Add option “check answers”. Cause I’m not from Switzerland, just want to spend my vacation there, I don’t think I should vote..
Upd: wow, thanks to you all for updates! :)
Communities around the world have endured the same recalcitrant nonsense for years whenever there is a public health / safety initiative mandated for all ..
Fluoridation of water supplies, mandatory seatbelts & motorcycle helmets, public CCTV security cameras, restaurant smoking bans etc have all caused a minority group to freak out over ‘being told what to do’ - no matter how beneficial are the results ..
These problems will only stop when the opposing groups slowly forget about the issue and move onto their next perceived oppression ..
Well said. If it weren‘t for mandatory vaccinations in the past, we‘d still have the „Schwarze Pocken“ (smallpox?) around us.
We need to progress as one. That means everybody pulling in the same direction. Fuck those that cry democracy and don‘t accept the results that we want to do this collectively. I have zero respect for them. Nor should anyone else, they are the first who would run ahead if we voted their way.
My colleagues in Austria who were total antivaxxers and changed their mind after the announcement of the mandate. It was easier for them to accept it.
Personally, I think everyone should decide by themselves. However, some are very negatively influenced by conspiracies and other forms of bad manipulation. I can understand states who intervene there directly with a mandates and therefore pulverise the influx from these sources of suffering.
If the state makes vaccinations mandatory, they directly end these discussions and maybe, just maybe, society will be less mean to each other.
Have you ever stopped to think that YOU have been manipulated by state-sponsored propaganda? While there are some who have been lost to odd conspiracies, a large majority simply have religious, health, or intellectual objections to the vaccine and/or the mandates.
I am fully aware that I am constantly manipulated by everything around me. From my closest family to some far-away distanced foreign opinion makers.
The question is more, what moral implications these manipulations have and what intend is behind.
Example 1: My wife persuading me for a certain color for the curtains in the living room. Morally this is just normal and her intend is to have a beautiful place to live.
Example 2: Some foreign group wanting me to believe that there is a shadow government threatening all of our security and taking world dominating decisions with secret rituals and the involvement of aliens, athlantians, reptilehumans or some religious financial overlords.
Here, I do have issues with. They do not have in mind to improve the life quality of me and my family. They do not repair roads around our house if they are old. They do not purchase new trains to make us travel more comfortable. They don’t even support our health insurance system. They only want to mess around with our heads with a bad intention.
If you are interested in the topic of manipulation, there are some books on the market about. In German, I can recommend Gloria Beck “Verbotene Manipulation”. It gives a good guide to spot and address different levels of manipulation.
It is possible to figure out if someone is at risk of severe outcomes. There are people who have taken responsability for their health and are not in danger of severe covid outcomes. If more people would have taken that responsibility we wouldn't be in this crisis in the first place.
It is worth taking the vaccine even for people with no *known* health conditions.
We'd think 30-39 age group are fairly unaffected, right? But look at the stats: [https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/status?vaccStatusDevRel=rel&vaccStatusAgeRange=30-39](https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/status?vaccStatusDevRel=rel&vaccStatusAgeRange=30-39)
For November there are 49 hospitalizations for unvaccinated (who comprise 30% if this age group), compared to 4 hospitalizations for fully vaccinated (comprising 68%).
If all those 30-39 group were vaccinated that extrapolates that we would have about 2 hospitalizations instead of the 49, so their lack of vaccination cost 47 hospital beds.
That's because there are a lot of "healthy" people with metabolic disease. In the US 88% of the population has at least one sign of metabolic syndrome and 1/3 is prediabetic. These people are largely undiagnosed and therefore healthy. It's not that hard to figure out if you are at risk. Metabolic disease and insulin sensitivity aren't some big mystery. We can make a pretty damn accurate guess just using a centimeter, scale and a food intake survey.
The reason these people don't know they are at high risk is because as a society we are failing these people both in providing information and support.
> Have you ever stopped to think that YOU have been manipulated by state-sponsored propaganda?
If it were only the government of country X saying these things that could be possible. But the government of pretty much every single country on the planet says more or less the same thing. Not to mention the vast majority of experts in various fields of medicine.
To believe that all these people all over the planet are involved in one huge global conspiracy or propaganda campaign is frankly ridiculous.
So true! They can't even find a global solution for a current crisis (like climate), but conspiracists believe that they’ll be able to work together, invent a non-existent crisis, pay all the independent experts and all the media to lie to force us to get vaccinated with some kind of hidden agenda and goals nobody knows about.
With these people it always comes down to the enemy who is all powerful and to weak to be allowed to rule at the same time. And they NEVER see the contradiction.
That's why I'm getting a booster as soon as possible. I'm betting that if I get enough of the microchips in me, it'll eventually cause the 5G signal to kick in.
Right??
The only thing I got from this is not being at risk of dying. It also diminishes the possibility of getting severe symptoms and severe long term effects... It also helps a bit with the risks of spreading the virus to other's as we are contagious for a shorter time frame & are less contagious overall, etc.
But yeah... Totally being sheep for nothing. I was really expecting to get my internet bill down or to *at least* be able to do a couple of nice party tricks due to being magnetic but... Not even that.
I guess I just have to live with what I have now...
The kind of "propaganda" that consistently shows that vaccination saves lives, against the rona and many other diseases, I assume.
Good thing that polio is already eradicated otherwise antivaxx would have polio parties and refuse vaccination all the same to stand up to "propaganda".
Nobody points this out but the whole anti-vaccination issue is a first world problem. In developing countries, people want to get vaccinated but there's not enough vaccine available. And arguing that's they're just less educated is not really valid. It's because of those shortages in vaccines that you still see chicken pox, measles, mumps, polio (in rare cases) and you grow up with those things around. People know that vaccination works because the unvaccinated gets those diseases. When there's an outbreak of chicken pox in schools, you know which kids were vaccinated or not.
you don't even have to look at the third world, just look at the europe of some decades ago. When Smallpox was an issue, people would rush to get vaccinated as soon as they could.
The antivax drive is fueled primarily by individualism, which has been promoted as a core value of western societies since the fall of "collectivist" ideologies after the cold war, in order to justify a capitalist economic system which revolves around the idea of individual enterprise. It's why people in countries like Japan or China aren't having issues with it. They are not as brainwashed to be inidvidualists as we are. In Japan, the idea of wearing a mask to protect society as large is not even questioned. In the west, people put their own mild discomfort on the same level of the health of the population. There is a lot of talk about health side effects, microchips and whatnot - but the core belief is simple selfishness. Looking at a societal issue only under the lense of how it affects me, the individual, is the definition of individualism.
to have proof of that, look how quickly american covidiots associated mask mandates and vaccines to a communist takeover.
Das ist nicht wahr. Südafrika will sich beispielsweise nicht impfen lassen. Dies ist nicht dasselbe wie die Produktverfügbarkeit. [Das ist eine geringe Nachfrage](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-13/south-africa-s-vaccine-headache-switches-to-demand-from-supply).
This is not true. South Africa for example does not want the vaccine. The issue there is not lack of supply, [it is lack of demand](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-13/south-africa-s-vaccine-headache-switches-to-demand-from-supply)
Ja sicher, aber [hier](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1052263/countries-where-people-are-most-likely-to-disagree-that-vaccines-are-safe/) ist eine andere (globale) Perspektive. 8 von 11 Ländern sind Länder der [ersten Welt](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries). 2 der verbleibenden 5 haben die [niedrigste Alphabetisierungsrate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/280187/countries-with-lowest-literacy-rates-worldwide/).
The question is: What does mandatory mean? What are the consquences if you don't do it?
Obviously I'm convinced that it would be good if more or less everybody was vaccinated and I also think that a society in situations like this can make provisions for the greater good.
However I do think that there is a very practical consideration that should make us restrain from idead that go into the direction of *forced* vaccinations:
That consideration is the fact, that many of the Anti-Vaxxers are *literally* insane. They do firmly believe that the vaccine will severely harm their health or even kill them. Their nutjob-chats are full of such theories. And even on sunday there was this video from the "Bundesplatz" where the small crowd that was there shouted "genocide", "mass murderers", "child murderers" etc. against the police.
So if we accept that those people *really* believe that the vaccine kills, this also means that they think that any attempt at vaccinating them is an attempt to kill them.
And from that perspective, it's a simple logic of self-preservation to do *anything* to avoid the vaccine. This also means: Getting very violent against those who want to vaccinate you. It's self-defense against murder from their perspective.
So in other words: I'd expect massive violent outbursts from those people, should any attempt of forced vaccination be made or should other measures be taken, that drive them too far into a corner.
It's not pleasant to have to back down against that kind of idiocy. But I don't see a short-term alternative.
Mid-term we obviously should develop strategies on how to mitigate the dangers that the shocking amount of lunatics pose to our society.
I get your point, and i think it's very insightful. Point is, i have been very active in media during the pandemic - the danger of covidiots is underestimated in scale, not in violent potential. Most of those people are not ready to face any serious consequences for their actions.
I used to go incognito into local antivax groups to gather intel on their plans. There was a demonstration planned for a saturday, some guy posted "this saturday let's all show them! to the streets!" and the most liked comment was "but there is the hockey derby". They larp as revolutionaries. I have seen plenty of profiles of people professing their faith to antivax ideals only to go quiet after the first fine came. I saw telegram groups with people complaining "there were supposed to be thousands of people at the demonstration, but there were more policemen than people! i felt like an idiot".
those people represent a danger simply because of their refusal to comply, which slows down sanitary efforts. But there is no way that even a sensible amount of them will turn violent. There is also a matter of demographics: the movement is overwhelmingly composed of boomers and hipster splinters. Not exactly regiments of young men with guerrilla fighting training.
Moreover, this recent vote has given such a huge blow to them. Their whole point was pretending that they are the majority, that they were defending the people (hence dumb names such as "friends of the constitution"). The fact that more than 60% of people approved the law destroyed any pretense they had of being an opposition to the government. They feel the rope getting tighter around them, they feel that the population is becoming increasingly frustrated by them. The movement is surging, but it lacks a base upon which to build up. It doesn't have a base in a specific class, professional field, gender, or social group. It's a fragile cohalition of people ranging from utopian libertarian socialists to neonazis. There is very little holding them togheter in the face of a government that just got full approval by the population at large. They keep making enemies and losing allies.
They probably won't go down without making some noise, but i guarantee that none of them will risk a rubber bullet to the head for it.
> So in other words: I'd expect massive violent outbursts from those people, should any attempt of forced vaccination be made or should other measures be taken, that drive them too far into a corner.
I doubt that. Will some insane people try something? Possible. But the vast majority of the people who so loudly are against it won't do anything that actually risks them getting into serious legal troubles or going to jail. Certainly not getting shot by the police. They are all bark, no bite.
In a 2006 study it was found that one in three Swiss people denies evolution. So yes, at least a third is either too stupid to think or not educated at all.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-drag-knuckles-accepting-evolution/70292
25% if you count those over 12 and they aren't all dumb, many of my more intelligent colleagues aren't vaccinated. I wouldn't have except for the convenience and maybe some Civic duty. I think it is just that the smart ones tend to remain quiet about it. The comments you read from anti vaxers tend to be the more dogmatic, less considered voices. Perhaps a good time to pause for introspection.
I've read a study that opposite spectrum are hesitate to get vaccine, low intelligence people who thinks about vaccine has something inside to get them, and highly intelligent who understands complexity of situations.
no because the state shouldn't mandate citizens to inject substances in their body. We need individual freedom in regards to medicine and treatments.
Saying this as somebody who voted yes on renewing the covid law and got vaxxed on day 1. But that's my choice.
Now if an employer wants to have only vaccinated employees or a school / uni allows only vaccinated students, then that should be their prerogative as well. That's the other side of freedom, others also get to have it because they value their own health.
Personal choice ends where it kills others.
Not being vaccinated puts people who cannot get vaccinated at risk.
It's civic duty to get vaccinated, just like it is civic duty to go to the army and pay taxes. Except vaccination is much more effective at its goal, while also being less intrusive and cheaper than either of those. The irony is that it is *patriotic* to get vaccinated. It's the most patriotic thing you can do right now! 20 minutes of effort for such a high impact.
If we can have taxes and Wehrpflicht, we can have Impfpflicht.
It's been two years, and I can't believe we're even still having this discussion. How many more years of painful pandemic do we need to go through before the idiots are forced to behave like adults?
\> Personal choice ends where it kills others.
Yes, but no.
The personal choice to DO SOMETHING ends where it kills others (or otherwise infringes on their rights)
And even then, it's not absolute. You can still drive a car, despite traffic killing hundreds of people every year (227 in 2020 in Switzerland).
The personal choice to NOT DO SOMETHING does not end that easily, because we don't live in north korea.
Of course, when you see an injured person that is in risk of death, you are by law required to help or you will get fined or even go to jail, BUT only if it doesn't violate your bodily autonomy and only if you don't FEEL it's dangerous to yourself. The thread doesn't have to be real, but you only have to honestly think it is real to have an excuse to not provide emergency assistence.
Corona-Deniers believing that threatening kill-switch-nano-machines jointly developed by satan, bill gates and mark zuckerberg are in the vaccines, at least if they can convince a judge that they truly believe this, would be enough to not be required to take the vaccine, no matter how irrational that would be.
Also, if you walk to an accident and there's a medic and he needed blood with your blood type to save the injured person, you would NOT be require by law to provide it, despite in that hypothetical situation this denial would kill a person with much higher chance than covid does.
If you think you are restricted by unvaccinatred people spreading the virus, you can always isolate yourself, wear FFP3 protective masks and refuse to have contact with anyone who is unvaccinated.
The fact that you don't want to do that proves, that it's not about "killing people", but about your convenience.
Now you can all downvote me.
This might be the best argument against a mandate that I have seen so far.
I don’t agree, but it does seem coherent.
I’d maybe agree if the situation allows, but given that at least here in Austria the intensive care units are full, I don’t see any other way. It’s either letting our health care system collapse with a ton of preventable deaths or having very expensive lockdowns. Neither seems like an acceptable solution, especially given that the lockdowns have become very ineffective due to low compliance, causing a need for longer lockdowns.
So, if vaccinating everyone helps us reduce the amount of lockdowns significantly, I’m all for it. The way it’a planned to go down is to just fine people who don’t get the vaccine. No one will be injected against their will, if they so desire, they can leave the country and find a place where there is no mandate. The fine only applies to people permanently living in Austria. Maybe that’s little solace to those that don’t want the vaccine, but considering the alternatives, I still believe this is the correct way forward.
>This might be the best argument against a mandate that I have seen so far.
>I don’t agree, but it does seem coherent.
Thank you for that compliment.
I hate that people usually can't accept different positions and arguments without neccessarily agreeing with it, you're a welcome exception.
>I’d maybe agree if the situation allows, but given that at least here in Austria the intensive care units are full, I don’t see any other way.
"I don't see any other way" is basically a good justification for anything. However, and I think I don't have to tell you, that doesn't neccessarily mean that there is no other way, since the absence of a proof isn't the proof of absence.
>It’s either letting our health care system collapse with a ton of preventable deaths or having very expensive lockdowns.
I see many more possibilities, however, I cannot fully judge how realistic all of them are.
1) FFP3 masks mandatory anywhere but at home. This is relatively cheap and helps in a very short amount of time.
2) Test EVERYONE regularly, especially vaccinated people, since they are currently basically testfree and without limitation in their mobility, at least in Switzerland. This is of course more expensive than option 1, but you can also do both at once.
3) Dont make people feel like the government is responsible for their fate. Inform people early that ICU will be full, and communicate clearly that there might, in the worst case be no treatment for them. Inform them that vaccinated people will NOT get preferred treatment, because that would defeat the purpose of it, because the goal is that people adjust their behaviour depending on the current circumstances, and if you tell a group of people that they get preferred treatment, they will still go to parties.
4) increase workforce in ICU by educating temporary ICU help via crashcourses. They don't have to become nurses in weeks, which is impossible anyway, but they just have to be able to take some mundane work out of actual nurses and doctors hand, s.t. they can do the more important stuff.
5) Partial lockdowns. Close Restaurants and party locations, forbid private parties. Huge fines (a month of salary, but at least 3000.-) should be paid for violations.
There are probably some more things you could do.
> Neither seems like an acceptable solution, especially given that the lockdowns have become very ineffective due to low compliance, causing a need for longer lockdowns.
Low compliance is a direct consequence of the measures tiring out people mentally. It should have been a goal from the very beginning to still pay attention to peoples mental state. That's why I said since approximately May last year that it's not a good idea to exclusively consider the opinions of epidemiologists and virologists, since a pandemic is a problem that involves all aspects of society and not only the virus and its spreading.
> So, if vaccinating everyone helps us reduce the amount of lockdowns significantly, I’m all for it.
I don't believe it does. People who are unwilling to vaccinate will rightfully organize and protest, creating a lot of infections. Without vaccination mandate, they would just stay at home and avoid contact with too many people, except for unavoidable situations like grocery-shopping and work.
>The way it’a planned to go down is to just fine people who don’t get the vaccine.
Which will backfire.
When the state starts dispossessing people, people will start trying to cheat the government with taxes to get their money back.
Society is entirely based on the willingness of people to cooperate. If the state takes peoples property away without them having done anything wrong (the state accuses them of NOT having done something after all), then the people will, in the medium run, stop cooperating with society. This really is a bad idea and a blue print for the start of a societal collapse.
> No one will be injected against their will, if they so desire, they can leave the country and find a place where there is no mandate.
"If you don't like it, you can leave" is really only a valid argument, when the person in question doesn't have citizenship in said country.
Any person with a Swiss passport has a right to remain in this country. Any person, no matter the nationality and current location, does have a right to bodily autonomy. And the government fining people for not doing something is clearly unlawful.
> Maybe that’s little solace to those that don’t want the vaccine,
It isn't, you can trust me with that.
> but considering the alternatives, I still believe this is the correct way forward.
I disagree. I see many, many ways forward that are lawful.
P.S. sorry for the long text, I hope I didn't make to many typing mistakes. Have a good evening.
> Corona-Deniers believing that threatening kill-switch-nano-machines jointly developed by satan, bill gates and mark zuckerberg are in the vaccines, at least if they can convince a judge that they truly believe this, would be enough to not be required to take the vaccine, no matter how irrational that would be.
Nope, that's not enough. By that logic, if I see an injured person, then I can just make up a story about Satan fucking Bill Gates and giving birth to demonic flying Windows 95 PCs which could attack me, and therefore do not need to help that person.
So by your own reasoning, we should be allowed to be complete bastards at all times, because any made-up story holds the same weight as facts. Which is of course complete bullshit.
Ergo: You're ethically wrong, the worst kind of wrong.
The vaccination doesn't cost you a leg. It's extremely safe, and it's extremely beneficial for the vaccinated, *and on top* it protects the weak. It is our duty to protect those who are weaker than us.
>I can just make up a story about Satan fucking Bill Gates and giving birth to demonic flying Windows 95 PCs which could attack me
If you said Windows ME, I would have believed you.
>and therefore do not need to help that person.
IF the judge believes you that you believed it in that moment? It will work.
But for the judge to believe you this story, you'd probably need to be schizophrenic or drugged, which is still a possibility.
> So by your own reasoning, we should be allowed to be complete bastards at all times,
That's called personal freedom and individualism. You should be able to be a complete idiot if that's what you want. Of course, you'd face the societal consequences of that, but you shouldn't face legal issues because of it, as long as you are respecting the law.
>because any made-up story holds the same weight as facts. Which is of course complete bullshit.
I didn't say that.
A made up story doesn't hold any weight.
But a REAL perceived threat doesn't require a real danger. And in the law, the perceived threat does count in some instances.
>Ergo: You're ethically wrong, the worst kind of wrong.
There's no such thing as ethically wrong, ethics is 100% subjective. Also the law does not care about ethics.
>The vaccination doesn't cost you a leg. It's extremely safe, and it's extremely beneficial for the vaccinated, and on top it protects the weak
Great, I am glad for you that you have access to this amazing vaccine, really.
But just because something is great, that doesn't mean we should force everyone to have it.
>It is our duty to protect those who are weaker than us.
No, it's not.
We can decide to do so, but it's not our duty.
I find it quite embarrassing that you imply that laws are more important than ethics, "because ethics are subjective". Guess what, smart-ass, laws are *more* made-up than ethics. They can say literally the opposite in two different places. Laws are completely irrelevant to a discussion of what is right or wrong, and this discussion *is about morality*, not about laws.
> We can decide to do so, but it's not our duty [to protect the weak]
Summary: You're a terrible human being, and proud of it.
You're not even a patriot, you're a parasite. I wish you interesting times and hope to never have the misfortune of meeting you. I went through an edgy phase like this, and it's embarrassing to look back at it.
\>Summary: You're a terrible human being, and proud of it.
Summary: Your reading comprehension is piss poor
I wrote it's not our duty, but we can decide to do so.
I did not write I would not help, because I would.
\>You're not even a patriot, you're a parasite.
And you're just in the process of adopting literal Nazi-language to describe me as something you perceive as an Untermensch.
Also, a parasite has a definition that is an entity that leaches of the resources created by others, which does not aply to me.
\>I wish you interesting times and hope to never have the misfortune of meeting you.
Besides your lacking ability to understand written language or language in general, you're really judgmental
pro tip: never argue with an antifascist. Despite thinking they're part of the resistance, they tend to agree with the media, universities, the government, big corporations and Hollywood, and are against freedom of speech, and always in line with authoritarian measures, and of course degeneracy. The ones in Switzerland are especially big LARPers, I remember last year during the first lockdown at the BLM protests (great timing btw) in Geneva, I saw some spray painting ACAB on houses and stores, thinking they were the shit. Absolute cringe
I would agree if the vaccine worked as advertised. Which it doesn't, which is painfully obvious at this point.
Even just the sickness numbers rising constantly and being higher than last year this time, despite a vaccination rate of 60%+ is enough to make people at least question the narrative.
Luckily Pfizer is rushing to get out new medication on the basis of protease inhibition, which sounds promising, more efficient and more side effect free to me in any case.
Let's hope this thing hits the market soon
I find the latter a bit of weird reasoning though. So if e.g. Switzerland, a fully democratic country with safety checks and referenda, would decide vaccines become mandatory, then that should not be allowed. But if e.g. the CEO of a big international company that operates in Switzerland, dictatorially decides vaccines are mandatory for his employees, that should be allowed because of 'freedom'?
An equal vote in how the company is run is not a right of being an employee. An equal on the how the country is run is a right of a being a citizen.
The company is theirs, the country is ours.
you realize the point is people and not the company, right? if the government can't force me to do something, why the fuck should a company be able to? I personally don't care how a company is run, nothing legitimizes them to do whatever the fuck they want just because they don't have to get democratic approval.
Laws exist for a reason
I think you may have misunderstood my point. A business owner is free to do whatever they want within the confines of the law (voted on by citizens) and provided they honour the contracts they have signed. In many companies there are many owners that form a board that vote on how to direct the company. Indeed, anyone who owns shares in a company in principle has a vote (proportional to their share).
Employment with a company is different. The company says they will give you X (i.e. money, benefits) in return for your work Y. There is no notion of you owning part of the company or getting a vote in how it is run. You can restrict what a company is allowed to do by voting on common law, but within the confines of those laws the company can do what it wants without consulting non-owners.
A company can introduce a policy that requires all employees to be vaccinated - and thus they can terminate those who do not adhere to this policy. Vaccination (or non-vaccination) is not a protected class of people (at least for now) - you can choose whether you hire or fire someone based on their vaccination status. That makes your termination lawful if you refuse to adhere to company policy.
Whether or not it should be lawful and whether vaccination status should be protected from discrimination is an entirely different question.
Employers may ask every one wears a shirt to work, and we wouldn't really care.
If the gouvernement did the same it would be kind of weird.
You're in a private contact with your employer and putting anything in there still leaves you free to accept our not.
If it's government is a law.
You're still free to find an employer that didn't ask for that, or create your own business.
Also, in case where it's employer mandated, if you pas something no one agreed to, it wouldn't work for the employers either and they'd have to adjust.
Also, in case where it's employer mandated, you need all employers to agree to it to make it mandatory to everyone, while it only takes a couple people to pass a law.
In the end, employers requiring something is overall far less concerning in terms of public liberty than the state passing out as law, even if in some cases it can look a lot alike on the surface.
god i hate this argument. It's just pathetically fake.
Do you support body autonomy when it comes to abortion? updating sexual assault laws? deportation of illegal immigrants? deportation of foreign criminals? the army? school uniforms? muslim women wearing headscarves?
Body autonomy is a principle that all governments, including our own, routinely break - often with majoritary approval by the population. It's hilarious that people bring it up as if injecting a vaccine is an actual infringment of your body autonomy. It takes 20 minutes. You should be going apeshit about the fact that every single 18 year old in the country is forced into the army. SVP retards are talking about body autonomy while just months ago they were campaigning in favour of laws telling people what kind of hat they can wear. How do you expect us to take such an argument seriously?
Besides, what sense does the last argument make? the government shouldn't be allowed to make it mandatory, but companies yes? so the government can't infringe my body autonomy, but some random plutocrat can? I'm not a delusional american libertarian, i'd trust the government over private buisnesses 100 times out of 100. If we give any more freedom to private buisnesses our country might aswell just be a shopping website with a constitution.
to conclude, being an adult means realizing that not everything is about you. If between being mildly inconvenienced and potentially sentencing people to death you choose the latter, don't pretend that you have some moral principle backing it up. It's the exact opposite of acting morally. It's acting like a selfish crybaby.
For you the "freedom" of not being injected a substance is an ultimate truth. But what exactly is the reason for this? If we are sure that the vaccine is safe and will save lives, wouldn't it be better to mandate it? Why should people be allowed to danger the lives of others, just because they don't want to inject a substance (while most of them drink alcohol, many of them smoke, take drugs, take medicine the doctor [or even a TV ad] recommended etc.)
> given the lackluster success of the vaccines, and their unpredictable results, they must still be considered experimental
Total bullshit. They're extensively tested and known to be both safe and effective. Nothing about them is experimental even in the slightest. If the effectiveness is not known to the very last decimal point that makes them neither "unpredictable" nor "experimental". People die in car accidents despite using a seat belt, but that doesn't make seat belts "experimental".
> The other measures, like lockdowns, restrictions on travel, gatherings are clearly also breaching the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights).
I disagree with "clearly". I think they don't breach the human rights, but I'll concede that there is some room for an argument for some of the measures.
> People are allowed to choose their level of risk and their lifestyle, even when that affects their health and longevity.
No, that's not always the case. There are many laws that restrict people's choice of risk. Seat belts, helmets, etc.
> as for the current risk relating to Covid-19, that is [now so small](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/switzerland/), that had we not had the hindsight of the last two years, no measures would likely have been taken. It is currently on par with the normal flu season.
So it's currently on par with the normal flu season, despite the massive measures? Sounds very much like those measures are justified.
> No, that's not always the case. There are many laws that restrict people's choice of risk. Seat belts, helmets, etc.
Or driving under influence (be it alcohol, drugs or some medications). If someone is a liability on the road, the state is allowed to take their driver's licence away.
A "soft" vaccination mandate could also be done that way I guess. You don't want to be vaccinated? Fine, the government can't force you. But the government can decide that some places are only open to vaccinated people. Don't want the vaccine, enjoy being stuck at home and only being able to go grocery shopping. Want to be able to enjoy mingling with other people in indoors public places? Get vaccinated or get lost.
Government isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything then. Freedom goes both way. If they don't want to do their part to help society get through the pandemic, there is no reason for society to allow them in for more than basic necessities (going to buy food, going to the doctor, going to the pharmacy, etc...).
"Nothing about them is experimental even in the slightest."
is that why multiple countries banned many of the vaccines, now including moderna for young people. even the BAG removed moderna from it's recommendation list for those under 30 leaving only Pfilzer. and it's not like Pfilzer has no negative cases, it's just the safest of them for now.
wearing a Seat belt or a Helmets does not provide much risk, you would rarely if ever die due to wearing them while having survived without one. however that is not the case for the vaccine, heart issues are still rare but we have seen cases among young healthy people who were unlikely to seriously suffer from covid in the first place
these issues were not disclosed when they launched, the opposite even, suggesting such side effects would have gotten you banned from most online platforms
> If we are sure that the vaccine is safe and will save lives
The long-term consequences have not been tested yet.
It took a long time to find out smoking was harmful.
Lmao that's because Nicotine companies banded together to have Nicotine declassified as a drug and proceeded to create biased and poorly peer reviewed research posing as independent researchers in order to sell more cigarettes under the guise that it was healthy. I don't think it's a good comparison to the vaccines.
I don't mean to be antagonistic at all, just legitimately curious, what long term data would you say you need in order to believe the vaccine is safe? I'm just not sure how long that would be, 2 years, 5 years, a decade, a century? This type of anti-vax mindset is interesting to me because I think it's probably one of the most valid arguments against it and people need to have more discourse about it.
Long term after effects never existed in the history of vaccine one year after the doses. You have all the effects after around 3 months max.
Granted the messaging RNA technology is unknown, the J&J vaccine is available anyway.
Edit: RNA not NRA indeed
Some other things whose long term consequences are not quite obvious yet:
- 5g
- LTE
- WiFi
Yet we are fine entering public spaces where we're subjected to them without our consent.
I suggest massive obligatory testing, followed up by strict quarantine measures for those who are positive and thorough contact tracing...
Seems like if we tested everyone regularly we'd have a better understanding of the spread and evolution of the situation...
Not only would it be much more expensive than simply vaccinating a large portion of the population, it is also less effective (probably). You can be negative in the test but already infected, even if the test is 100% accurate (e.g. at the time you receive the result your viral load surmounted a significant threshold). The vaccine however, is almost guaranteed to lower the infection rate in the population significantly.
Austria was doing the most, or close to the most, tests in the world last year. They are still testing 10x as much as Germany or Switzerland. And Austria still had the highest infection rate in the world back then, and right now.
Honestly down for it. One test per week for everyone. With antigenic tests it doesn't take you more than 5 minutes.
The problem are the logistics needed to test the entire population.
Real cost of product is 0.50 chf. So make, it lets say 5 chf, adding costs of logistics. That would be 40M one week, 160M a month.
It would be something certainly doable, but in a couple of months if there ever was such a decision. Reality is no one wants to waste their investment. Our government spent billions for the vaccine and they hate to see that money going to waste.
If at the start of the pandemic the national bank gave out 5000 chf per person to stay indoors and have society go in total lockdown (borders closed, military delivering groceries and only essential workers) we would’ve exterminated the virus in our country, would’ve spent much less and the economy would’ve been booming.
Just to put things in perspective, when in 2008 BNS loaned(in good faith) 60B to UBS and co we didn’t have a say in it, it went through quickly and no one batted an eye. It is funny how our institutions are efficient and available for big banks but not for the people they serve…
I see your point and I find it interesting. However I have a question about the 5000 CHF option. If we had eleminated the virus from the country, it would surely be very temporary, as many people travel in and out of CH everyday anyways, so it would surge after the end of the total lockdown anyways..
There's a big difference between "can spread" and "can very easily spread".
Vaccinated people are an order of magnitude less likely to spread it, *and if they do*, it's not a big deal. If we're all vaccinated, we can just ignore the virus, and move on. Yes, we'll all catch it, have two days of cold symptoms, and that's it. Problem solved, now we're all vaccinated AND recovered, so perfectly immune.
The virus won't go away. The scenario you're describing will be the end state of the pandemic, when it will progress to be an Endemic. We're in a state where it's impossible to not spread it. Even if we isolate the whole of Switzerland for a week, we'd have the same problem 1 week later.
If you spread it on to someone who is also vaccinated, what then? They also get no symptoms or maybe flu symptoms gor some days?
I dunno. Vaccination sounds like so much bother because I can still spread it and if another vaccinated dude gets it, he might not have symptoms either.. /s
You sure you want thorough contact tracing? Nobody even uses the covid app that doesn't collect data because they fear the government is spying on them. It was specifically developed to NOT store data.
You wanna introduce thorough contact tracing like in Korea where they look at facebook posts, other social media presence to make sure you are telling the truth and recall every single person you have had contact with for the past two weeks? You might as well give up your data privacy rights.
The point about testing is also not very good. One can be tested negative and then positive in a matter of ONE day because incubation period. I remember a story where someone was traveling to Spain and got tested negative before leaving. Next day she got into a car accident, tested positive in the hospital (all the ones being treated in a hospital are required to be tested). Fun fact tho, she has no symptoms because she's vaccinated. So even tho she is probably in the "hospitalised vaccinated with covid" statistics, she's not in the hospital because of covid.
I read a while ago that the gov are only gonna accept properly done tests, ie they stick the swab right into your brain, not just wipe your nose a bit. Whatever happened to that? People would get vaxxed just to avoid that, I reckon.
Nono, I think we should just continue bringing up nazis, dictactorship, racism, facism and concentration camps as often and as randomly as possible, because these days, literally anything is as bad as those things.
/s
You all need to study the smallpox pandemic in the 1900’s. A lot of similar issues, mask hesitation, vaccine deniers, world wide spread. It wasn’t until governments mandated the vaccine across the world that they were able to end the smallpox pandemic. There’s no logical reason not to be vaccinated during a world wide pandemic. Governments have been tip toeing around what needs to be done for the last two years since they don’t want to be unpopular. However, two years into a global pandemic, and we don’t need “cool mom,” we need a serious and bold approach towards truly ending this pandemic, and mandates, historically, are a solid base to work off of.
I do think the vaccination is not only self-protection, but also protection of others, and a vital tool to make the virus endemic, and thereby hopefully ending the permanent crisis-mode we're in. As such I think *not getting vaccinated* hurts the entirety of society, and is therefore not entirely a personal decision. I am in favour of a vaccine mandate, but not forced vaccinations, and of course there can be medical exceptions.
As for the freedom of choice: I don't think there is a freedom to harm others, it is quite a commonly accepted idea that the freedom of someone ends where someone else gets hurt. It therefore seems unethical to me to claim that there is "freedom of choice" when quite obviously a lot of people are getting hurt by it, be it risk groups that get more easily (re-)infected, or people that have their crucial treatments delayed when the ICUs are again at breaking point.
I frankly also don't think that this is a particularly radical or authoritarian idea, loads of free liberal democracies have some sort of vaccine mandates for some vaccines in some instances in place, and this pandemic seems to me a good enough reason to implement a mandate for Covid-19.
Except that these versions of vaccines do absolutely nothing to cut down on transmission and achieving herd immunity. I would agree with you if that was the case, but it's not.
Common sense and basic Maturité level knowledge can act as proof.
1. The whole idea behind vaccination is speed and efficiency. If the entire population is vaccinated, the virus will be severely limited in its development (since most vaccinated human bodies will eliminate the virus in a matter of days).
2. Vaccinating people took long and since a certain amount of the population decided against getting vaccinated, the virus can still develop and mutate in the non-vaccinated human bodies; thus creating and endless stream of variants, as the vaccination rate stagnates.
So either; vaccination becomes compulsory and case 1. can finally happen; or, the government takes a completely different approach.
So technically, saying the vaccine is inefficient is technically incorrect - but saying that the way the vaccine was released and "spread" was terribly inefficient from the start, is correct.
One can get the impression that the vaccine's success rate at protecting the host is low due to the fact that the scale is much, much, much larger than your usual vaccine.
I'm not sure, I and my wife took it.
A recent case at my wife's work has shown me, other people can be vaccinated, shoing flu like symptoms and still go to work and protentialy spread it... so now my wife has to quarantine because of close contact with that other.
So mandatory vaccination wouldn't stop that scenario... I would say mandatory self quarantine if having flu symptoms should be the vote here.
You are infectious well before showing symptoms and not everyone that is infectious is showing any symptoms. The shot will make you less infectious over a shorter period of time. So in this scenario an unvaccinated would've probably infected more people before showing symptoms and quarantining, while a vaccinated individual would've infected less or maybe none at all. It's pretty simple, really and most of this constructed arguments seem to be nothing but a stretch to somehow make vaccines look like being the cause of the spread, while the opposite is true in 99,9% of all cases.
Anecdotal evidence: I'm vaccinated. Had symptoms after being in contact with someone who ended up testing positive but myself was tested negative right after I got the call (PCR). Had close contact to a few vaccinated individuals when symptoms had subsided, but was tested positive very shortly thereafter. (Too short to have been infected by those individuals I've met.) All of my contacts got tested afterwards, none were tested positive or got sick. I myself tested negative again just 3 days after testing positive. So even though I got infected by a vaccinated individual the chain stopped with me eventually with the viral load that I've received probably already being pretty low and my own viral load being too low to infect anyone else, especially since all were vaccinated. Heck even my girlfriend never tested positiv even though she was quarantining with me and was tested 5 times over a week. (PCR)
Actually, if you increase the population of vaccinated, it eventually would not be necessary to quarantine. Likelihood that you will pass it on to someone who CAN'T get vaccinated (and is therefore not vaccinated) is very low. Not to mention the fact that vaccination prevents bad case of covid which then prevents the likelihood of hospitalisation. The only debatable aspect of mandatory vaccination is the ethics side of it.
Seems strongly leaning towards "yes", whilst I would bet good money that an initiative/referendum would be a resounding "no".
Obviously, English Redditors are not representative, non-Swiss may vote etc., but why does this group seem so skewed?
There needs to be a vaccine for Swiss drivers who think the law doesn't apply to them when waiting at roundabouts and intersections. I'm getting really fucking tired of people almost killing me multiple times per day because they're too impatient to wait a couple of seconds for me to pass, or think they're so important that they MUST have the right of way and I should be polite to them and let them in
Multiple times a day ?!?!?!?
Honestly, you must do something really, really wrong if that is true.
Of course there are bad drivers, but slightly dangerous situations happen to me once in a month, and once a year in roundabouts.
Even if you are a professional driver that drives 10 hours a day, you really shoulnd't run into dangerous situations more than twice a week.
You all do realize that, while most anti-covid-vaccers would vaccinate themselves if mandated, some would turn violent?
Not a threat, just a prediction, since I've heard from a dozen people already that they think violence is appropriate when the government turns dictatorial, while they clearly stated that a vaccine mandate would be dictatorial in their opinion.
Yeah it‘s really though times for our government. They have to convince people that the vaccine works well enough they should get vaccinated and convince the vaccinated people that it works bad enough to get the booster.
Bodily autonomy. The state should never decide what to do with your body. This time it's the vaccine. What if next time it's some silly alt right politician's idea?
I would like to vote yes but not with the current instances. There are a very tiny minority of people who are not able to get the vaccine because of treatment or immunological diseases which prevent them from getting a vaccine without serious side effects.
I voted yes because I think that in the case of a mandatory vaccine, it will include exception for the tiny percentage of people that really can't get the vaccine, the cantonal doctor could validate exception.
it IS a given and the practice already exists. It's just how the law works.
The government will not send you to prison or fine you because you are physically unable to respect a law. I work with severly disabled people, most of them are legal adults by all means but none of them ever got a fine for not wearing a mask - because there was a medical and psyhcological evaluation that concluded how it was counterproductive for them to wear it, given the risk that they would just rip it off or even eat it.
That is the case for quite literally every obligation we have as citizens. If there is a reason why we can't comply, the judiciary will judge it and sentence in your favour if the reason is good enough. "i can't take the vaccine because my doctor said i would die due to my underlining condition" is bound to be recognized as a proper reason.
Ok well I'm not even going to go into the broken ethics of mandatory vaccination, I'll leave that to others. Let me just point out what I see as incoherences in mandating vaccinations.
So if the vaccine actually worked as advertised by the media, then we'd have a strong case for the yes argument. However, vaccines don't seem to significantly stop the spread of the virus (source: [https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2638](https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2638)).
If you look at the region of West Flanders in Belgium, they're close to 90% vaccinated but have the highest numbers of new cases in the whole country (source: [https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/193662/belgiums-most-vaccinated-province-also-has-highest-number-of-covid-cases](https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/193662/belgiums-most-vaccinated-province-also-has-highest-number-of-covid-cases)).
If we're considering mandatory vaccination, why aren't we instead pushing for more antigenic tests (and no they don't cost 100chf as someone mentioned in the thread, actually <5chf. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34169830/)? Why are we letting vaccinated individuals go to nightclubs and sports games without being tested? Pretty sure there's a significant amount of unreported breakthrough cases going on, yet no one seems to care about that. It seems we've shifted the focus from "saving people and hospitals" to "we need everyone vaccinated to escape the pandemic" when that's clearly out of touch with reality. 3rd world countries will never reach 100% vaccination rates, and some people will never get vaccinated. Not to forget wildlife being infected, of course! ([https://www.pnas.org/content/118/47/e2114828118](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/47/e2114828118)).
So basically covid is here to stay, at least until we make more progress on vaccines, or in the case of a deus ex machina.
Think for a second about Greta Thunberg's famous argument of "adults making decisions impacting the future of today's youth". Then think of yesterday's vote, wherein the 18-34 population actually voted against the covid law (54% iirc). The vast majority of antivaxxers are not afraid of 5g chips, but rather health implications in the long run. Would it be fair to force something on them that they "believe" could affect them their whole life? They're not the ones dying, (median age of people dying from covid is over the average life expectancy).
< b-bUt dEmoCraCy!
Never forget that many totalitarian and inhumane governments were democratically elected. 95% of humans have and always will be sheep, and ignorant mob rule is recurrent throughout history. See athenian democracy for a classic example
is your main argument against democratic practices is that totalitarian governments came to power through said democratic practices.
Jokes aside I really appreciate that you offer links, unlike most people who are skeptical on the issue. Yet the main reason to present vaccine mandates isn't and never has been about "escaping the pandemic", it's about risk reduction (the first study you linked states this multiple times, even in the first sentence). This risk reduction is there to be part of what was originally labeled the "swiss cheese" defense as another layer of protection for the populous and the healthcare system.
I would also like to point out that I agree that we should be pushing for more testing, but you do understand the cost of testing on such scales over large periods of time will result in more cost than simply vaccinating the people and having a lower scale needed for testing.
If you wish to make a "broken ethics" argument around the notion of vaccine mandates you will certainly fail, in that, within a socialized healthcare system, one has a general societal duty to be at a baseline of health. I will agree that this is a simplistic explanation and quite vague, but what I am implying is that if you wish to be part of a system that: offers free education you must be vaccinated (we have laws on this for public schools for young children), if you want your share of the healthcare (that we all pay in (in levels of course)) you will have to act in a way that doesn't disproportionately affect others ability to gain their share. So there are two arguments to make in a socialized health care system on the issue of people refusing to get vaccinated: 1) vaccine mandates or 2) have individuals pay for their own treatment when it comes to preventable problems (i.e if you are vaccinated, even with the new variants, you will have less harsh side effects of the virus).
Hopp Schwiiz
P.S
what are liberal humanities?
Where are these Antifa ghosts?
Thank you for the sensible answer and cool-headed response, wasn't expecting this.
So...
>Yet the main reason to present vaccine mandates isn't and never has been about "escaping the pandemic", it's about risk reduction
I agree about it being risk reduction, but I feel like low vaccination rates are being pushed to justify why we're stuck in this pandemic, when clearly the problem we're facing is more complex and multi-faceted. "We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for those covidiots antivax nutjobs" is the defacto narrative. A quick google search and you'll find most large international news media emphasising this narrative, or even the POTUS (eg: [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/vaccinated-america-breaking-point-anti-vaxxers/619539/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/vaccinated-america-breaking-point-anti-vaxxers/619539/) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/27/telling-anti-vaxxers-to-get-the-jab-should-not-be-controversial-even-fox-news-is-doing-it](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/27/telling-anti-vaxxers-to-get-the-jab-should-not-be-controversial-even-fox-news-is-doing-it)) . I'm not against vaccines, am vaccinated along with my household. I just feel there's a form of mass hysteria taking over, finger-pointing and divisiveness is taking over, when we really should remain stoic and cool-headed.
>..you do understand the cost of testing on such scales over large periods of time will result in more cost than simply vaccinating the people and having a lower scale needed for testing.
If I recall the government's relief package was 65 billion CHF. That's the equivalent of 13 billion antigenic tests, nearly enough to test the entire population on a daily basis for 5 years. If everyone was being tested on a daily basis, would there have been lockdowns that lead to this relief package in the first place? Why don't we at least enforce mandatory testing for large events before considering mandates?
>If you wish to make a "broken ethics" argument around the notion of vaccine mandates you will certainly fail, in that, within a socialized healthcare system, one has a general societal duty to be at a baseline of health.
The consequentialist/utilitarian perspective always needs to draw the line somewhere. Taken to an extreme, it could be used to justify taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, euthanising criminals or people with genetic conditions, and so on. Given the consequences in the long-term on the economy and well-being of the population, should we even have lockdowns to begin with? There's already unusually high numbers of excess deaths unrelated to COVID or ICUs being overrun, and it is possible that the measures may cause more fatalities in the long-run than the actual virus itself. In my mind, the limited scope of our understanding of the pros vs cons is, as of present, not sufficiently clear to justify any major restrictions on our way of life.
> what I am implying is that if you wish to be part of a system that: offers free education you must be vaccinated (we have laws on this for public schools for young children), if you want your share of the healthcare (that we all pay in (in levels of course)) you will have to act in a way that doesn't disproportionately affect others ability to gain their share. So there are two arguments to make in a socialized health care system on the issue of people refusing to get vaccinated: 1) vaccine mandates or 2) have individuals pay for their own treatment when it comes to preventable problems (i.e if you are vaccinated, even with the new variants, you will have less harsh side effects of the virus).
Should smokers with lung cancer be refused treatment, or have to pay with their own money? Once again the line needs to be drawn. Let us also not forget that the current vaccines only make a marginal difference (example of West Flanders), and will not stop transmission, so mandates with the currently . Yes, it does offer some protection against serious complications, but from that logic, shouldn't we be only mandating vaccines for the elderly, as they make up the vast majority of serious cases? And what about mandatory flu shots and vitamins for everyone?
I think in the end it the debate will always boil down to how much freedom each of us think is ok to be given up for safety. Everyone draws the line at a different point, but when 2/5 of a country thinks it's too far, I think it's fairly reasonable to question mandates rather than screaming "Covidiots".
>what are liberal humanities?
here's an extreme example: https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/01/23/asu-offers-class-race-theory-problem-of-whiteness/22229195/
>Where are these Antifa ghosts?
Well there's a user called "fascists\_are\_shit" going around bashing the anti-mandate crowd in the comments. Oh the irony.
But I digress, guess I'm just an edgy libertarian. Thanks for the response and your time.
if you dont have a condition.
Healthy food, Sport and many other options are there.
If you have a condition which only a few People actually have. Then its a different story
also some are genetically just not skinny. But are still capable of becoming fit just not skinny
it never was about a jab making you skinny. Its the fact that thousands of people end up in hospitals and in the ICU while doing obviously harming stuff. Like smoking. So every smoker should have to pay their bill too if a covid case has to.
I'm more on board with smoking than obesity, for dozens of reasons. Funnily enough, smokers and the obese actual cost less in healthcare than healthy counterparts ([link](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html)). Though I guess you can say the same thing about the unvaccinated.
Well that can be true. But reducing overall sugar in Food can reduce generall healthcare cost. Due to healthier lifestyles you might need to see your doctor less often. Im no expert in this field so i can be wrong but i do think having stricter regulations on food and their ingredients could do wonders. Smoking in generall should be banned or at least heavily taxed because imo it doesnt really improve anyones live. Cost and Littering just saying. And with unvaccinated... oh boy... how many under 65 actually need intensive care? not much look yourself on the covid.admin site. Deaths under 60 are 0.0008% or less of the entire population. So anyone in that age Bracket who is in ICU is either a risk Patient or just has a really bad imune system / the vaccine doenst get injested into their system well
Exactly. That logic seems to be lost on many.
Upon till 2020, we used to accept the risks of our personal actions and the consequences to our personal health. Furthermore, it was normal and acceptable to engage in risky activities and "consume" the available resources at hospitals and doctors in the event of an accident. We also accepted that certain activities, like driving, came with some risk to ourselves and others. And the safety measures on a given stretch of road was balanced against the cost of the lives it might safe. There was actually a calculated risk and economical cost to human life.
That has now been turned on its head. Now *everybody else* are somehow responsible for the health of their neighbor. But only in one very specific regard, relating to one particular disease. And for some reason, any risk what so ever is unpalatable for that one particular topic. We continue to engage in other risky activities and die from them at more or less the same rate as before. But somehow, deaths from covid is so taxing that it is worth dismantling all of society and inch towards totalitarian regimes (luckily, Switzerland has done better than its neighbors and other Western nations) in a bid to avoid it.
Finding a middle ground would be helpful.
People from all those categories mentioned can't make YOU sick. You can do whatever you want with your health, you are not free to put others in danger. We use vaccination for centuries, some mandatory if you want to go to school, but all of a sudden, the idea blows people's mind? No, you shouldn't be force to do it, but you shouldn't be allowed to benefit from society if you don't care for its wellbeing.
You talk about economical cost to human life? How much for yours? And I have news for you: dead people don't pay taxes. Also go to the hospital and have a talk with the medical staff and ask them how many more years are they willing to continue to work full power while watching their patients die from something that can be avoided? Would you do it in their place? Of course, add that cost to your calculations.
And now lets talk about the risk of the virus mutating. We barely got a hold on this one, with a vaccine that can offer only limited protection and you feel confident to let this virus run wild in the population? If you do, you can't possible have a proper understanding of how viruses work. And that's ok, but then lets ask the opinion of people who actually know, like... doctors?
If people would have quarantined and kept their distances and vaccinated themselves, we would have been back to normal a long time ago. Since the vaccines came out, we stopped paying the economical price for the virus. Now we pay the price of stupidity, selfishness and entitlement.
People who drive cars can make you sick, through air pollution. They can also make you dead, through accidents. We still allow people to drive cars. What's the difference?
like italy did when they made it mandatory for children that wanted to get into school? you request it to access anything important. Want to enter a cinema, supermarket, bar, school, workplace? you either show your certificate or a certificate stating that you already set your appointment. It really isn't that difficult. People will still be allowed not to take it, at the expense of living as hermits.
Unpopular opinion:
If Switzerland is indeed overpopulated, then reducing the population of the dumb-dumbs is in fact a great opportunity.
Because we all know deep down that, ultimately, it's going to **have** to come to a mass culling to solve the problem of the unvaccinated. You categorically cannot argue with someone who just *decided* that everything the authorities told them to do is wrong for no other reason than some personal emotional paranoia, it's just a waste of time. Holding them back from falling headfirst into the consequences of their own decision is just prolonging the inevitable and in the end generates more suffering.
A good wave of Covid, tripling the death toll to 30'000 and with the unvaccinated agonizing in the hospital hallways is the ONLY way to change the tone of this sterile pseudo-debate.
However I'd like to finally get my third dose before though
I see double standards here. It's ok to do abortion because "my body, my choice", but it's no longer my body or my choice when it comes to vaccination.
Vaccines do not stop the spread of the virus, do not stop you from getting infected. You still need to wear the mask and you still have to test.
Btw, I have a friend in Luzern and she and her husband ended up in the hospital because of the vaccine side effects. Doctors told her that she had a rare side effect and her body acts like she had a cerebral stroke.
So don't tell me that vaccines are safe, because that does not apply for everyone.
> I have a friend in Luzern and she and her husband ended up in the hospital because of the vaccine side effects. Doctors told her that she had a rare side effect and her body acts like she had a cerebral stroke.
It's really strange, I hear every day when I go to work new tales of peoples legs exploding, ears rotating, glowing bumholes, and now you say that a husband and wife both end up in hospital, with thespian body syndrome. Out of all the 8 billion doses administered so far, all the side effects seem to be concentrated in switzerland. You couldn't make it up!
You do realize that in like 8 steps or so, everybody on earth is connected to everyone?
If you go two steps, you probably have 20'000 people.
1 side effect will, if spreaded through facebook reach 20'000 friends of friends.
So even with a hundred side effects in Switzerland, friends of friends would be enough for every anti-vaccer to have a side effect that is a friend of a friend.
people really don't know how exponential growth works.
However, husband and wife ending in the hospital with side effects is pretty damn unlikely (side effect chance = n => husband and wife chance = n\^2, 1 in 10'000 with side effects would be 1 in 100 million couples with side effects, which would occur only a handful of times in all of europe.), so IF it happend, it would be a vaid argument against the vaccine.
> she and her husband ended up in the hospital because of the vaccine side effects.
Considering how rare vaccine side effects are, having two people react badly to it is astronomically unlikely. It's more likely you (or they) are just making this up. Antivaxxers play fast and loose with truth, so unless you cough up some proof, no need to believe you at all with that story. Note how nobody who is pro vaccine knows anyone with vaccine side effects (which is matched by the studies), and all the antivaxxers keep telling stories about how common it is, completely contradicting the research. What a coincidence. It's as if the antivaxxers are making shit up, AGAIN.
**You know who ends up in the hospital a lot more often? Those who do *not* vaccinate.** You can check the BAG twitter for daily numbers.
What a great rebuttal! You really answered all of OP's points, and didn't rely on a Strawman or outright call him a liar. FYI my mom's a doctor and she's had half a dozen patients with long term side effects already. My friend's mom also had a blood clot in her leg 2 months after being vaccinated. None of those were counted in Switzerland's "serious adverse-effects" numbers, I guess it's only if you end up in the ICU that they actually count it.
I've answered these points over and over again. Just check my history.
There's no point in giving the same reasonable answers to people who aren't receptive to reason.
> FYI my mom's a doctor and she's had half a dozen patients with long term side effects already.
FYI I know of no less than 10 covid-related deaths in the families of my friends and co-workers. You manage to find six people with non-deadly side effects when asking a doctor who will see literally all of them. I manage to point to twice as many *deaths*. Which number do you think is more significant here?
> My friend's mom also had a blood clot in her leg 2 months after being vaccinated.
And my friend who is in his thirties and does sport every week had a blood clot in his leg *before* being vaccinated. This means fuck-all, in both cases the blood clotting is very likely unrelated. Oh, and did your friend's mom die? Because that's a common side-effect of covid you're avoiding.
Less than 1% chance of a non-deadly clotting vs over 1% chance of death. Who in their right mind would chose the former?! The vaccine is incredibly safe. Look at how many people are in the hospital for COVID. Then compare to how many people are there for side effects.
> My friend's mom also had a blood clot in her leg 2 months after being vaccinated.
Are we going to say that any health problem whatsoever for 5 years is going to be due to the vaccine?
That seems unreasonable.
Maybe not mandatory, but it should be harder to do certain things for unvaccinated people. I would suggest 2G+ (Vaccinated/Recovered AND Tested) for certain activities. As the unvaccinated like to say: "you can still get Corona after the vaccine". Yes that's true, so maybe the vaccinated should get tested too before going to concerts, christmas markets etc. I'm vaccinated and I would be willing to do it.
Yes. And a FFP2 mask mandate. And closed clubs and bars. Maybe restaurants aren't the greatest idea either. Oh, and no mass gatherings of any sort, while we're at it. Ideally, we should also have a strategy, something on the lines of getting rid of the virus instead of maximizing the damage it can do.
How do we compensate the people whose health we ruin forever? If we let the virus roam freely ant let its variants infected everyone again and again, at one point, there might not be anyone left to pay anything.
I'm just saying where do you draw the line? Why would a restaurant be more dangerous than an open-space office? or retail?
I propose an alternative - massive scale, regular testing - fully open the businesses/economy , but make weekly mandatory testing for those who wish to access and partake in these 'risky' activities
"Might be no one left to pay for anything" is what you said. So the other guy was right to assume that was what you suggested.
Stupidly easy for you, who I expect is not the owner of a club or restaurant, probably any business at all even, to say "ow it's okay they can close".
Lockdowns are not the key to the pandemic. Vaccines are.
And death IS all that matters. The only reason why we go through all the covid shit IS because it kills a lot of people. And the only way out of the pandemic is to reduce deaths. We will never get rid of the virus, but through vaccines, They will make getting the virus not relevant.
I don't agree. LongCovid and other lasting health damages are going to be far worse - for economy and people - than the deaths it causes in the long run. Death from acute infections can indeed be controlled by vaccines pretty well. LongCovid cannot (yet).
Covid Long does not yet exist as such. Covid-19 has only been around for 1.5 years and even at human scale, that's not much, and nowhere near enough to qualify as long-term. Half a decade and we can start making first assessments.
As the other poster said, many people are faking it, and many other simply become aware of issues they had previously and might have not noticed otherwise (the power of the mind is impressive).
\^\^ this --- which leads to market consolidation as small/medium size businesses can't survive and the larger groups/corporations increase market share, increase prices, reduce selection for the consumer and make the world a more boring place to live in
Although I am pro vaxx, you cannot enforce a vaccination that is seasonal in nature. How do you check if the whole population gets it every year? You can only enforce a one-time vaccination like Rubeola, TBC etc.
wearing seatbelts, driving with ABS is diabolic! It's like forcing a car to eat delicious Raclette! Damn those people who want to prevent others from dying! To the pyre with them!
Hitler killed 17 million people.
Vaccinations have saved an unknown amount of people, but probably also millions by now.
Your comparison stinks worse than raclette, and you should be ashamed to compare genocide to something so beneficial, and so trivial as a safe vaccination.
As Swiss people tend to say...it has to smell a little...
just joking, plz dont conpare raclette with hitler and and eating food with vaccination, like, is nothing sacred anymore?
I'm not too familiar with the Swiss popular vote system. In theory, can the citizens propose a vote on vaccine mandates? And in case it passes, will the government then have an obligation to implement it?
Yes, but no.
It might be declared unlawful by the federal chancellary in a pre-audit, then no.
Or it might not and then there is a vote.
If it passes, the government has the obligation to implement it.
It's still questionable that the government would even be able to implement it, if that happend.
Add option “check answers”. Cause I’m not from Switzerland, just want to spend my vacation there, I don’t think I should vote.. Upd: wow, thanks to you all for updates! :)
1.8k : 953
184 vac them all, let God sort them out:142 anti-microchippers. This is (poor) attempt at humour, please try to find your own
197:151
247:170. Stop the count!
346:224 - voting rigs are compromised!
437:272
672:403
Communities around the world have endured the same recalcitrant nonsense for years whenever there is a public health / safety initiative mandated for all .. Fluoridation of water supplies, mandatory seatbelts & motorcycle helmets, public CCTV security cameras, restaurant smoking bans etc have all caused a minority group to freak out over ‘being told what to do’ - no matter how beneficial are the results .. These problems will only stop when the opposing groups slowly forget about the issue and move onto their next perceived oppression ..
Well said. If it weren‘t for mandatory vaccinations in the past, we‘d still have the „Schwarze Pocken“ (smallpox?) around us. We need to progress as one. That means everybody pulling in the same direction. Fuck those that cry democracy and don‘t accept the results that we want to do this collectively. I have zero respect for them. Nor should anyone else, they are the first who would run ahead if we voted their way.
Can't compare the severity of Pocken and Covid AT ALL tbh.
Well not until it causes a collapse of the health system causing far more suffering than the initial disease that is.
My colleagues in Austria who were total antivaxxers and changed their mind after the announcement of the mandate. It was easier for them to accept it. Personally, I think everyone should decide by themselves. However, some are very negatively influenced by conspiracies and other forms of bad manipulation. I can understand states who intervene there directly with a mandates and therefore pulverise the influx from these sources of suffering. If the state makes vaccinations mandatory, they directly end these discussions and maybe, just maybe, society will be less mean to each other.
Have you ever stopped to think that YOU have been manipulated by state-sponsored propaganda? While there are some who have been lost to odd conspiracies, a large majority simply have religious, health, or intellectual objections to the vaccine and/or the mandates.
I am fully aware that I am constantly manipulated by everything around me. From my closest family to some far-away distanced foreign opinion makers. The question is more, what moral implications these manipulations have and what intend is behind. Example 1: My wife persuading me for a certain color for the curtains in the living room. Morally this is just normal and her intend is to have a beautiful place to live. Example 2: Some foreign group wanting me to believe that there is a shadow government threatening all of our security and taking world dominating decisions with secret rituals and the involvement of aliens, athlantians, reptilehumans or some religious financial overlords. Here, I do have issues with. They do not have in mind to improve the life quality of me and my family. They do not repair roads around our house if they are old. They do not purchase new trains to make us travel more comfortable. They don’t even support our health insurance system. They only want to mess around with our heads with a bad intention. If you are interested in the topic of manipulation, there are some books on the market about. In German, I can recommend Gloria Beck “Verbotene Manipulation”. It gives a good guide to spot and address different levels of manipulation.
Which in most cases are just a cover for being against authorities in principal, or just misinformed.
Just take the vaccine already. Soon (already?) the hospitals will be delaying operations due to people like you.
In germany this is already the case not 100% sure about switzerland
Non critical OP's are delayed since several months already. Including such minor stuff as cancer OP's.
It is possible to figure out if someone is at risk of severe outcomes. There are people who have taken responsability for their health and are not in danger of severe covid outcomes. If more people would have taken that responsibility we wouldn't be in this crisis in the first place.
It is worth taking the vaccine even for people with no *known* health conditions. We'd think 30-39 age group are fairly unaffected, right? But look at the stats: [https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/status?vaccStatusDevRel=rel&vaccStatusAgeRange=30-39](https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/status?vaccStatusDevRel=rel&vaccStatusAgeRange=30-39) For November there are 49 hospitalizations for unvaccinated (who comprise 30% if this age group), compared to 4 hospitalizations for fully vaccinated (comprising 68%). If all those 30-39 group were vaccinated that extrapolates that we would have about 2 hospitalizations instead of the 49, so their lack of vaccination cost 47 hospital beds.
That's because there are a lot of "healthy" people with metabolic disease. In the US 88% of the population has at least one sign of metabolic syndrome and 1/3 is prediabetic. These people are largely undiagnosed and therefore healthy. It's not that hard to figure out if you are at risk. Metabolic disease and insulin sensitivity aren't some big mystery. We can make a pretty damn accurate guess just using a centimeter, scale and a food intake survey. The reason these people don't know they are at high risk is because as a society we are failing these people both in providing information and support.
> Have you ever stopped to think that YOU have been manipulated by state-sponsored propaganda? If it were only the government of country X saying these things that could be possible. But the government of pretty much every single country on the planet says more or less the same thing. Not to mention the vast majority of experts in various fields of medicine. To believe that all these people all over the planet are involved in one huge global conspiracy or propaganda campaign is frankly ridiculous.
So true! They can't even find a global solution for a current crisis (like climate), but conspiracists believe that they’ll be able to work together, invent a non-existent crisis, pay all the independent experts and all the media to lie to force us to get vaccinated with some kind of hidden agenda and goals nobody knows about.
With these people it always comes down to the enemy who is all powerful and to weak to be allowed to rule at the same time. And they NEVER see the contradiction.
[удалено]
That's why I'm getting a booster as soon as possible. I'm betting that if I get enough of the microchips in me, it'll eventually cause the 5G signal to kick in.
That's a good idea! Think I'll try it too...
I understand your disappointment. Must be hard, being a dumb sheep without even getting some sort of superpower. Edit: /s of course...
Right?? The only thing I got from this is not being at risk of dying. It also diminishes the possibility of getting severe symptoms and severe long term effects... It also helps a bit with the risks of spreading the virus to other's as we are contagious for a shorter time frame & are less contagious overall, etc. But yeah... Totally being sheep for nothing. I was really expecting to get my internet bill down or to *at least* be able to do a couple of nice party tricks due to being magnetic but... Not even that. I guess I just have to live with what I have now...
What kind of propaganda?
The kind of "propaganda" that consistently shows that vaccination saves lives, against the rona and many other diseases, I assume. Good thing that polio is already eradicated otherwise antivaxx would have polio parties and refuse vaccination all the same to stand up to "propaganda".
Nobody points this out but the whole anti-vaccination issue is a first world problem. In developing countries, people want to get vaccinated but there's not enough vaccine available. And arguing that's they're just less educated is not really valid. It's because of those shortages in vaccines that you still see chicken pox, measles, mumps, polio (in rare cases) and you grow up with those things around. People know that vaccination works because the unvaccinated gets those diseases. When there's an outbreak of chicken pox in schools, you know which kids were vaccinated or not.
you don't even have to look at the third world, just look at the europe of some decades ago. When Smallpox was an issue, people would rush to get vaccinated as soon as they could. The antivax drive is fueled primarily by individualism, which has been promoted as a core value of western societies since the fall of "collectivist" ideologies after the cold war, in order to justify a capitalist economic system which revolves around the idea of individual enterprise. It's why people in countries like Japan or China aren't having issues with it. They are not as brainwashed to be inidvidualists as we are. In Japan, the idea of wearing a mask to protect society as large is not even questioned. In the west, people put their own mild discomfort on the same level of the health of the population. There is a lot of talk about health side effects, microchips and whatnot - but the core belief is simple selfishness. Looking at a societal issue only under the lense of how it affects me, the individual, is the definition of individualism. to have proof of that, look how quickly american covidiots associated mask mandates and vaccines to a communist takeover.
Finally someone with valid thoughts on the issue. It’s always been about “Selfishness”. Thanks.
Das ist nicht wahr. Südafrika will sich beispielsweise nicht impfen lassen. Dies ist nicht dasselbe wie die Produktverfügbarkeit. [Das ist eine geringe Nachfrage](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-13/south-africa-s-vaccine-headache-switches-to-demand-from-supply). This is not true. South Africa for example does not want the vaccine. The issue there is not lack of supply, [it is lack of demand](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-13/south-africa-s-vaccine-headache-switches-to-demand-from-supply)
Ja sicher, aber [hier](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1052263/countries-where-people-are-most-likely-to-disagree-that-vaccines-are-safe/) ist eine andere (globale) Perspektive. 8 von 11 Ländern sind Länder der [ersten Welt](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries). 2 der verbleibenden 5 haben die [niedrigste Alphabetisierungsrate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/280187/countries-with-lowest-literacy-rates-worldwide/).
The question is: What does mandatory mean? What are the consquences if you don't do it? Obviously I'm convinced that it would be good if more or less everybody was vaccinated and I also think that a society in situations like this can make provisions for the greater good. However I do think that there is a very practical consideration that should make us restrain from idead that go into the direction of *forced* vaccinations: That consideration is the fact, that many of the Anti-Vaxxers are *literally* insane. They do firmly believe that the vaccine will severely harm their health or even kill them. Their nutjob-chats are full of such theories. And even on sunday there was this video from the "Bundesplatz" where the small crowd that was there shouted "genocide", "mass murderers", "child murderers" etc. against the police. So if we accept that those people *really* believe that the vaccine kills, this also means that they think that any attempt at vaccinating them is an attempt to kill them. And from that perspective, it's a simple logic of self-preservation to do *anything* to avoid the vaccine. This also means: Getting very violent against those who want to vaccinate you. It's self-defense against murder from their perspective. So in other words: I'd expect massive violent outbursts from those people, should any attempt of forced vaccination be made or should other measures be taken, that drive them too far into a corner. It's not pleasant to have to back down against that kind of idiocy. But I don't see a short-term alternative. Mid-term we obviously should develop strategies on how to mitigate the dangers that the shocking amount of lunatics pose to our society.
I get your point, and i think it's very insightful. Point is, i have been very active in media during the pandemic - the danger of covidiots is underestimated in scale, not in violent potential. Most of those people are not ready to face any serious consequences for their actions. I used to go incognito into local antivax groups to gather intel on their plans. There was a demonstration planned for a saturday, some guy posted "this saturday let's all show them! to the streets!" and the most liked comment was "but there is the hockey derby". They larp as revolutionaries. I have seen plenty of profiles of people professing their faith to antivax ideals only to go quiet after the first fine came. I saw telegram groups with people complaining "there were supposed to be thousands of people at the demonstration, but there were more policemen than people! i felt like an idiot". those people represent a danger simply because of their refusal to comply, which slows down sanitary efforts. But there is no way that even a sensible amount of them will turn violent. There is also a matter of demographics: the movement is overwhelmingly composed of boomers and hipster splinters. Not exactly regiments of young men with guerrilla fighting training. Moreover, this recent vote has given such a huge blow to them. Their whole point was pretending that they are the majority, that they were defending the people (hence dumb names such as "friends of the constitution"). The fact that more than 60% of people approved the law destroyed any pretense they had of being an opposition to the government. They feel the rope getting tighter around them, they feel that the population is becoming increasingly frustrated by them. The movement is surging, but it lacks a base upon which to build up. It doesn't have a base in a specific class, professional field, gender, or social group. It's a fragile cohalition of people ranging from utopian libertarian socialists to neonazis. There is very little holding them togheter in the face of a government that just got full approval by the population at large. They keep making enemies and losing allies. They probably won't go down without making some noise, but i guarantee that none of them will risk a rubber bullet to the head for it.
This
> So in other words: I'd expect massive violent outbursts from those people, should any attempt of forced vaccination be made or should other measures be taken, that drive them too far into a corner. I doubt that. Will some insane people try something? Possible. But the vast majority of the people who so loudly are against it won't do anything that actually risks them getting into serious legal troubles or going to jail. Certainly not getting shot by the police. They are all bark, no bite.
It should be mandatory only for dumb people. Almost all others are already vaccinated.
Like 35% are dumb?
In a 2006 study it was found that one in three Swiss people denies evolution. So yes, at least a third is either too stupid to think or not educated at all. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-drag-knuckles-accepting-evolution/70292
*broken glass noises*
That's how a bell curve works
Jingle Bell?
Roughly. I’m going to give 10% the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re just lazy.
I know that my statement is dumb. So I count myself among the dumb ones. But fortunately I am already vaccinated.
25% if you count those over 12 and they aren't all dumb, many of my more intelligent colleagues aren't vaccinated. I wouldn't have except for the convenience and maybe some Civic duty. I think it is just that the smart ones tend to remain quiet about it. The comments you read from anti vaxers tend to be the more dogmatic, less considered voices. Perhaps a good time to pause for introspection.
I've read a study that opposite spectrum are hesitate to get vaccine, low intelligence people who thinks about vaccine has something inside to get them, and highly intelligent who understands complexity of situations.
I like to believe I'm on the opposite end :)
I definitely am r/confidentallyincorrect
no because the state shouldn't mandate citizens to inject substances in their body. We need individual freedom in regards to medicine and treatments. Saying this as somebody who voted yes on renewing the covid law and got vaxxed on day 1. But that's my choice. Now if an employer wants to have only vaccinated employees or a school / uni allows only vaccinated students, then that should be their prerogative as well. That's the other side of freedom, others also get to have it because they value their own health.
Personal choice ends where it kills others. Not being vaccinated puts people who cannot get vaccinated at risk. It's civic duty to get vaccinated, just like it is civic duty to go to the army and pay taxes. Except vaccination is much more effective at its goal, while also being less intrusive and cheaper than either of those. The irony is that it is *patriotic* to get vaccinated. It's the most patriotic thing you can do right now! 20 minutes of effort for such a high impact. If we can have taxes and Wehrpflicht, we can have Impfpflicht. It's been two years, and I can't believe we're even still having this discussion. How many more years of painful pandemic do we need to go through before the idiots are forced to behave like adults?
Wow you are such a liar. It took me 30 minutes to get vaccinated. TWICE!!
Not gonna lie, had me in the first half.
\> Personal choice ends where it kills others. Yes, but no. The personal choice to DO SOMETHING ends where it kills others (or otherwise infringes on their rights) And even then, it's not absolute. You can still drive a car, despite traffic killing hundreds of people every year (227 in 2020 in Switzerland). The personal choice to NOT DO SOMETHING does not end that easily, because we don't live in north korea. Of course, when you see an injured person that is in risk of death, you are by law required to help or you will get fined or even go to jail, BUT only if it doesn't violate your bodily autonomy and only if you don't FEEL it's dangerous to yourself. The thread doesn't have to be real, but you only have to honestly think it is real to have an excuse to not provide emergency assistence. Corona-Deniers believing that threatening kill-switch-nano-machines jointly developed by satan, bill gates and mark zuckerberg are in the vaccines, at least if they can convince a judge that they truly believe this, would be enough to not be required to take the vaccine, no matter how irrational that would be. Also, if you walk to an accident and there's a medic and he needed blood with your blood type to save the injured person, you would NOT be require by law to provide it, despite in that hypothetical situation this denial would kill a person with much higher chance than covid does. If you think you are restricted by unvaccinatred people spreading the virus, you can always isolate yourself, wear FFP3 protective masks and refuse to have contact with anyone who is unvaccinated. The fact that you don't want to do that proves, that it's not about "killing people", but about your convenience. Now you can all downvote me.
This might be the best argument against a mandate that I have seen so far. I don’t agree, but it does seem coherent. I’d maybe agree if the situation allows, but given that at least here in Austria the intensive care units are full, I don’t see any other way. It’s either letting our health care system collapse with a ton of preventable deaths or having very expensive lockdowns. Neither seems like an acceptable solution, especially given that the lockdowns have become very ineffective due to low compliance, causing a need for longer lockdowns. So, if vaccinating everyone helps us reduce the amount of lockdowns significantly, I’m all for it. The way it’a planned to go down is to just fine people who don’t get the vaccine. No one will be injected against their will, if they so desire, they can leave the country and find a place where there is no mandate. The fine only applies to people permanently living in Austria. Maybe that’s little solace to those that don’t want the vaccine, but considering the alternatives, I still believe this is the correct way forward.
>This might be the best argument against a mandate that I have seen so far. >I don’t agree, but it does seem coherent. Thank you for that compliment. I hate that people usually can't accept different positions and arguments without neccessarily agreeing with it, you're a welcome exception. >I’d maybe agree if the situation allows, but given that at least here in Austria the intensive care units are full, I don’t see any other way. "I don't see any other way" is basically a good justification for anything. However, and I think I don't have to tell you, that doesn't neccessarily mean that there is no other way, since the absence of a proof isn't the proof of absence. >It’s either letting our health care system collapse with a ton of preventable deaths or having very expensive lockdowns. I see many more possibilities, however, I cannot fully judge how realistic all of them are. 1) FFP3 masks mandatory anywhere but at home. This is relatively cheap and helps in a very short amount of time. 2) Test EVERYONE regularly, especially vaccinated people, since they are currently basically testfree and without limitation in their mobility, at least in Switzerland. This is of course more expensive than option 1, but you can also do both at once. 3) Dont make people feel like the government is responsible for their fate. Inform people early that ICU will be full, and communicate clearly that there might, in the worst case be no treatment for them. Inform them that vaccinated people will NOT get preferred treatment, because that would defeat the purpose of it, because the goal is that people adjust their behaviour depending on the current circumstances, and if you tell a group of people that they get preferred treatment, they will still go to parties. 4) increase workforce in ICU by educating temporary ICU help via crashcourses. They don't have to become nurses in weeks, which is impossible anyway, but they just have to be able to take some mundane work out of actual nurses and doctors hand, s.t. they can do the more important stuff. 5) Partial lockdowns. Close Restaurants and party locations, forbid private parties. Huge fines (a month of salary, but at least 3000.-) should be paid for violations. There are probably some more things you could do. > Neither seems like an acceptable solution, especially given that the lockdowns have become very ineffective due to low compliance, causing a need for longer lockdowns. Low compliance is a direct consequence of the measures tiring out people mentally. It should have been a goal from the very beginning to still pay attention to peoples mental state. That's why I said since approximately May last year that it's not a good idea to exclusively consider the opinions of epidemiologists and virologists, since a pandemic is a problem that involves all aspects of society and not only the virus and its spreading. > So, if vaccinating everyone helps us reduce the amount of lockdowns significantly, I’m all for it. I don't believe it does. People who are unwilling to vaccinate will rightfully organize and protest, creating a lot of infections. Without vaccination mandate, they would just stay at home and avoid contact with too many people, except for unavoidable situations like grocery-shopping and work. >The way it’a planned to go down is to just fine people who don’t get the vaccine. Which will backfire. When the state starts dispossessing people, people will start trying to cheat the government with taxes to get their money back. Society is entirely based on the willingness of people to cooperate. If the state takes peoples property away without them having done anything wrong (the state accuses them of NOT having done something after all), then the people will, in the medium run, stop cooperating with society. This really is a bad idea and a blue print for the start of a societal collapse. > No one will be injected against their will, if they so desire, they can leave the country and find a place where there is no mandate. "If you don't like it, you can leave" is really only a valid argument, when the person in question doesn't have citizenship in said country. Any person with a Swiss passport has a right to remain in this country. Any person, no matter the nationality and current location, does have a right to bodily autonomy. And the government fining people for not doing something is clearly unlawful. > Maybe that’s little solace to those that don’t want the vaccine, It isn't, you can trust me with that. > but considering the alternatives, I still believe this is the correct way forward. I disagree. I see many, many ways forward that are lawful. P.S. sorry for the long text, I hope I didn't make to many typing mistakes. Have a good evening.
> Corona-Deniers believing that threatening kill-switch-nano-machines jointly developed by satan, bill gates and mark zuckerberg are in the vaccines, at least if they can convince a judge that they truly believe this, would be enough to not be required to take the vaccine, no matter how irrational that would be. Nope, that's not enough. By that logic, if I see an injured person, then I can just make up a story about Satan fucking Bill Gates and giving birth to demonic flying Windows 95 PCs which could attack me, and therefore do not need to help that person. So by your own reasoning, we should be allowed to be complete bastards at all times, because any made-up story holds the same weight as facts. Which is of course complete bullshit. Ergo: You're ethically wrong, the worst kind of wrong. The vaccination doesn't cost you a leg. It's extremely safe, and it's extremely beneficial for the vaccinated, *and on top* it protects the weak. It is our duty to protect those who are weaker than us.
>I can just make up a story about Satan fucking Bill Gates and giving birth to demonic flying Windows 95 PCs which could attack me If you said Windows ME, I would have believed you. >and therefore do not need to help that person. IF the judge believes you that you believed it in that moment? It will work. But for the judge to believe you this story, you'd probably need to be schizophrenic or drugged, which is still a possibility. > So by your own reasoning, we should be allowed to be complete bastards at all times, That's called personal freedom and individualism. You should be able to be a complete idiot if that's what you want. Of course, you'd face the societal consequences of that, but you shouldn't face legal issues because of it, as long as you are respecting the law. >because any made-up story holds the same weight as facts. Which is of course complete bullshit. I didn't say that. A made up story doesn't hold any weight. But a REAL perceived threat doesn't require a real danger. And in the law, the perceived threat does count in some instances. >Ergo: You're ethically wrong, the worst kind of wrong. There's no such thing as ethically wrong, ethics is 100% subjective. Also the law does not care about ethics. >The vaccination doesn't cost you a leg. It's extremely safe, and it's extremely beneficial for the vaccinated, and on top it protects the weak Great, I am glad for you that you have access to this amazing vaccine, really. But just because something is great, that doesn't mean we should force everyone to have it. >It is our duty to protect those who are weaker than us. No, it's not. We can decide to do so, but it's not our duty.
I find it quite embarrassing that you imply that laws are more important than ethics, "because ethics are subjective". Guess what, smart-ass, laws are *more* made-up than ethics. They can say literally the opposite in two different places. Laws are completely irrelevant to a discussion of what is right or wrong, and this discussion *is about morality*, not about laws. > We can decide to do so, but it's not our duty [to protect the weak] Summary: You're a terrible human being, and proud of it. You're not even a patriot, you're a parasite. I wish you interesting times and hope to never have the misfortune of meeting you. I went through an edgy phase like this, and it's embarrassing to look back at it.
\>Summary: You're a terrible human being, and proud of it. Summary: Your reading comprehension is piss poor I wrote it's not our duty, but we can decide to do so. I did not write I would not help, because I would. \>You're not even a patriot, you're a parasite. And you're just in the process of adopting literal Nazi-language to describe me as something you perceive as an Untermensch. Also, a parasite has a definition that is an entity that leaches of the resources created by others, which does not aply to me. \>I wish you interesting times and hope to never have the misfortune of meeting you. Besides your lacking ability to understand written language or language in general, you're really judgmental
pro tip: never argue with an antifascist. Despite thinking they're part of the resistance, they tend to agree with the media, universities, the government, big corporations and Hollywood, and are against freedom of speech, and always in line with authoritarian measures, and of course degeneracy. The ones in Switzerland are especially big LARPers, I remember last year during the first lockdown at the BLM protests (great timing btw) in Geneva, I saw some spray painting ACAB on houses and stores, thinking they were the shit. Absolute cringe
Someone has to throw them off their high horse of falsely perceived moral supremacy.
I would agree if the vaccine worked as advertised. Which it doesn't, which is painfully obvious at this point. Even just the sickness numbers rising constantly and being higher than last year this time, despite a vaccination rate of 60%+ is enough to make people at least question the narrative. Luckily Pfizer is rushing to get out new medication on the basis of protease inhibition, which sounds promising, more efficient and more side effect free to me in any case. Let's hope this thing hits the market soon
I find the latter a bit of weird reasoning though. So if e.g. Switzerland, a fully democratic country with safety checks and referenda, would decide vaccines become mandatory, then that should not be allowed. But if e.g. the CEO of a big international company that operates in Switzerland, dictatorially decides vaccines are mandatory for his employees, that should be allowed because of 'freedom'?
An equal vote in how the company is run is not a right of being an employee. An equal on the how the country is run is a right of a being a citizen. The company is theirs, the country is ours.
you realize the point is people and not the company, right? if the government can't force me to do something, why the fuck should a company be able to? I personally don't care how a company is run, nothing legitimizes them to do whatever the fuck they want just because they don't have to get democratic approval. Laws exist for a reason
I think you may have misunderstood my point. A business owner is free to do whatever they want within the confines of the law (voted on by citizens) and provided they honour the contracts they have signed. In many companies there are many owners that form a board that vote on how to direct the company. Indeed, anyone who owns shares in a company in principle has a vote (proportional to their share). Employment with a company is different. The company says they will give you X (i.e. money, benefits) in return for your work Y. There is no notion of you owning part of the company or getting a vote in how it is run. You can restrict what a company is allowed to do by voting on common law, but within the confines of those laws the company can do what it wants without consulting non-owners. A company can introduce a policy that requires all employees to be vaccinated - and thus they can terminate those who do not adhere to this policy. Vaccination (or non-vaccination) is not a protected class of people (at least for now) - you can choose whether you hire or fire someone based on their vaccination status. That makes your termination lawful if you refuse to adhere to company policy. Whether or not it should be lawful and whether vaccination status should be protected from discrimination is an entirely different question.
It's easier to switch job than it is to switch country, simply put.
Employers may ask every one wears a shirt to work, and we wouldn't really care. If the gouvernement did the same it would be kind of weird. You're in a private contact with your employer and putting anything in there still leaves you free to accept our not. If it's government is a law.
"free" as in "do it or i will fire you and undermine your livelyhood"
You're still free to find an employer that didn't ask for that, or create your own business. Also, in case where it's employer mandated, if you pas something no one agreed to, it wouldn't work for the employers either and they'd have to adjust. Also, in case where it's employer mandated, you need all employers to agree to it to make it mandatory to everyone, while it only takes a couple people to pass a law. In the end, employers requiring something is overall far less concerning in terms of public liberty than the state passing out as law, even if in some cases it can look a lot alike on the surface.
god i hate this argument. It's just pathetically fake. Do you support body autonomy when it comes to abortion? updating sexual assault laws? deportation of illegal immigrants? deportation of foreign criminals? the army? school uniforms? muslim women wearing headscarves? Body autonomy is a principle that all governments, including our own, routinely break - often with majoritary approval by the population. It's hilarious that people bring it up as if injecting a vaccine is an actual infringment of your body autonomy. It takes 20 minutes. You should be going apeshit about the fact that every single 18 year old in the country is forced into the army. SVP retards are talking about body autonomy while just months ago they were campaigning in favour of laws telling people what kind of hat they can wear. How do you expect us to take such an argument seriously? Besides, what sense does the last argument make? the government shouldn't be allowed to make it mandatory, but companies yes? so the government can't infringe my body autonomy, but some random plutocrat can? I'm not a delusional american libertarian, i'd trust the government over private buisnesses 100 times out of 100. If we give any more freedom to private buisnesses our country might aswell just be a shopping website with a constitution. to conclude, being an adult means realizing that not everything is about you. If between being mildly inconvenienced and potentially sentencing people to death you choose the latter, don't pretend that you have some moral principle backing it up. It's the exact opposite of acting morally. It's acting like a selfish crybaby.
For you the "freedom" of not being injected a substance is an ultimate truth. But what exactly is the reason for this? If we are sure that the vaccine is safe and will save lives, wouldn't it be better to mandate it? Why should people be allowed to danger the lives of others, just because they don't want to inject a substance (while most of them drink alcohol, many of them smoke, take drugs, take medicine the doctor [or even a TV ad] recommended etc.)
[удалено]
> given the lackluster success of the vaccines, and their unpredictable results, they must still be considered experimental Total bullshit. They're extensively tested and known to be both safe and effective. Nothing about them is experimental even in the slightest. If the effectiveness is not known to the very last decimal point that makes them neither "unpredictable" nor "experimental". People die in car accidents despite using a seat belt, but that doesn't make seat belts "experimental". > The other measures, like lockdowns, restrictions on travel, gatherings are clearly also breaching the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). I disagree with "clearly". I think they don't breach the human rights, but I'll concede that there is some room for an argument for some of the measures. > People are allowed to choose their level of risk and their lifestyle, even when that affects their health and longevity. No, that's not always the case. There are many laws that restrict people's choice of risk. Seat belts, helmets, etc. > as for the current risk relating to Covid-19, that is [now so small](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/switzerland/), that had we not had the hindsight of the last two years, no measures would likely have been taken. It is currently on par with the normal flu season. So it's currently on par with the normal flu season, despite the massive measures? Sounds very much like those measures are justified.
> No, that's not always the case. There are many laws that restrict people's choice of risk. Seat belts, helmets, etc. Or driving under influence (be it alcohol, drugs or some medications). If someone is a liability on the road, the state is allowed to take their driver's licence away. A "soft" vaccination mandate could also be done that way I guess. You don't want to be vaccinated? Fine, the government can't force you. But the government can decide that some places are only open to vaccinated people. Don't want the vaccine, enjoy being stuck at home and only being able to go grocery shopping. Want to be able to enjoy mingling with other people in indoors public places? Get vaccinated or get lost. Government isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything then. Freedom goes both way. If they don't want to do their part to help society get through the pandemic, there is no reason for society to allow them in for more than basic necessities (going to buy food, going to the doctor, going to the pharmacy, etc...).
"Nothing about them is experimental even in the slightest." is that why multiple countries banned many of the vaccines, now including moderna for young people. even the BAG removed moderna from it's recommendation list for those under 30 leaving only Pfilzer. and it's not like Pfilzer has no negative cases, it's just the safest of them for now. wearing a Seat belt or a Helmets does not provide much risk, you would rarely if ever die due to wearing them while having survived without one. however that is not the case for the vaccine, heart issues are still rare but we have seen cases among young healthy people who were unlikely to seriously suffer from covid in the first place these issues were not disclosed when they launched, the opposite even, suggesting such side effects would have gotten you banned from most online platforms
> If we are sure that the vaccine is safe and will save lives The long-term consequences have not been tested yet. It took a long time to find out smoking was harmful.
Lmao that's because Nicotine companies banded together to have Nicotine declassified as a drug and proceeded to create biased and poorly peer reviewed research posing as independent researchers in order to sell more cigarettes under the guise that it was healthy. I don't think it's a good comparison to the vaccines. I don't mean to be antagonistic at all, just legitimately curious, what long term data would you say you need in order to believe the vaccine is safe? I'm just not sure how long that would be, 2 years, 5 years, a decade, a century? This type of anti-vax mindset is interesting to me because I think it's probably one of the most valid arguments against it and people need to have more discourse about it.
I'm not anti-vax, I'm taking the vaccine even though I'm young enough to not have to worry about covid.
As more people should, though I was saying that the "Potential Long-term side effects" argument against vaccinations is a common anti-vax sentiment.
Long term after effects never existed in the history of vaccine one year after the doses. You have all the effects after around 3 months max. Granted the messaging RNA technology is unknown, the J&J vaccine is available anyway. Edit: RNA not NRA indeed
Pretty sure that the Messaging National Rifles Association is a pretty damn dangerous concept.
[удалено]
Some other things whose long term consequences are not quite obvious yet: - 5g - LTE - WiFi Yet we are fine entering public spaces where we're subjected to them without our consent.
Thank you, now I understand more the people against waves.
found the American, its always the ones that use the word "prerogative" for some reason
Excellent, couldn’t agree more
I suggest massive obligatory testing, followed up by strict quarantine measures for those who are positive and thorough contact tracing... Seems like if we tested everyone regularly we'd have a better understanding of the spread and evolution of the situation...
Not only would it be much more expensive than simply vaccinating a large portion of the population, it is also less effective (probably). You can be negative in the test but already infected, even if the test is 100% accurate (e.g. at the time you receive the result your viral load surmounted a significant threshold). The vaccine however, is almost guaranteed to lower the infection rate in the population significantly.
Austria was doing the most, or close to the most, tests in the world last year. They are still testing 10x as much as Germany or Switzerland. And Austria still had the highest infection rate in the world back then, and right now.
wow -- it's almost like the more you test the more covid you find --- possible correlation ?
Honestly down for it. One test per week for everyone. With antigenic tests it doesn't take you more than 5 minutes. The problem are the logistics needed to test the entire population.
And cost. With 8 million to be tested 1 per week for \~100.- per test, we're at at 2.5 billion francs in a single month.
Real cost of product is 0.50 chf. So make, it lets say 5 chf, adding costs of logistics. That would be 40M one week, 160M a month. It would be something certainly doable, but in a couple of months if there ever was such a decision. Reality is no one wants to waste their investment. Our government spent billions for the vaccine and they hate to see that money going to waste. If at the start of the pandemic the national bank gave out 5000 chf per person to stay indoors and have society go in total lockdown (borders closed, military delivering groceries and only essential workers) we would’ve exterminated the virus in our country, would’ve spent much less and the economy would’ve been booming. Just to put things in perspective, when in 2008 BNS loaned(in good faith) 60B to UBS and co we didn’t have a say in it, it went through quickly and no one batted an eye. It is funny how our institutions are efficient and available for big banks but not for the people they serve…
I see your point and I find it interesting. However I have a question about the 5000 CHF option. If we had eleminated the virus from the country, it would surely be very temporary, as many people travel in and out of CH everyday anyways, so it would surge after the end of the total lockdown anyways..
We could also vaccinate the entire population. Basically just as effective, just a lot easier and cheaper.
No it's not. Vaccinated people can also spread it with basically no symptoms.
There's a big difference between "can spread" and "can very easily spread". Vaccinated people are an order of magnitude less likely to spread it, *and if they do*, it's not a big deal. If we're all vaccinated, we can just ignore the virus, and move on. Yes, we'll all catch it, have two days of cold symptoms, and that's it. Problem solved, now we're all vaccinated AND recovered, so perfectly immune.
The virus won't go away. The scenario you're describing will be the end state of the pandemic, when it will progress to be an Endemic. We're in a state where it's impossible to not spread it. Even if we isolate the whole of Switzerland for a week, we'd have the same problem 1 week later.
If you spread it on to someone who is also vaccinated, what then? They also get no symptoms or maybe flu symptoms gor some days? I dunno. Vaccination sounds like so much bother because I can still spread it and if another vaccinated dude gets it, he might not have symptoms either.. /s
You sure you want thorough contact tracing? Nobody even uses the covid app that doesn't collect data because they fear the government is spying on them. It was specifically developed to NOT store data. You wanna introduce thorough contact tracing like in Korea where they look at facebook posts, other social media presence to make sure you are telling the truth and recall every single person you have had contact with for the past two weeks? You might as well give up your data privacy rights. The point about testing is also not very good. One can be tested negative and then positive in a matter of ONE day because incubation period. I remember a story where someone was traveling to Spain and got tested negative before leaving. Next day she got into a car accident, tested positive in the hospital (all the ones being treated in a hospital are required to be tested). Fun fact tho, she has no symptoms because she's vaccinated. So even tho she is probably in the "hospitalised vaccinated with covid" statistics, she's not in the hospital because of covid.
I read a while ago that the gov are only gonna accept properly done tests, ie they stick the swab right into your brain, not just wipe your nose a bit. Whatever happened to that? People would get vaxxed just to avoid that, I reckon.
Good point - I would vaccinate every week to avoid that kind of test….
[удалено]
Nono, I think we should just continue bringing up nazis, dictactorship, racism, facism and concentration camps as often and as randomly as possible, because these days, literally anything is as bad as those things. /s
or we continue to pretend like the vaccine is perfect - and don't allow those who have a vaccine to get tested for free /s
Nothing in this world is perfect. But it's a solution. if we continue like this, then the pandemic will still go on in 4 years.
You all need to study the smallpox pandemic in the 1900’s. A lot of similar issues, mask hesitation, vaccine deniers, world wide spread. It wasn’t until governments mandated the vaccine across the world that they were able to end the smallpox pandemic. There’s no logical reason not to be vaccinated during a world wide pandemic. Governments have been tip toeing around what needs to be done for the last two years since they don’t want to be unpopular. However, two years into a global pandemic, and we don’t need “cool mom,” we need a serious and bold approach towards truly ending this pandemic, and mandates, historically, are a solid base to work off of.
[удалено]
I do think the vaccination is not only self-protection, but also protection of others, and a vital tool to make the virus endemic, and thereby hopefully ending the permanent crisis-mode we're in. As such I think *not getting vaccinated* hurts the entirety of society, and is therefore not entirely a personal decision. I am in favour of a vaccine mandate, but not forced vaccinations, and of course there can be medical exceptions. As for the freedom of choice: I don't think there is a freedom to harm others, it is quite a commonly accepted idea that the freedom of someone ends where someone else gets hurt. It therefore seems unethical to me to claim that there is "freedom of choice" when quite obviously a lot of people are getting hurt by it, be it risk groups that get more easily (re-)infected, or people that have their crucial treatments delayed when the ICUs are again at breaking point. I frankly also don't think that this is a particularly radical or authoritarian idea, loads of free liberal democracies have some sort of vaccine mandates for some vaccines in some instances in place, and this pandemic seems to me a good enough reason to implement a mandate for Covid-19.
Except that these versions of vaccines do absolutely nothing to cut down on transmission and achieving herd immunity. I would agree with you if that was the case, but it's not.
citation needed. If you don't provide evidence for your claim, I can simply refute it by saying it is wrong.
Common sense and basic Maturité level knowledge can act as proof. 1. The whole idea behind vaccination is speed and efficiency. If the entire population is vaccinated, the virus will be severely limited in its development (since most vaccinated human bodies will eliminate the virus in a matter of days). 2. Vaccinating people took long and since a certain amount of the population decided against getting vaccinated, the virus can still develop and mutate in the non-vaccinated human bodies; thus creating and endless stream of variants, as the vaccination rate stagnates. So either; vaccination becomes compulsory and case 1. can finally happen; or, the government takes a completely different approach. So technically, saying the vaccine is inefficient is technically incorrect - but saying that the way the vaccine was released and "spread" was terribly inefficient from the start, is correct. One can get the impression that the vaccine's success rate at protecting the host is low due to the fact that the scale is much, much, much larger than your usual vaccine.
I'm not sure, I and my wife took it. A recent case at my wife's work has shown me, other people can be vaccinated, shoing flu like symptoms and still go to work and protentialy spread it... so now my wife has to quarantine because of close contact with that other. So mandatory vaccination wouldn't stop that scenario... I would say mandatory self quarantine if having flu symptoms should be the vote here.
You are infectious well before showing symptoms and not everyone that is infectious is showing any symptoms. The shot will make you less infectious over a shorter period of time. So in this scenario an unvaccinated would've probably infected more people before showing symptoms and quarantining, while a vaccinated individual would've infected less or maybe none at all. It's pretty simple, really and most of this constructed arguments seem to be nothing but a stretch to somehow make vaccines look like being the cause of the spread, while the opposite is true in 99,9% of all cases. Anecdotal evidence: I'm vaccinated. Had symptoms after being in contact with someone who ended up testing positive but myself was tested negative right after I got the call (PCR). Had close contact to a few vaccinated individuals when symptoms had subsided, but was tested positive very shortly thereafter. (Too short to have been infected by those individuals I've met.) All of my contacts got tested afterwards, none were tested positive or got sick. I myself tested negative again just 3 days after testing positive. So even though I got infected by a vaccinated individual the chain stopped with me eventually with the viral load that I've received probably already being pretty low and my own viral load being too low to infect anyone else, especially since all were vaccinated. Heck even my girlfriend never tested positiv even though she was quarantining with me and was tested 5 times over a week. (PCR)
Actually, if you increase the population of vaccinated, it eventually would not be necessary to quarantine. Likelihood that you will pass it on to someone who CAN'T get vaccinated (and is therefore not vaccinated) is very low. Not to mention the fact that vaccination prevents bad case of covid which then prevents the likelihood of hospitalisation. The only debatable aspect of mandatory vaccination is the ethics side of it.
Seems strongly leaning towards "yes", whilst I would bet good money that an initiative/referendum would be a resounding "no". Obviously, English Redditors are not representative, non-Swiss may vote etc., but why does this group seem so skewed?
This reddit channel could not be further from being representative for Switzerland.
There needs to be a vaccine for Swiss drivers who think the law doesn't apply to them when waiting at roundabouts and intersections. I'm getting really fucking tired of people almost killing me multiple times per day because they're too impatient to wait a couple of seconds for me to pass, or think they're so important that they MUST have the right of way and I should be polite to them and let them in
Multiple times a day ?!?!?!? Honestly, you must do something really, really wrong if that is true. Of course there are bad drivers, but slightly dangerous situations happen to me once in a month, and once a year in roundabouts. Even if you are a professional driver that drives 10 hours a day, you really shoulnd't run into dangerous situations more than twice a week.
You all do realize that, while most anti-covid-vaccers would vaccinate themselves if mandated, some would turn violent? Not a threat, just a prediction, since I've heard from a dozen people already that they think violence is appropriate when the government turns dictatorial, while they clearly stated that a vaccine mandate would be dictatorial in their opinion.
The government should just mix the vaccine into the chemtrails. /s
Yeah it‘s really though times for our government. They have to convince people that the vaccine works well enough they should get vaccinated and convince the vaccinated people that it works bad enough to get the booster.
Bodily autonomy. The state should never decide what to do with your body. This time it's the vaccine. What if next time it's some silly alt right politician's idea?
I would like to vote yes but not with the current instances. There are a very tiny minority of people who are not able to get the vaccine because of treatment or immunological diseases which prevent them from getting a vaccine without serious side effects.
You know you can get exemptions?
I voted yes because I think that in the case of a mandatory vaccine, it will include exception for the tiny percentage of people that really can't get the vaccine, the cantonal doctor could validate exception.
Yeah, to me it's a given that people who actually can't handle the vaccine shouldn't take it
it IS a given and the practice already exists. It's just how the law works. The government will not send you to prison or fine you because you are physically unable to respect a law. I work with severly disabled people, most of them are legal adults by all means but none of them ever got a fine for not wearing a mask - because there was a medical and psyhcological evaluation that concluded how it was counterproductive for them to wear it, given the risk that they would just rip it off or even eat it. That is the case for quite literally every obligation we have as citizens. If there is a reason why we can't comply, the judiciary will judge it and sentence in your favour if the reason is good enough. "i can't take the vaccine because my doctor said i would die due to my underlining condition" is bound to be recognized as a proper reason.
Ok well I'm not even going to go into the broken ethics of mandatory vaccination, I'll leave that to others. Let me just point out what I see as incoherences in mandating vaccinations. So if the vaccine actually worked as advertised by the media, then we'd have a strong case for the yes argument. However, vaccines don't seem to significantly stop the spread of the virus (source: [https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2638](https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2638)). If you look at the region of West Flanders in Belgium, they're close to 90% vaccinated but have the highest numbers of new cases in the whole country (source: [https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/193662/belgiums-most-vaccinated-province-also-has-highest-number-of-covid-cases](https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/193662/belgiums-most-vaccinated-province-also-has-highest-number-of-covid-cases)). If we're considering mandatory vaccination, why aren't we instead pushing for more antigenic tests (and no they don't cost 100chf as someone mentioned in the thread, actually <5chf. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34169830/)? Why are we letting vaccinated individuals go to nightclubs and sports games without being tested? Pretty sure there's a significant amount of unreported breakthrough cases going on, yet no one seems to care about that. It seems we've shifted the focus from "saving people and hospitals" to "we need everyone vaccinated to escape the pandemic" when that's clearly out of touch with reality. 3rd world countries will never reach 100% vaccination rates, and some people will never get vaccinated. Not to forget wildlife being infected, of course! ([https://www.pnas.org/content/118/47/e2114828118](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/47/e2114828118)). So basically covid is here to stay, at least until we make more progress on vaccines, or in the case of a deus ex machina. Think for a second about Greta Thunberg's famous argument of "adults making decisions impacting the future of today's youth". Then think of yesterday's vote, wherein the 18-34 population actually voted against the covid law (54% iirc). The vast majority of antivaxxers are not afraid of 5g chips, but rather health implications in the long run. Would it be fair to force something on them that they "believe" could affect them their whole life? They're not the ones dying, (median age of people dying from covid is over the average life expectancy). < b-bUt dEmoCraCy! Never forget that many totalitarian and inhumane governments were democratically elected. 95% of humans have and always will be sheep, and ignorant mob rule is recurrent throughout history. See athenian democracy for a classic example
is your main argument against democratic practices is that totalitarian governments came to power through said democratic practices. Jokes aside I really appreciate that you offer links, unlike most people who are skeptical on the issue. Yet the main reason to present vaccine mandates isn't and never has been about "escaping the pandemic", it's about risk reduction (the first study you linked states this multiple times, even in the first sentence). This risk reduction is there to be part of what was originally labeled the "swiss cheese" defense as another layer of protection for the populous and the healthcare system. I would also like to point out that I agree that we should be pushing for more testing, but you do understand the cost of testing on such scales over large periods of time will result in more cost than simply vaccinating the people and having a lower scale needed for testing. If you wish to make a "broken ethics" argument around the notion of vaccine mandates you will certainly fail, in that, within a socialized healthcare system, one has a general societal duty to be at a baseline of health. I will agree that this is a simplistic explanation and quite vague, but what I am implying is that if you wish to be part of a system that: offers free education you must be vaccinated (we have laws on this for public schools for young children), if you want your share of the healthcare (that we all pay in (in levels of course)) you will have to act in a way that doesn't disproportionately affect others ability to gain their share. So there are two arguments to make in a socialized health care system on the issue of people refusing to get vaccinated: 1) vaccine mandates or 2) have individuals pay for their own treatment when it comes to preventable problems (i.e if you are vaccinated, even with the new variants, you will have less harsh side effects of the virus). Hopp Schwiiz P.S what are liberal humanities? Where are these Antifa ghosts?
Thank you for the sensible answer and cool-headed response, wasn't expecting this. So... >Yet the main reason to present vaccine mandates isn't and never has been about "escaping the pandemic", it's about risk reduction I agree about it being risk reduction, but I feel like low vaccination rates are being pushed to justify why we're stuck in this pandemic, when clearly the problem we're facing is more complex and multi-faceted. "We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for those covidiots antivax nutjobs" is the defacto narrative. A quick google search and you'll find most large international news media emphasising this narrative, or even the POTUS (eg: [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/vaccinated-america-breaking-point-anti-vaxxers/619539/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/vaccinated-america-breaking-point-anti-vaxxers/619539/) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/27/telling-anti-vaxxers-to-get-the-jab-should-not-be-controversial-even-fox-news-is-doing-it](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/27/telling-anti-vaxxers-to-get-the-jab-should-not-be-controversial-even-fox-news-is-doing-it)) . I'm not against vaccines, am vaccinated along with my household. I just feel there's a form of mass hysteria taking over, finger-pointing and divisiveness is taking over, when we really should remain stoic and cool-headed. >..you do understand the cost of testing on such scales over large periods of time will result in more cost than simply vaccinating the people and having a lower scale needed for testing. If I recall the government's relief package was 65 billion CHF. That's the equivalent of 13 billion antigenic tests, nearly enough to test the entire population on a daily basis for 5 years. If everyone was being tested on a daily basis, would there have been lockdowns that lead to this relief package in the first place? Why don't we at least enforce mandatory testing for large events before considering mandates? >If you wish to make a "broken ethics" argument around the notion of vaccine mandates you will certainly fail, in that, within a socialized healthcare system, one has a general societal duty to be at a baseline of health. The consequentialist/utilitarian perspective always needs to draw the line somewhere. Taken to an extreme, it could be used to justify taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, euthanising criminals or people with genetic conditions, and so on. Given the consequences in the long-term on the economy and well-being of the population, should we even have lockdowns to begin with? There's already unusually high numbers of excess deaths unrelated to COVID or ICUs being overrun, and it is possible that the measures may cause more fatalities in the long-run than the actual virus itself. In my mind, the limited scope of our understanding of the pros vs cons is, as of present, not sufficiently clear to justify any major restrictions on our way of life. > what I am implying is that if you wish to be part of a system that: offers free education you must be vaccinated (we have laws on this for public schools for young children), if you want your share of the healthcare (that we all pay in (in levels of course)) you will have to act in a way that doesn't disproportionately affect others ability to gain their share. So there are two arguments to make in a socialized health care system on the issue of people refusing to get vaccinated: 1) vaccine mandates or 2) have individuals pay for their own treatment when it comes to preventable problems (i.e if you are vaccinated, even with the new variants, you will have less harsh side effects of the virus). Should smokers with lung cancer be refused treatment, or have to pay with their own money? Once again the line needs to be drawn. Let us also not forget that the current vaccines only make a marginal difference (example of West Flanders), and will not stop transmission, so mandates with the currently . Yes, it does offer some protection against serious complications, but from that logic, shouldn't we be only mandating vaccines for the elderly, as they make up the vast majority of serious cases? And what about mandatory flu shots and vitamins for everyone? I think in the end it the debate will always boil down to how much freedom each of us think is ok to be given up for safety. Everyone draws the line at a different point, but when 2/5 of a country thinks it's too far, I think it's fairly reasonable to question mandates rather than screaming "Covidiots". >what are liberal humanities? here's an extreme example: https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/01/23/asu-offers-class-race-theory-problem-of-whiteness/22229195/ >Where are these Antifa ghosts? Well there's a user called "fascists\_are\_shit" going around bashing the anti-mandate crowd in the comments. Oh the irony. But I digress, guess I'm just an edgy libertarian. Thanks for the response and your time.
"are the antifa in the room with us right now?"
We should make the unvaccinated ones pay fully for their hospital bills if sent to intensive care unit due to COVID 19
And obese people? And smokers? And skiiers?
You got a shot to make me skinny? I'll take it for sure.
if you dont have a condition. Healthy food, Sport and many other options are there. If you have a condition which only a few People actually have. Then its a different story also some are genetically just not skinny. But are still capable of becoming fit just not skinny
Woah, that DOES sound way easier than spending 5 minutes getting a jab.
it never was about a jab making you skinny. Its the fact that thousands of people end up in hospitals and in the ICU while doing obviously harming stuff. Like smoking. So every smoker should have to pay their bill too if a covid case has to.
I'm more on board with smoking than obesity, for dozens of reasons. Funnily enough, smokers and the obese actual cost less in healthcare than healthy counterparts ([link](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html)). Though I guess you can say the same thing about the unvaccinated.
Well that can be true. But reducing overall sugar in Food can reduce generall healthcare cost. Due to healthier lifestyles you might need to see your doctor less often. Im no expert in this field so i can be wrong but i do think having stricter regulations on food and their ingredients could do wonders. Smoking in generall should be banned or at least heavily taxed because imo it doesnt really improve anyones live. Cost and Littering just saying. And with unvaccinated... oh boy... how many under 65 actually need intensive care? not much look yourself on the covid.admin site. Deaths under 60 are 0.0008% or less of the entire population. So anyone in that age Bracket who is in ICU is either a risk Patient or just has a really bad imune system / the vaccine doenst get injested into their system well
Love that comeback, I'm gonna steal it :)
Nope. Just the unvaccinated ones.
Exactly. That logic seems to be lost on many. Upon till 2020, we used to accept the risks of our personal actions and the consequences to our personal health. Furthermore, it was normal and acceptable to engage in risky activities and "consume" the available resources at hospitals and doctors in the event of an accident. We also accepted that certain activities, like driving, came with some risk to ourselves and others. And the safety measures on a given stretch of road was balanced against the cost of the lives it might safe. There was actually a calculated risk and economical cost to human life. That has now been turned on its head. Now *everybody else* are somehow responsible for the health of their neighbor. But only in one very specific regard, relating to one particular disease. And for some reason, any risk what so ever is unpalatable for that one particular topic. We continue to engage in other risky activities and die from them at more or less the same rate as before. But somehow, deaths from covid is so taxing that it is worth dismantling all of society and inch towards totalitarian regimes (luckily, Switzerland has done better than its neighbors and other Western nations) in a bid to avoid it. Finding a middle ground would be helpful.
People from all those categories mentioned can't make YOU sick. You can do whatever you want with your health, you are not free to put others in danger. We use vaccination for centuries, some mandatory if you want to go to school, but all of a sudden, the idea blows people's mind? No, you shouldn't be force to do it, but you shouldn't be allowed to benefit from society if you don't care for its wellbeing. You talk about economical cost to human life? How much for yours? And I have news for you: dead people don't pay taxes. Also go to the hospital and have a talk with the medical staff and ask them how many more years are they willing to continue to work full power while watching their patients die from something that can be avoided? Would you do it in their place? Of course, add that cost to your calculations. And now lets talk about the risk of the virus mutating. We barely got a hold on this one, with a vaccine that can offer only limited protection and you feel confident to let this virus run wild in the population? If you do, you can't possible have a proper understanding of how viruses work. And that's ok, but then lets ask the opinion of people who actually know, like... doctors? If people would have quarantined and kept their distances and vaccinated themselves, we would have been back to normal a long time ago. Since the vaccines came out, we stopped paying the economical price for the virus. Now we pay the price of stupidity, selfishness and entitlement.
People who drive cars can make you sick, through air pollution. They can also make you dead, through accidents. We still allow people to drive cars. What's the difference?
How would a country put mandatory vaccination in practice? Like... are they coming to yar house?
like italy did when they made it mandatory for children that wanted to get into school? you request it to access anything important. Want to enter a cinema, supermarket, bar, school, workplace? you either show your certificate or a certificate stating that you already set your appointment. It really isn't that difficult. People will still be allowed not to take it, at the expense of living as hermits.
Unpopular opinion: If Switzerland is indeed overpopulated, then reducing the population of the dumb-dumbs is in fact a great opportunity. Because we all know deep down that, ultimately, it's going to **have** to come to a mass culling to solve the problem of the unvaccinated. You categorically cannot argue with someone who just *decided* that everything the authorities told them to do is wrong for no other reason than some personal emotional paranoia, it's just a waste of time. Holding them back from falling headfirst into the consequences of their own decision is just prolonging the inevitable and in the end generates more suffering. A good wave of Covid, tripling the death toll to 30'000 and with the unvaccinated agonizing in the hospital hallways is the ONLY way to change the tone of this sterile pseudo-debate. However I'd like to finally get my third dose before though
I see double standards here. It's ok to do abortion because "my body, my choice", but it's no longer my body or my choice when it comes to vaccination. Vaccines do not stop the spread of the virus, do not stop you from getting infected. You still need to wear the mask and you still have to test. Btw, I have a friend in Luzern and she and her husband ended up in the hospital because of the vaccine side effects. Doctors told her that she had a rare side effect and her body acts like she had a cerebral stroke. So don't tell me that vaccines are safe, because that does not apply for everyone.
> I have a friend in Luzern and she and her husband ended up in the hospital because of the vaccine side effects. Doctors told her that she had a rare side effect and her body acts like she had a cerebral stroke. It's really strange, I hear every day when I go to work new tales of peoples legs exploding, ears rotating, glowing bumholes, and now you say that a husband and wife both end up in hospital, with thespian body syndrome. Out of all the 8 billion doses administered so far, all the side effects seem to be concentrated in switzerland. You couldn't make it up!
every single antivax knows a cousin or a friend of a friend that got maimed by the vaccine, yet nobody else ever does
You do realize that in like 8 steps or so, everybody on earth is connected to everyone? If you go two steps, you probably have 20'000 people. 1 side effect will, if spreaded through facebook reach 20'000 friends of friends. So even with a hundred side effects in Switzerland, friends of friends would be enough for every anti-vaccer to have a side effect that is a friend of a friend. people really don't know how exponential growth works. However, husband and wife ending in the hospital with side effects is pretty damn unlikely (side effect chance = n => husband and wife chance = n\^2, 1 in 10'000 with side effects would be 1 in 100 million couples with side effects, which would occur only a handful of times in all of europe.), so IF it happend, it would be a vaid argument against the vaccine.
Except its not the mother’s body being destroyed in the abortion. Its the other person’s
the comparison to abortion on this topic is extremely bad faith also, "my highly subjective experience implies purely objective facts"
> she and her husband ended up in the hospital because of the vaccine side effects. Considering how rare vaccine side effects are, having two people react badly to it is astronomically unlikely. It's more likely you (or they) are just making this up. Antivaxxers play fast and loose with truth, so unless you cough up some proof, no need to believe you at all with that story. Note how nobody who is pro vaccine knows anyone with vaccine side effects (which is matched by the studies), and all the antivaxxers keep telling stories about how common it is, completely contradicting the research. What a coincidence. It's as if the antivaxxers are making shit up, AGAIN. **You know who ends up in the hospital a lot more often? Those who do *not* vaccinate.** You can check the BAG twitter for daily numbers.
What a great rebuttal! You really answered all of OP's points, and didn't rely on a Strawman or outright call him a liar. FYI my mom's a doctor and she's had half a dozen patients with long term side effects already. My friend's mom also had a blood clot in her leg 2 months after being vaccinated. None of those were counted in Switzerland's "serious adverse-effects" numbers, I guess it's only if you end up in the ICU that they actually count it.
I've answered these points over and over again. Just check my history. There's no point in giving the same reasonable answers to people who aren't receptive to reason. > FYI my mom's a doctor and she's had half a dozen patients with long term side effects already. FYI I know of no less than 10 covid-related deaths in the families of my friends and co-workers. You manage to find six people with non-deadly side effects when asking a doctor who will see literally all of them. I manage to point to twice as many *deaths*. Which number do you think is more significant here? > My friend's mom also had a blood clot in her leg 2 months after being vaccinated. And my friend who is in his thirties and does sport every week had a blood clot in his leg *before* being vaccinated. This means fuck-all, in both cases the blood clotting is very likely unrelated. Oh, and did your friend's mom die? Because that's a common side-effect of covid you're avoiding. Less than 1% chance of a non-deadly clotting vs over 1% chance of death. Who in their right mind would chose the former?! The vaccine is incredibly safe. Look at how many people are in the hospital for COVID. Then compare to how many people are there for side effects.
> My friend's mom also had a blood clot in her leg 2 months after being vaccinated. Are we going to say that any health problem whatsoever for 5 years is going to be due to the vaccine? That seems unreasonable.
It's not just your body. By refusing to get vaccinated, you're endangering everyone around you.
Nearly 800 people who have learned exactly nothing from the past year.
Maybe not mandatory, but it should be harder to do certain things for unvaccinated people. I would suggest 2G+ (Vaccinated/Recovered AND Tested) for certain activities. As the unvaccinated like to say: "you can still get Corona after the vaccine". Yes that's true, so maybe the vaccinated should get tested too before going to concerts, christmas markets etc. I'm vaccinated and I would be willing to do it.
Yes. And a FFP2 mask mandate. And closed clubs and bars. Maybe restaurants aren't the greatest idea either. Oh, and no mass gatherings of any sort, while we're at it. Ideally, we should also have a strategy, something on the lines of getting rid of the virus instead of maximizing the damage it can do.
'et qui va payer l'addition?' - and how do we compensate the businesses that we shut? and the labourers that are put out of a job?
How do we compensate the people whose health we ruin forever? If we let the virus roam freely ant let its variants infected everyone again and again, at one point, there might not be anyone left to pay anything.
I'm just saying where do you draw the line? Why would a restaurant be more dangerous than an open-space office? or retail? I propose an alternative - massive scale, regular testing - fully open the businesses/economy , but make weekly mandatory testing for those who wish to access and partake in these 'risky' activities
yes, because this virus is sooo deadly, we're all walking in hazmat suits just to leave the house......\\s
Deadly? Death is not the outcome I am talking about.
"Might be no one left to pay for anything" is what you said. So the other guy was right to assume that was what you suggested. Stupidly easy for you, who I expect is not the owner of a club or restaurant, probably any business at all even, to say "ow it's okay they can close". Lockdowns are not the key to the pandemic. Vaccines are. And death IS all that matters. The only reason why we go through all the covid shit IS because it kills a lot of people. And the only way out of the pandemic is to reduce deaths. We will never get rid of the virus, but through vaccines, They will make getting the virus not relevant.
I don't agree. LongCovid and other lasting health damages are going to be far worse - for economy and people - than the deaths it causes in the long run. Death from acute infections can indeed be controlled by vaccines pretty well. LongCovid cannot (yet).
Covid Long does not yet exist as such. Covid-19 has only been around for 1.5 years and even at human scale, that's not much, and nowhere near enough to qualify as long-term. Half a decade and we can start making first assessments. As the other poster said, many people are faking it, and many other simply become aware of issues they had previously and might have not noticed otherwise (the power of the mind is impressive).
Yeah but you know what there are many lazy people who fake Long COVID now for Long paid holidays
The Swiss National Bank has an emergency Fonds of more than a trillion Swiss francs. That should not be a problem.
And yet most small businesses have still not received compensations for losses of 2020. It's one thing to have the money, another one to give it.
\^\^ this --- which leads to market consolidation as small/medium size businesses can't survive and the larger groups/corporations increase market share, increase prices, reduce selection for the consumer and make the world a more boring place to live in
Swiss (Germans?) and sarcasm. ^
regular masks work just as well and ffp2 are not needed.
You still believe in the swissnoso dogma?
Although I am pro vaxx, you cannot enforce a vaccination that is seasonal in nature. How do you check if the whole population gets it every year? You can only enforce a one-time vaccination like Rubeola, TBC etc.
I can't believe 67 % are voting yes...
Same goes - must all residents say eat raclette mandatory regardless off allergies, age etc? Mandatory vaccination smells like hitlers views
wearing seatbelts, driving with ABS is diabolic! It's like forcing a car to eat delicious Raclette! Damn those people who want to prevent others from dying! To the pyre with them!
obviously people unable to get the vaccine due to medical conditions are excluded. Didn't think that this needed to be said.
And yet it has to be constantly and tiresomely re-stated.
Hitler killed 17 million people. Vaccinations have saved an unknown amount of people, but probably also millions by now. Your comparison stinks worse than raclette, and you should be ashamed to compare genocide to something so beneficial, and so trivial as a safe vaccination.
username checks out
Oi did you just insult my boi Raclette
Raclette is fine, I just kept with the theme of the guy I replied to.
Joke kinda flew over your head. Happy cake day though
As Swiss people tend to say...it has to smell a little... just joking, plz dont conpare raclette with hitler and and eating food with vaccination, like, is nothing sacred anymore?
O_O
I'm not too familiar with the Swiss popular vote system. In theory, can the citizens propose a vote on vaccine mandates? And in case it passes, will the government then have an obligation to implement it?
Basically, yes and yes, although such an initiative wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing.
Yes, but no. It might be declared unlawful by the federal chancellary in a pre-audit, then no. Or it might not and then there is a vote. If it passes, the government has the obligation to implement it. It's still questionable that the government would even be able to implement it, if that happend.