Germany Moves to Restrict Unvaccinated Citizens

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:37 am

The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.

Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.

Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.

Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180

This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy. But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.

Francoflier · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:01 am

Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.

flyguy89 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:00 am

Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.

Wow.

I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.

Kent350787 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:02 am

Are we certain that "compulsory vaccination" is a correct translation of the prposals in a number of European countries?

In Australia, Governments have mandated vaccination to continue employment - my own state requires it to continue to work in health, education, emergency services and tranport roles. Other employers are also able to require vaccination to remain in employment. Currently in my state, full vaccination is a requirement to attand food and enternatinment venues other than for takeout/takeaway.

It is clear that some of these measures have encouraged people to get vaccinated, and have been important in states with zero or low numbers of cases to get vaccinated. Since employment mandates were announced, Western Australia has quite quickly moved above 80% 12+ fully vaxxed even without outbreaks.

But we do not have "compulsory vaccination". My own state of NSW has 92% of the 12+ population filly vaccinated, but it isn't compulsory.

CaptHadley · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:13 am

flyguy89 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.

Wow.

I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.

How's it unraveling? Get the vaccination and you're good to go. If people weren't so cement headed and did the right thing when the vaccine was first rolled out this might possibly not have been needed.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:18 am

flyguy89 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.

Wow.

I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.

This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.

flyguy89 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:52 am

Aaron747 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.

Wow.

I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.

This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.

I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.

ltbewr · Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:28 am

If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

tommy1808 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:37 am

Aaron747 wrote:
The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.

Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.

Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.

Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180

This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy.

Well, Austria started the process of making vaccination mandatory first, Greece has already made it mandatory for those age 60 and up, that have to have at least one does or an appointment by January 16hth.

Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.

The way he said it, roughly "we have to give people enough time to get both doses and we should be able to do that until February" seems to imply that by that date everyone has to have been fully vaccinated. It would also make booster shots mandatory, apparently 9 month after the 2nd dose.

But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.

That is nonsense to the 5th power. Nothing will convince those people to get vaccinated on their own account. Saxony, a state that is home to less than 5% of the German population, has 11% of all deaths and still has a vaccination rate below 60% and its not picking up.
In October the federal government had Forsa do a poll to get some data on why people don´t get vaccinated and what would get them to get vaccinated, with over 60% saying absolutely nothing and 89% saying they don´t care about the hospital situation at all.

Now, what got mandatory vaccination on top of the agenda? Our highest court ruled on a previous covid measure, the Bundesnotbremse (~federal emergency break), and let it stand.

https://www.republicworld.com/world-new ... sures.html

The interesting bit in that decision is that the court did not confirm that the government did not just have the right and power to put that measure in place under the constitution, but that the government was in fact required to do so. Not putting them in place would have violated it.

Bundesverfassungsgericht wrote:
Die angegriffenen Kontaktbeschränkungen waren als Maßnahmen zum Schutz von Leben und Gesundheit sowie zur Aufrechterhaltung eines funktionsfähigen Gesundheitssystems auch im verfassungsrechtlichen Sinne erforderlich.
The challenged contact restrictions were required as measures to protect life and health and to maintain a functioning health care system also in the constitutional sense.

whole text, in German of course: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de ... 1-101.html

It also gets somewhat specific what the government could do to achieve that goal, what would have been un-consitutional and that the government has find the mildest means of maintaining a functioning health care system.
So.... constant/recurring lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates and contact restrictions for 83 million people, or a vaccine mandate for those that wouldn´t come voluntarily.

Not the hardest call to make.

ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge

Nope, the nutters wouldn´t comply anyways.

(along with a mask)

yes, like everybody else regardless of their vaccination status.Mostly inside and where crowding occours though.

if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected.

That is fine, unless you want to go to a restaurant, which is a clear "no" until your vaccinated. They are however supposed to get testet before they use public transport and every day for work. Just like in Italy.

We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country.

yes, being rules by a vaccine refusenik wasn´t the highlight of our history.

best regards
Thomas

CometII · Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:52 am

flyguy89 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.

Wow.

I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.

Probably for the Ntenth time, western liberal democracy is NOT "I can do whatever I want regardless of whether it hurts the rights and pursuit of life of others".

That is absolutely and totally NOT what the Founding Fathers, or any of the 18th and 19th Century Enlightment ever would have envisioned. This idea of "me me me" is a recent phenomenon. People in the early 20th century would not bat an eyelash at the government telling them to vote, or to get a vaccine, or to be conscripted.

It will be interesting to see if the same crowd that is all about "personal freedom" from being killed by a "dangerous jab", will sing the same tune if there is a major war with Russia or China and some kids try to go into hiding from being sent to their deaths. What about their personal freedom from being killed, we shall see I guess.

45272455674 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:52 am

Aaron747 wrote:
The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.

Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.

Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.

Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180

This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy. But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.

Why is this so noteworthy?

This was standard procedure where I live. No double vaccination then you remain in lockdown. No parties, no moving outside your local government area, restrictions galore.

It’s a tough but effective way to encourage vaccination that was used effectively by our conservative right wing government.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:14 pm

cpd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.

Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.

Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.

Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180

This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy. But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.

Why is this so noteworthy?

This was standard procedure where I live. No double vaccination then you remain in lockdown. No parties, no moving outside your local government area, restrictions galore.

It’s a tough but effective way to encourage vaccination that was used effectively by our conservative right wing government.

It's noteworthy because Europe has been at the leading edge of every wave and Germany is a densely populated country surrounded by others. The same is not true of Australia.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:15 pm

CometII wrote:
That is absolutely and totally NOT what the Founding Fathers, or any of the 18th and 19th Century Enlightment ever would have envisioned. This idea of "me me me" is a recent phenomenon. People in the early 20th century would not bat an eyelash at the government telling them to vote, or to get a vaccine, or to be conscripted.

Precisely. As I said, only people with a child's indignation of self absorption have any issues with these measures.

M564038 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:35 pm

Western democracy, wether liberal or social-democratic is a combination of duties and rights.

These people forget the duty part of it.

art · Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:57 pm

Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals.

I agree. In England countless people have suffered due to people with COVID-19 soaking up medical resources. People with serious medical conditions are forced to wait for treatment. People needing diagnosis for medical conditions are forced to wait for diagnosis. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal is responsible for a great deal of suffering and death in others and will be responsible for more in the future (due to delayed diagnosis and treatment of disease). If someone who has refused vaccination gets COVID-19, I do not think that person should be given access to scarce medical resources.

I also think that since unvaccinated people are more likely to infect others, it is a good move to restrict their access to places outside of their home.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:00 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Wow.

I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.

This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.

I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.

It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:33 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.

I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.

It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.

Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:35 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.

It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.

Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.

In your opinion.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:37 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.

Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:38 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

Nope, your opinion, not logic.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:50 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

Nope, your opinion, not logic.

Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.

Reinhardt · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:57 pm

art wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Good.

It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals.

I agree. In England countless people have suffered due to people with COVID-19 soaking up medical resources. People with serious medical conditions are forced to wait for treatment. People needing diagnosis for medical conditions are forced to wait for diagnosis. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal is responsible for a great deal of suffering and death in others and will be responsible for more in the future (due to delayed diagnosis and treatment of disease). If someone who has refused vaccination gets COVID-19, I do not think that person should be given access to scarce medical resources.

I also think that since unvaccinated people are more likely to infect others, it is a good move to restrict their access to places outside of their home.

Exactly right. The same in my part of Germany (Saxony). We have only 68% of people vaccinated and now we have the worst infection rate in almost all of Europe. The "Querdenken" - lateral thinking in English, spent the summer protesting about their rights being eroded. Some of the protests turned to riots. They ignored social distancing rules, and travelled from all over to our small part of the country. During a period of time when there were hardly any rules because the infection rate was so slow (before 10 per 100,000). In my city it's now 670 and the outer city is 1600!!

Now these people have huge restrictions on their daily life and guess what.. they are all running to the vaccination centres which now cannot cope with the levels of people wanting jabs.

Our hospitals which for almost the entire pandemic so far easily coped with the levels of Covid patients (so well infact we took in thousands of cases from other countries) now cannot cope. We are the ones sending patients aboard and the healthcare professionals are (like in the UK) are struggling to cope. Both with the workload and because their numbers are not as high as they should be because of general winter illnesses..and yes covid.

The level of sheer ignorance people have of basic science and lack of trust in professionals is beyond belief these days. The utter BS spouted by right wing media sources (almost all of which start from the US and spread to the UK and then the EU) has to stop. It's all over social media. The exact word for word beliefs of people I've seen protesting in my town are straight from Trump, Fox and other US based platforms. It's all shared on social media. I'm sorry if you feel that's an attack again the US, but seriously, sort you freedom of speech out. It doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:57 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

BTW, I am by no means anti-vax, I support the Rona vax. I think the Rona vaccines are mostly safe, but I still have some concerns about the long term effects. That is mostly from a new type of vaccine that is being rolled out in record time with out long term studies. I think it was created by some of the smartest people on the plant, but that doesn't negate the fact that its so new and we just couldn't do any long term studies. I am all for people getting with their doctor and making what decision is right for them about the vax. However, I am 100% against vaccine mandates, especially the way they are being handled. You can sat its for the public safety and all, but this has been politicized too much from day one. Remember when POTUS and VPOTUS, as candidates, said they would not take the Trump vaccine? Well, this is the same one and now they want everyone to give up their personal freedoms to choose what goes into their bodies and get the jab. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy? If this wasn't politized from day one (under Trump), we would likely have a different sentiment in the US about this, but as with everything they touch, politicians F'd this up. If you support my body, my choice, how can you support the mandate?

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:00 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

No, based on simple logic.

Nope, your opinion, not logic.

Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.

Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:05 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

BTW, I am by no means anti-vax, I support the Rona vax. I think the Rona vaccines are mostly safe, but I still have some concerns about the long term effects. That is mostly from a new type of vaccine that is being rolled out in record time with out long term studies. I think it was created by some of the smartest people on the plant, but that doesn't negate the fact that its so new and we just couldn't do any long term studies. I am all for people getting with their doctor and making what decision is right for them about the vax. However, I am 100% against vaccine mandates, especially the way they are being handled. You can sat its for the public safety and all, but this has been politicized too much from day one. Remember when POTUS and VPOTUS, as candidates, said they would not take the Trump vaccine? Well, this is the same one and now they want everyone to give up their personal freedoms to choose what goes into their bodies and get the jab. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy? If this wasn't politized from day one (under Trump), we would likely have a different sentiment in the US about this, but as with everything they touch, politicians F'd this up. If you support my body, my choice, how can you support the mandate?

Easy: reproductive decisions are permanent life decisions, not health decisions. The mother's decision affects her life - vaccines affect everyone, the healthcare system at large, and the economy.

As to long-term effects, that is a canard. mRNA material is in the body a few days at most and does not alter any genetic material - that can't cause long term damage, unlike a synthetic drug taken regularly that most certainly can - and that's why pharmacologics require long-term study.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:06 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Nope, your opinion, not logic.

Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.

Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.

That wasn't the intent - I am well aware of the flawed reasoning people are using to justify their 'feelings' on the matter of 'vaccine freedom' and my post was to demonstrate why they are wrong, logically. Sure, they don't agree what is proper, but their position is demonstrably unreasonable looking at the FL350 view of the situation.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:10 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

BTW, I am by no means anti-vax, I support the Rona vax. I think the Rona vaccines are mostly safe, but I still have some concerns about the long term effects. That is mostly from a new type of vaccine that is being rolled out in record time with out long term studies. I think it was created by some of the smartest people on the plant, but that doesn't negate the fact that its so new and we just couldn't do any long term studies. I am all for people getting with their doctor and making what decision is right for them about the vax. However, I am 100% against vaccine mandates, especially the way they are being handled. You can sat its for the public safety and all, but this has been politicized too much from day one. Remember when POTUS and VPOTUS, as candidates, said they would not take the Trump vaccine? Well, this is the same one and now they want everyone to give up their personal freedoms to choose what goes into their bodies and get the jab. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy? If this wasn't politized from day one (under Trump), we would likely have a different sentiment in the US about this, but as with everything they touch, politicians F'd this up. If you support my body, my choice, how can you support the mandate?

Easy: reproductive decisions are permanent life decisions, not health decisions. The mother's decision affects her life - vaccines affect everyone, the healthcare system at large, and the economy.

As to long-term effects, that is a canard. mRNA material is in the body a few days at most and does not alter any genetic material - that can't cause long term damage, unlike a synthetic drug taken regularly that most certainly can - and that's why pharmacologics require long-term study.

Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.

Aesma · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:25 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.

[i]Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.

France has done this back on July 12th, effective September 1st.

It has worked in getting people vaccinated, and it has slowed down the current wave, but it's not miraculous. Because the vaccines only diminish the transmission rate, they don't stop the spread.

I go to the restaurant every day of the week (and am triple jabbed), the cinema a couple times a week, I'm not sure I will be able to continue for long, I feel restrictions are coming.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:30 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Easy: reproductive decisions are permanent life decisions, not health decisions. The mother's decision affects her life - vaccines affect everyone, the healthcare system at large, and the economy.

As to long-term effects, that is a canard. mRNA material is in the body a few days at most and does not alter any genetic material - that can't cause long term damage, unlike a synthetic drug taken regularly that most certainly can - and that's why pharmacologics require long-term study.

Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.

The vaccines are not a 'substance' in the same way a synthesized drug is - they are just a biological message - no more, no less. They are far more simple than previous forms of vaccines in that way. And it is not 'theory' - mRNA is well-understood as a principle in molecular biology and has been for decades. This is the first time it has been deployed in vaccines, yes, but *that* approach has also been studied and tested for nearly 20 years.

More importantly, there is no evidence that mRNA tech *can* produce any long-term effects. By virtue of how they operate biologically, there is no way for them to do so.

The mRNA vaccines contain the blueprint, so to speak, for a specific component of the virus — after they are injected, the immune system is stimulated and antibodies are produced against this small part. Afterward, the mRNA is completely broken down again, according to BioNTech-Pfizer — and thus cannot trigger any late-onset long-term effects. "There is no evidence that reactions can occur at a later stage," Reinhold Förster said.

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-can-co ... a-59667465

M564038 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:47 pm

Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Nope, your opinion, not logic.

Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.

Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.

N626AA · Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:54 pm

What time span does being 'recently recovered' entail? 6 mos? 1 year?

I wonder if you are unvaxxed but just recovered from covid, say, last month, are you still required to get the vaccine?

ItnStln · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:13 pm

ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.

ItnStln · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:15 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

That is, quite literally, nothing more than your opinion!

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:17 pm

M564038 wrote:
Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.

Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.

Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:19 pm

ItnStln wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.

Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.

Aesma · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:20 pm

N626AA wrote:
What time span does being 'recently recovered' entail? 6 mos? 1 year?

I wonder if you are unvaxxed but just recovered from covid, say, last month, are you still required to get the vaccine?

6 months is common. In fact in France you can't get a jab for 6 months after having tested positive. Problem, some countries don't accept that when traveling, for example the US wants 2 jabs, regardless. French people end up traveling to neighboring countries to beg for a 2nd jab so they can travel to the US.

casinterest · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:20 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.

bpatus297 wrote:

Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.

Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".

Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:20 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.

The vaccines are not a 'substance' in the same way a synthesized drug is - they are just a biological message - no more, no less. They are far more simple than previous forms of vaccines in that way. And it is not 'theory' - mRNA is well-understood as a principle in molecular biology and has been for decades. This is the first time it has been deployed in vaccines, yes, but *that* approach has also been studied and tested for nearly 20 years.

More importantly, there is no evidence that mRNA tech *can* produce any long-term effects. By virtue of how they operate biologically, there is no way for them to do so.

The mRNA vaccines contain the blueprint, so to speak, for a specific component of the virus — after they are injected, the immune system is stimulated and antibodies are produced against this small part. Afterward, the mRNA is completely broken down again, according to BioNTech-Pfizer — and thus cannot trigger any late-onset long-term effects. "There is no evidence that reactions can occur at a later stage," Reinhold Förster said.

I know that mRNA is understood, what about this is a 100% new medical technology is hard to understand? Isn't this the first time, on a large scale, that we have used mRNA to to tell human bodies what to do? You just really refuse to concede that anything other than your viewpoint is valid. This has been proven thread after thread. Good day.

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-can-co ... a-59667465

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:22 pm

casinterest wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.

Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".

Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.

Jesus, here we go again with strawman arguments and fallacies. Stay focused, I have stated that I am not anti-vax and that i support the Rona vaccine, but am anti-mandate. The mandate takes away the liberties protected in the Constitution, its that simple.

casinterest · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:24 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".

Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.

Jesus, here we go again with strawman arguments and fallacies. Stay focused, I have stated that I am not anti-vax and that i support the Rona vaccine, but am anti-mandate. The mandate takes away the liberties protected in the Constitution, its that simple.

The mandates save lives so people that have REAL Medical issues with the vaccine get to enjoy the constitution longer. At this point, If it wasn't for those that are vulnerable, I would say to hell with the madates, and let the stupid people take their chances with real medical consequences, and have them sign an exclusion waiver on medical assistance related to Covid.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:25 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.

The vaccines are not a 'substance' in the same way a synthesized drug is - they are just a biological message - no more, no less. They are far more simple than previous forms of vaccines in that way. And it is not 'theory' - mRNA is well-understood as a principle in molecular biology and has been for decades. This is the first time it has been deployed in vaccines, yes, but *that* approach has also been studied and tested for nearly 20 years.

More importantly, there is no evidence that mRNA tech *can* produce any long-term effects. By virtue of how they operate biologically, there is no way for them to do so.

The mRNA vaccines contain the blueprint, so to speak, for a specific component of the virus — after they are injected, the immune system is stimulated and antibodies are produced against this small part. Afterward, the mRNA is completely broken down again, according to BioNTech-Pfizer — and thus cannot trigger any late-onset long-term effects. "There is no evidence that reactions can occur at a later stage," Reinhold Förster said.

I know that mRNA is understood, what about this is a 100% new medical technology is hard to understand? Isn't this the first time, on a large scale, that we have used mRNA to to tell human bodies what to do? You just really refuse to concede that anything other than your viewpoint is valid. This has been proven thread after thread. Good day.

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-can-co ... a-59667465

The difference is I took molecular bio in college and paid attention. mRNA processes are happening within you constantly, every moment of your life. The only thing ‘new’ here is using it to produce specific antibodies instead of viral material. There is nothing in that therapy that can induce long term effects - any suggestion otherwise is pseudoscience.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:26 pm

Might the historical fact that Saxony was part of the DDR have relevance?

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:28 pm

casinterest wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.

Jesus, here we go again with strawman arguments and fallacies. Stay focused, I have stated that I am not anti-vax and that i support the Rona vaccine, but am anti-mandate. The mandate takes away the liberties protected in the Constitution, its that simple.

The mandates save lives so people that have REAL Medical issues with the vaccine get to enjoy the constitution longer. At this point, If it wasn't for those that are vulnerable, I would say to hell with the madates, and let the stupid people take their chances with real medical consequences, and have them sign an exclusion waiver on medical assistance related to Covid.

I understand the why, I still don't agree with the mandate though. I got it to protect others because I am not a shithead, but that doesn't mean I think the GOV can force someone to do that. If we use that as an argument, I can think of a lot of things the GOV should do or restrict further to protect other people.

ItnStln · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:28 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
ItnStln wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.

Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.

What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!

FlapOperator · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:28 pm

ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

We've already shown in this thread, that if you don't show enough "social solidarity" whatever that means, you don't get social services.

I mean, I wish that was the standard for lots of things, like say, serving directly in uniform a totalitarian state, but I guess that doesn't.

ItnStln · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:29 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Might the historical fact that Saxony was part of the DDR have relevance?

That is my assumption.

ItnStln · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:29 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

We've already shown in this thread, that if you don't show enough "social solidarity" whatever that means, you don't get social services.

I mean, I wish that was the standard for lots of things, like say, serving directly in uniform a totalitarian state, but I guess that doesn't.

What is social solidarity?

Aesma · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:30 pm

ItnStln wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

In your opinion.

No, based on simple logic.

That is, quite literally, nothing more than your opinion!

You realize the thread is about Germany ? You realize this virus has spread all over the globe, and we can actually see for ourselves which strategies work and which don't ?

Hint : praying for jeebus doesn't work.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:32 pm

ItnStln wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
ItnStln wrote:
I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.

Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.

What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!

Sure, we’ll see what the Germans here think of your take. :scratchchin:

FlapOperator · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:43 pm

ItnStln wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.

We've already shown in this thread, that if you don't show enough "social solidarity" whatever that means, you don't get social services.

I mean, I wish that was the standard for lots of things, like say, serving directly in uniform a totalitarian state, but I guess that doesn't.

What is social solidarity?

From the standard here, I would assume "doing what the government tells you to do."

Honestly, its a troubling standard for any free society, and should we extend it, might have some implications that should trouble us all.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net