have the same mandate.

Doesn't feel likely to me. I suspect we'll drift on allowing large numbers to be infected and hope that it stabilises at some tolerable level without healthcare collapsing. I'm not confident that that's a bad choice. Having vaccination (mostly) voluntary has worked well for us. (And I was doubtful about the fast antigen tests (and I'm still doubtful about our policies for using them), but overall they're likely effective for what people claimed, and I was probably wrong.)


----------



## travellor

Bruce Stephens said:


> I think it's conceivable we'll have broader mandates, like all government employees must be vaccinated. (Similar to the US one.) Maybe also (again, following the US) large employers might have the same mandate.
> 
> Doesn't feel likely to me. I suspect we'll drift on allowing large numbers to be infected and hope that it stabilises at some tolerable level without healthcare collapsing. I'm not confident that that's a bad choice. Having vaccination (mostly) voluntary has worked well for us. (And I was doubtful about the fast antigen tests (and I'm still doubtful about our policies for using them), but overall they're likely effective for what people claimed, and I was probably wrong.)



We already have mandates for employees being vaccinated.
Care home employees, NHS front line staff, several well known private companies.
All acceptable to the public.
I believe it'll roll out, but, as the German Health minister said today, most Germans will be "vaccinated, cured or dead" from Covid-19 in a few months, 
All we as a country need to do is ensure the hospitals can keep the load to an acceptable level until that time.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

travellor said:


> I believe it'll roll out, but, as the German Health minister said today, most Germans will be "vaccinated, cured or dead" from Covid-19 in a few months,
> All we as a country need to do is ensure the hospitals can keep the load to an acceptable level until that time.


That seems likely, yes. I'm sad for the people who will die from this largely preventable (in wealthy countries) infectious disease.

I'm more worried that we'll be left with significant numbers of people with permanent disability, but maybe it won't be as bad as I fear. It doesn't seem impossible that most of these long covid things will be temporary, so we'll just end up with small numbers of people with severe damage.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> The trouble with that statement is, it completely ignores both natural innate immunity and naturally acquired immunity.


It includes them, doesn't it? (I'm assuming "cured" means "natural" recovery from infection.)

(It doesn't (explicitly) include the possibility of being vaccinated and cured, or vaccinated and dead (or cured and dead), but all those will also happen.)


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> The trouble with that statement is, it completely ignores both natural innate immunity and naturally acquired immunity. Also the current set of vaccines do not provide sterilising immunity. I'm not saying don't get vaccinated, just that the science about immunity suggests otherwise.
> 
> As discussed in Dr John Campbells youtube video "Natural versus vaccine immunity" based on his evidence it's established that natural infection / immunity (for those unlucky enough to have caught the virus) will likely give them long lasting protection. But not only that (see Dr Campbells explanation in his youtube channel) that natural immunity not only gives long lasting immunity, it gives far wider immunity. Vaccines only produce an immune response to two antigens, the spike protein and receptor binding domain, whereas natural immunity provides protection from 20 different antigens, plus proteins, antibodies, memory t cells and memory b cells. See video below.
> 
> See extract below of studies on natural vs vaccine immunity:
> 
> *BMJ* paper
> 
> Several studies (in Qatar, England, Israel, and the US) have found infection rates at equally low levels among people who are fully vaccinated and those who have previously had covid-19. Cleveland Clinic surveyed its more than 50 000 employees to compare four groups based on history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status. *Not one of over 1300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study.* *Researchers concluded that that cohort “are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.”* In Israel, researchers accessed a database of the entire population to compare the efficacy of vaccination with previous infection and found nearly identical numbers. *“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals,” they concluded.*
> 
> *CDC* quoted this about the 4 studies. Under the heading of "comparison of infection and vaccine induced immune repsonse"
> 
> "A systematic review and meta-analysis including data from three vaccine efficacy trials and four observational studies from the US, Israel, and the United Kingdom, found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination; this included studies from both prior to and during the period in which Delta was the predominant variant [79]. In this review, the randomized controlled trials appeared to show higher protection from mRNA vaccines whereas *the observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.*



Of course it covers immunity.
You catch covid, you either recover or die.
You may catch it and be asymptomatic, you may spend months in ICU.
Or course you have different degrees of recovery, but that's the gamble you want to have.
I have no idea what the reference above is for?
Either you catch covid and recover apparently, or you have a vaccination.
Both apparently work just as well, as your quote shows.
Even though you decided to highlight the "observational" results, and ignored the randomized controlled trials that actually proved the opposite.
I'm good with that.
Especially as by your rules, my protection is doubled.
Once by the vaccine, then again when my natural immunity kicks in.

And so the German health minister agrees. 
All you are missing out is the ones who caught covid and died, 
He references them as well.
I don't want to be in that group particuarly.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> No mention of natural immunity anywhere in the statement. It does mention being "cured" which infers some kind of treatment or course of action. Doesn't say "recovered" which implies either natural acquired, innate or immunity provided by vaccination.
> 
> Seems to be a complete ommision of both natural immunity and memory B and T cells in any press release about covid19. It's always vaccines and antibodies waining, never natural immunity and memory b and t cells.



I don't really care if I'm called cured, recovered, treated, vaccinated, or immune.
The only one that would annoy me in that quote would be the last one.

And it's probably unwise to assume what a German Health minister means when he does a one liner in German, and it gets translated into English by a tabloid. I doubt he's going to give a lecture on the efficiency of vaccines stimulating B and T cell response.
With that, I wish you well with your experiment, and hope you do have an immune system that creates the right cells, within the needed time period.
After that, you will indeed have memory B and T cells.
From my point of view, if my immune system is as lazy as the rest of my body, and has the same quality of memory, I'm going for active B and T cells now, and antibodies all primed and waiting.
As I said, it would only be being called the last part of the quote that would annoy me.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

travellor said:


> And it's probably unwise to assume what a German Health minister means when he does a one liner in German, and it gets translated into English by a tabloid.


I seem to remember hearing him say it in English, but regardless, I agree it's most likely a minor translation issue. I think most people understood what he meant.


----------



## travellor

Amity Island said:


> @travellor You seem to think I am talking about myself in these discussions. If I am talking personally or about me I will use the "I" as I often do when replying to people's diabetes questions as it's my personal experience I am giving, otherwise all my points are only about what is said. All I am interested in are the facts or at least trying to get somewhere near to them, although, as @Bruce Stephens and @Docb  quite rightly point out sometimes, is that there are nuances in facts and data.
> 
> When I hear someone say "free choice" or "perfectly free choice" we want to know what they mean by that. If someone says "No vaccination, no admittance to hospital" we want to know what science it's based on. My points are purely based on the reasons and facts behind such comments, I don't take this personally, nor would I resort to insults.
> 
> I'm not going to come on here and recommend either way about whether someone takes any medication, that's for them to make a free choice for themselves, as long as it is a free choice, not one based on a free donut.


Ah, if Krispy Kreme did vaccinations.
Free choice, and a donut for the right one.


----------



## rustee2011

The thing is not everyone who comes up as vaccinated has had the jab. I was made aware in the summer of a loophole to get access to the NHS website. I was then showed how the person selected the vax of their choice, citing they took it. The person was charging £300 to do it. I said thanks, but no thanks... Just saying, this was a chap in the Security Industry.


----------



## Eddy Edson

I love how anti-vaxxers are deploying this freedumb-of-choice trope, as if there were such a thing as choices free of all exigencies. Tell that to poor old Buridan's ass!


----------



## travellor

rustee2011 said:


> The thing is not everyone who comes up as vaccinated has had the jab. I was made aware in the summer of a loophole to get access to the NHS website. I was then showed how the person selected the vax of their choice, citing they took it. The person was charging £300 to do it. I said thanks, but no thanks... Just saying, this was a chap in the Security Industry.



The main problem with that is covid can't read.
All that would have happened is you'd be £300 lighter when you caught it.


----------



## mikeyB

It seems the possibility of dying isn’t strong enough to persuade people to get vaccinated. The vast majority of folk in hospital, particularly the 30-50 age who are dying are unvaccinated. Nothing like taking your apparently  informed consent to your grave.


----------



## travellor

Evolution in action.


----------



## trophywench

travellor said:


> Evolution in action.


Well yeah but though it may benefit evolution it's a bit of a big step for most people to deliberately risk happening, usually.  Be better if they just did it privately rather than being a burden on society at large,  As I have already said - very selfish.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

trophywench said:


> Well yeah but though it may benefit evolution it's a bit of a big step for most people to deliberately risk happening, usually. Be better if they just did it privately rather than being a burden on society at large, As I have already said - very selfish.


The anti vaxxers are (I think) mostly victims, though I find it hard to be sympathetic when they're also spreading the myths.

I think I just find the vaccine hesitant as weird: a year ago, sure, the vaccines were brand new so it's not odd to be wary, and maybe if enough other people them the virus will fade away (a bit selfish, admittedly, but rational). But we've had them over a year now. I mean, what more are we likely to find out about them that could make them riskier than this rather nasty virus?


----------



## Eddy Edson

Bruce Stephens said:


> The anti vaxxers are (I think) mostly victims, though I find it hard to be sympathetic when they're also spreading the myths.
> 
> I think I just find the vaccine hesitant as weird: a year ago, sure, the vaccines were brand new so it's not odd to be wary, and maybe if enough other people them the virus will fade away (a bit selfish, admittedly, but rational). But we've had them over a year now. I mean, what more are we likely to find out about them that could make them riskier than this rather nasty virus?


The depressing conclusion I come to is that lots of people are just a lot more stupid than you might have thought before all this.


----------



## travellor

trophywench said:


> Well yeah but though it may benefit evolution it's a bit of a big step for most people to deliberately risk happening, usually.  Be better if they just did it privately rather than being a burden on society at large,  As I have already said - very selfish.


Some people even want to remove the risk of not catching it.






__





						Anti-vaxxer who went to ‘corona party’ to become infected dies from Covid
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## Zoombie

travellor said:


> Some people even want to remove the risk of not catching it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-vaxxer who went to ‘corona party’ to become infected dies from Covid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com



Well that ended badly…


----------



## travellor

It seems it's merely the beginning.......



			Unvaccinated mum, 27, dies with COVID as her father calls for people who refuse jab to be fined


----------



## nonethewiser

Cant argue with what Austria are planning, good on them.


----------



## Eddy Edson

Thinking back, Austria was the first Euro country to introduce mask mandates.

Apparently Germany is now mulling mandatory vaccination & the WHO is saying it should become a thing.


----------



## travellor

So he is arguing that vaccinations reduce the immune system and vaccinated health care workers become reinfected, whereas un vaccinated don't?
How many in each group died?
Or had to leave the profession because of serious illness?
If nothing, what is so special about his subject group? 74557, and not one single reinfection?
That's a massive number as other groups have definitely had reinfections?
Statistically, it's unbelievable.
The best defence for covid is not to be vaccinated, but get a job in healthcare instead?
(Actually, the answer is "74557 infection person days"
That's around just 350 people working for a standard working year without being infected again. Maybe the rest did get reinfected? Statistics eh?)

Have a read of it here.









						Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance
					

Background Data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) during periods of delta variant predominance are limited.  Methods We followed a population of urban Massachusetts HCWs (45% non-White) subject to epidemiologic surveillance. We accounted for covariates such...




					www.medrxiv.org
				




Look at the real numbers, then tell me vaccines don't work.
Not just one buzz line, that is actually out of context as well. They went on to get vaccines in reality. That's why the number of hours is so low.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Again, I am not against vaccines, I will say that again, I am not against vaccines, and those who haven't had covid, will likely prefer to take a vacccine to reduce the risk of being hospitalised.


You'd hope so, and yet there are plenty of people who are not vaccinated. I don't think all of those have had covid (though that will presumably end up being the case).

From a government's position it's surely simple: you want everybody (except a small number of people who're likely to be harmed by that) to get vaccinated. If they've never been infected before, they'll get some (really pretty good) protection against infection, sickness, and death. If they have been infected, they'll get improved protection against infection, sickness, and death.

There's no downside: the government (and your employer, anybody who owns anywhere where you go etc.) wants you to get vaccinated if you aren't yet. (Where there are shortages of vaccines things can be different, but in the UK that's no longer the case.)

Maybe there's a case for not being quite so worried about people who've been infected sufficiently the they have good immunity. On the other hand you really don't want to incentivise people to get infected instead of getting vaccinated (or instead of waiting a bit to get vaccinated) because we know that some people will. And there's no advantage in having people deliberately not get vaccinated. (There's an apparently very small number of people who really aren't advised to take these vaccines, and that's something we need to live with. But it's said to be very small.)


----------



## mikeyB

I think that the video over emphasises the "danger" of injecting into a blood vessel - the worst thing that can happen is the immunisation won't work, the contents of the injection will just be eaten up by the usual patrollers of the blood in mopping up alien bits. And there would be distinctive bruise and swelling if it did happen. Where are the reports of this happening?

That doesn't apply to all IM injections, but in any event I was always taught to aspirate giving an IM injection, so it isn't necessarily a UK wide technique not to do it, even though there aren't any major vessels in the deltoid, but lots of little ones. The best place for IM injections is the largest muscle in the body, the gluteus maximus. Or to put it another way, the bum.


----------



## travellor

mikeyB said:


> I think that the video over emphasises the "danger" of injecting into a blood vessel - the worst thing that can happen is the immunisation won't work, the contents of the injection will just be eaten up by the usual patrollers of the blood in mopping up alien bits. And there would be distinctive bruise and swelling if it did happen. Where are the reports of this happening?
> 
> That doesn't apply to all IM injections, but in any event I was always taught to aspirate giving an IM injection, so it isn't necessarily a UK wide technique not to do it, even though there aren't any major vessels in the deltoid, but lots of little ones. The best place for IM injections is the largest muscle in the body, the gluteus maximus. Or to put it another way, the bum.



Not according to the news recently.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

travellor said:


> Not according to the news recently.


The rare blood clots (in at least Ox/AZ thought maybe also in other viral vector vaccines) are a different thing. I don't think anyone's suggested those might be caused by accidentally injecting into a blood vessel, though I might have missed that. (It's good that they seem to be finding the cause for that side effect, of course. That vaccine's much cheaper and just uses a regular cold chain, so is much more useful worldwide.)


----------



## travellor

Bruce Stephens said:


> The rare blood clots (in at least Ox/AZ thought maybe also in other viral vector vaccines) are a different thing. I don't think anyone's suggested those might be caused by accidentally injecting into a blood vessel, though I might have missed that. (It's good that they seem to be finding the cause for that side effect, of course. That vaccine's much cheaper and just uses a regular cold chain, so is much more useful worldwide.)



Not "injected into"
Leaked into, as in the vaccine has found a way into the bloodstream.
Which obviously would include injection as a means.






						Science | AAAS
					






					www.science.org


----------



## Bruce Stephens

travellor said:


> Not "injected into"
> Leaked into, as in the vaccine has found a way into the bloodstream.
> Which obviously would include injection as a means.


Yes, sorry.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

mikeyB said:


> That doesn't apply to all IM injections, but in any event I was always taught to aspirate giving an IM injection, so it isn't necessarily a UK wide technique not to do it, even though there aren't any major vessels in the deltoid, but lots of little ones. The best place for IM injections is the largest muscle in the body, the gluteus maximus. Or to put it another way, the bum.


The shoulder is apparently safe enough, and while you might have been taught that, guidance has apparently changed.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> He could of equally instead made a video about reasons not to aspirate for IM vaccination without _any_ reference to Dr John Campbell, keeping it impersonal and dealing instead directly with the subject matter. Personally, it looks unprofessional to personally attack someone (insted of the science), especially when what they are saying is based on official guidance in many places and locations in the world.


He could have done that, but it wouldn't have been what he wanted. Dr John Campbell's Youtube channel is apparently really popular and often referenced. Dr Yan Yu has apparently been asked about them and wanted to directly address them. Presumably he's not alone.

I can imagine vaccine-hesitant people being concerned about this and wanting to wait until they could be sure they could have a vaccination delivered with aspiration. The video seems to me to address that pretty well: don't wait!

The review you mention doesn't seem to me to support aspiration in vaccination. If anything it supports the suspicion that this is one of many practices that probably doesn't do any good. (I'm in favour of people who want this aspiration being able to ask for it, in the same way as I think people ought to be able to choose which vaccine they get among those approved. I just think Dr Campbell's jumped on this probably incorrect hypothesis and is probably helping to discourage some from being vaccinated.)


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> I didn't like the tone of the video, seems he has a problem, with something that shouldn't be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with aspiration. Dr Yu first brings up how many videos Dr John Campbell has made about aspiration....so what?


I think probably because he thinks it's a marginal issue at best, so just doesn't deserve 5 videos (or however many it is). Especially with what seems like just a story (not any actual evidence).


Amity Island said:


> He then talks about not basing the results of an experiment on one mouse experiment, but how many animals were the vaccines tested on before they tested on humans? None.


Which seems to be a false claim: https://fullfact.org/health/animal-testing-covid-vaccine/


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> What is the false claim?


That the vaccines were tested on no animals before being tested on humans.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Where does it say the current vaccines were tested on animals before they were tested on humans? From what I understand the current vaccines were tested on animals at the same time as they tested on humans and not before.


Oh yes, you're right.
Chris Magee, head of policy and media at UK non-profit Understanding Animal Research, previously told Full Fact that in the case of Covid-19 vaccines, data already existed to indicate the vaccines were safe, which enabled researchers to run animal trials alongside the early stages of human trials.​


----------

