Austria plans compulsory Covid vaccinations for all

[laughing dog]

The only way to know intent is to read minds. You came to the wrong conclusion.

Yet you made the claim we had the same intent in writing on this thread in post #30. Or are you retracting that claim?

If you don't think a whataboutism is relevant, then why bring one up?

I didn't.

Of course you did - you brought up the Patriot Act and the left's response to it. Really, if you are not going to pay attention to your own content, why should anyone else?

Your response is based on a straw man driven by a combination of a lack of reading comprehension and reasoning. People of principle are perfectly capable of apply the principle of "the rule of reason:" to their ethics or principles thereby eschewing kneejerk defenses of a misplaced application of a principle.

I have never heard of "the rule of reason", and when I google it, I get information about US antitrust law. I don't think that's what you meant, so I assume this is language you have invented in this post, and you expected me to comprehend the meaning without explanation. I don't think that's fair.

I find it out that you feel expecting people to understand the English language is unfair. While the "rule of reason" has a specific application and history to US antitrust law, it is also a general principle that means rules or principles are subject to the use of reason depending on the facts of the situation.

Do you think it is reasonable for the Austrian government to fine (and possibly imprison) its citizens for not getting a Covid vaccine?

I think it is reasonable for any gov't to enforce a legal mandate in a reasonable and rational manner. I would expect the enforcement mechanism in this case is a forced vaccination.

Of course you did - you brought up the Patriot Act and the left's response to it. Really, if you are not going to pay attention to your own content, why should anyone else?

Yes, I brought up the Patriot Act. No, it wasn't a 'whataboutism'. It was to illustrate that people accept authoritarian actions because of their fear.

A "whataboutism" is used to illustrate a point. . The Patriot Act ha many diverse provisions and purposes. The proposed vaccine mandate does not.

it is also a general principle that means rules or principles are subject to the use of reason depending on the facts of the situation.

I've never heard it used like that, or even heard the phrase at all before today. Indeed, my further google searches uncovers only its use as a test of antitrust law. So yes, I do feel it is unfair of you to expect me to understand a phrase that you either made up with a definition peculiar to you, or is not in common use in the US or anywhere else in the English-speaking world, and that you mock me for failing to understand.

No one mocked you. Instead of whining about "unfairness", a simple question would have sufficed. Instead you persist in whining.

I think it is reasonable for any gov't to enforce a legal mandate in a reasonable and rational manner. I would expect the enforcement mechanism in this case is a forced vaccination.

That does seem to me to be the next logical step: physically enforced vaccinations. I'm alarmed, however, that for some people, the ease with which this idea has gone from unthinkable to desirable.

History indicates you alarm very easily.

 

[Metaphor]

A "whataboutism" is used to illustrate a point. . The Patriot Act ha many diverse provisions and purposes. The proposed vaccine mandate does not.

My point: fear makes people accept authoritarian actions that they would not accept in ordinary times. The Patriot Act was one such example, and compulsory covid vaccinations are another.

No one mocked you. Instead of whining about "unfairness", a simple question would have sufficed. Instead you persist in whining.

Yes, you mocked me. And now, I'm 'whining', because you laid the fault at my reading comprehension instead of your private and peculiar denotation of a phrase already in use elsewhere.

History indicates you alarm very easily.

I feel as if I should be more suspicious and not less, frankly. When Toni proposed indefinite house arrest for the unvaccinated, I recall clarifying that even the most ardent supporters of a vaccine mandate were not proposing physically enforced vaccinations.

And, all it took was a month or two, and people are supporting that, too.

 

[laughing dog]

A "whataboutism" is used to illustrate a point. . The Patriot Act ha many diverse provisions and purposes. The proposed vaccine mandate does not.

My point: fear makes people accept authoritarian actions that they would not accept in ordinary times. The Patriot Act was one such example, and compulsory covid vaccinations are another.

You did not simply use it as an example of fear-driven acceptance of authoritarianism. You also brought in the "left"s reaction to the Patriot Act.

Futhermore, covid-19 is an actual and well-define threat to the well-being of a country. Taking precautions is rational and need not be based on fear. On the other hand "Terrorism" is not a well-defined threat nor necessarily an actual one. o your example is a very poor one.

No one mocked you. Instead of whining about "unfairness", a simple question would have sufficed. Instead you persist in whining.

Yes, you mocked me. And now, I'm 'whining', because you laid the fault at my reading comprehension instead of your private and peculiar denotation of a phrase already in use elsewhere.

I did not mock you because I know what my intent was. I am not responsible for hypersensitivity to imaged criticism or your over-reaction to a post.

History indicates you alarm very easily.

I feel as if I should be more suspicious and not less, frankly. When Toni proposed indefinite house arrest for the unvaccinated, I recall clarifying that even the most ardent supporters of a vaccine mandate were not proposing physically enforced vaccinations.

Another irrelevant "whataboutism".

And, all it took was a month or two, and people are supporting that, too.

I am pretty sure that there were people supporting vaccine mandates back then as well. Extraordinary situations sometimes require extraordinary measures.

 

[Metaphor]

You did not simply use it as an example of fear-driven acceptance of authoritarianism. You also brought in the "left"s reaction to the Patriot Act.

Yes. Parts of the left opposed it, and they argued that its acceptance was driven by fear.

Futhermore, covid-19 is an actual and well-define threat to the well-being of a country. Taking precautions is rational and need not be based on fear. On the other hand "Terrorism" is not a well-defined threat nor necessarily an actual one. o your example is a very poor one.

If you do not see fear as one of the drivers of government policies around COVID--policies that began, in early 2020, with encouraging certain activities, but now include locking down entire countries and forcing vaccinations on adults, all I can say is we clearly have very different perceptions of the world.

Another irrelevant "whataboutism".

It isn't a 'whataboutism'. Not every reference to a past event is a 'whataboutism'. I was illustrating my own naivete.

I am pretty sure that there were people supporting vaccine mandates back then as well. Extraordinary situations sometimes require extraordinary measures.

I am sure there are some people who would support anything. That isn't the point. The point is the number of people who would not have considered forced vaccinations under any circumstances in 2020 are now not only indifferent to the possibility, some are expressing support for it.

 

[laughing dog]

You did not simply use it as an example of fear-driven acceptance of authoritarianism. You also brought in the "left"s reaction to the Patriot Act.

Yes. Parts of the left opposed it, and they argued that its acceptance was driven by fear.

Futhermore, covid-19 is an actual and well-define threat to the well-being of a country. Taking precautions is rational and need not be based on fear. On the other hand "Terrorism" is not a well-defined threat nor necessarily an actual one. o your example is a very poor one.

If you do not see fear as one of the drivers of government policies around COVID--policies that began, in early 2020, with encouraging certain activities, but now include locking down entire countries and forcing vaccinations on adults, all I can say is we clearly have very different perceptions of the world.

We do have different perceptions of the world. For some reason, you do not perceive that a country can reasonably think that COVID 19 is a sufficient threat to the public well-being that it justifies taking such actions.

Another irrelevant "whataboutism".

It isn't a 'whataboutism'. Not every reference to a past event is a 'whataboutism'. I was illustrating my own naivete.

With a "whataboutism". Duh.

I am pretty sure that there were people supporting vaccine mandates back then as well. Extraordinary situations sometimes require extraordinary measures.

I am sure there are some people who would support anything. That isn't the point. The point is the number of people who would not have considered forced vaccinations under any circumstances in 2020 are now not only indifferent to the possibility, some are expressing support for it.

Ah, a hand-waved suppositions masquerading as analysis.

 

[Metaphor]

With a "whataboutism". Duh.

You use 'whataboutism' as if it invalidates the argument, as if uttering this word addresses the content. It doesn't.

Ah, a hand-waved suppositions masquerading as analysis.

There is no 'hand-waving'. It is barely even 'analysis'. It is a straightforward recounting of events. There has been a noticeable increase in the authoritarian policies that governments are imposing on their people in response to COVID.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only way to know intent is to read minds. You came to the wrong conclusion.

Yet you made the claim we had the same intent in writing on this thread in post #30. Or are you retracting that claim?

If you don't think a whataboutism is relevant, then why bring one up?

I didn't.

Of course you did - you brought up the Patriot Act and the left's response to it. Really, if you are not going to pay attention to your own content, why should anyone else?

Your response is based on a straw man driven by a combination of a lack of reading comprehension and reasoning. People of principle are perfectly capable of apply the principle of "the rule of reason:" to their ethics or principles thereby eschewing kneejerk defenses of a misplaced application of a principle.

I have never heard of "the rule of reason", and when I google it, I get information about US antitrust law. I don't think that's what you meant, so I assume this is language you have invented in this post, and you expected me to comprehend the meaning without explanation. I don't think that's fair.

I find it out that you feel expecting people to understand the English language is unfair. While the "rule of reason" has a specific application and history to US antitrust law, it is also a general principle that means rules or principles are subject to the use of reason depending on the facts of the situation.

Do you think it is reasonable for the Austrian government to fine (and possibly imprison) its citizens for not getting a Covid vaccine?

I think it is reasonable for any gov't to enforce a legal mandate in a reasonable and rational manner. I would expect the enforcement mechanism in this case is a forced vaccination.

Of course you did - you brought up the Patriot Act and the left's response to it. Really, if you are not going to pay attention to your own content, why should anyone else?

Yes, I brought up the Patriot Act. No, it wasn't a 'whataboutism'. It was to illustrate that people accept authoritarian actions because of their fear.

A "whataboutism" is used to illustrate a point. . The Patriot Act ha many diverse provisions and purposes. The proposed vaccine mandate does not.

it is also a general principle that means rules or principles are subject to the use of reason depending on the facts of the situation.

I've never heard it used like that, or even heard the phrase at all before today. Indeed, my further google searches uncovers only its use as a test of antitrust law. So yes, I do feel it is unfair of you to expect me to understand a phrase that you either made up with a definition peculiar to you, or is not in common use in the US or anywhere else in the English-speaking world, and that you mock me for failing to understand.

No one mocked you. Instead of whining about "unfairness", a simple question would have sufficed. Instead you persist in whining.

I think it is reasonable for any gov't to enforce a legal mandate in a reasonable and rational manner. I would expect the enforcement mechanism in this case is a forced vaccination.

That does seem to me to be the next logical step: physically enforced vaccinations. I'm alarmed, however, that for some people, the ease with which this idea has gone from unthinkable to desirable.

History indicates you alarm very easily.

Don't you mean he's woke?

 

[laughing dog]

With a "whataboutism". Duh.

You use 'whataboutism' as if it invalidates the argument, as if uttering this word addresses the content. It doesn't.

Wrong on all counts:

Ah, a hand-waved suppositions masquerading as analysis.

There is no 'hand-waving'. It is barely even 'analysis'. It is a straightforward recounting of events. There has been a noticeable increase in the authoritarian policies that governments are imposing on their people in response to COVID.

It is your hand-waved interpretation . You cannot begin to name all those people with your imputed thoughts.

 

[Metaphor]

It is your hand-waved interpretation . You cannot begin to name all those people with your imputed thoughts.

There has been a noticeable increase in the authoritarian policies that governments are imposing on their people in response to COVID. That is not an interpretation of the facts. It is a fact.

Your last sentence is meaningless. That authoritarian policies are becoming more common does not impute a thought to anybody.

 

[laughing dog]

It is your hand-waved interpretation . You cannot begin to name all those people with your imputed thoughts.

There has been a noticeable increase in the authoritarian policies that governments are imposing on their people in response to COVID. That is not an interpretation of the facts. It is a fact.

Your sentence does not address my point that " You cannot begin to name all those people with your imputed thoughts."

Your last sentence is meaningless. That authoritarian policies are becoming more common does not impute a thought to anybody.

As usual you are mistaken. The sentence has a clean meaning which you chose to ignore.

You wrote "The point is the number of people who would not have considered forced vaccinations under any circumstances in 2020 are now not only indifferent to the possibility, some are expressing support for it." You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Moreover, you can have no idea what people considered in 2020 let alone produce a number. It is a perfect example of a hand-waved claim.

I get that vaccine mandate upsets your values. There is no need to create "truthiness" to support your concerns. The gov't of Austria believes it needs to institute a vaccine mandate because it is more important to protect its citizens and to prevent its health care system from being over-whelmed than to preserve the choice to vaccinate or not of its citizens. You disagree with that policy.

 

[Metaphor]

Your sentence does not address my point that " You cannot begin to name all those people with your imputed thoughts."

Your sentence is meaningless.

You wrote "The point is the number of people who would not have considered forced vaccinations under any circumstances in 2020 are now not only indifferent to the possibility, some are expressing support for it." You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

My evidence is my lived experience. Or more specifically, it is from observing expressed sentiments on social media between 2020 and now. Now, I don't mind if you don't believe me that I've noticed the change. But in terms of evidence of people supporting or being indifferent to the Austrian mandate--I would say the number of people on this thread who are indifferent or expressing support is more than zero. Indeed, not a single person has actually questioned this move.

I get that vaccine mandate upsets your values. There is no need to create "truthiness" to support your concerns. The gov't of Austria believes it needs to institute a vaccine mandate because it is more important to protect its citizens and to prevent its health care system from being over-whelmed than to preserve the choice to vaccinate or not of its citizens. You disagree with that policy.

Well, yes, I disagree with that policy. But I make the additional observation that there is ratcheting support for illiberal solutions to the Covid pandemic. Certainly, Biden in November 2021 would not agree with Biden in November 2020, when said he did not see a place for a vaccine mandate if he were elected President.

Also, whether a 'vaccine mandate' upsets my values depends on the specifics of a policy.

 

[thebeave]

Would be great if it was a nasal vaccine with at least the nucleocapsid protein thrown in with the spike protein.

As Bill Gates has said



I like this comment:

We are human beings, not computers. You can’t just release buggy vaccines and then later just keep releasing updates to patch the buggy vaccines.

If these GloboConglomgerates purposefully made half assed waning vaccines that were meh with transmission, I would not at all be surprised. They just get to $ell at lot more.

Most of you fuckers ten years ago used to be HIGHLY skeptical of massive corporations and now you are sucking their dicks. This is pathetic.

If they got paid more for performance they would have an incentive.

And where the hell is the delta vaccine?

You're being a bit too hyperbolic, but I was thinking largely the same thing the other day. It wasn't that long ago that the left was largely against the very things that they are strongly advocating now, regarding vaccination. The pre-covid anti-vax movement was led by numbskulls like RFK, Jr and lefty Hollywood celebrities like Jenny McCarthy & Jim Carrey and their useful idiots like Oprah who gave them a platform to spew their crap. Anti-vax was also largely the domain of morons and white liberal elite enclaves in Marin County, CA as well as Oregon (in particular, Ashland). Not to mention all the constant ranting about the evils of Big Pharma and clinging to slogans like, "My Body, My Choice". And LOTS of distrust of genetic engineering and GMOs (instead embracing all things natural and organic regarding food and medicine), which is fundamental to the development of these life saving vaccines. Its like all that has gone out the window in a flash in a complete 180 degree shift. Its just all very odd.

… funny. I don’t recall any Lib’ruls advocating for smallpox, polio, rubella et al.
Even when I lived in Sausalito. Also lived in San Anselmo, but they weren’t doing the Right Wing Moron dance there either.
I don’t consider Lucy in the Sky to be representative of liberalism.

My guess is you were in Marin County back in the days when it was a bastion of hot tubs and peacock feathers. It has changed a bit since then, like most places. Regarding the anti-vax situation there I was referring to, this explains it pretty well:

Marin County And California’s Measles Outbreak: A Look Into The Epicenter Of The Anti-Vaccination Trend

Despite its reputation for being physically fit and contaminant-free, Marin County has a serious public health problem. Too few parents have chosen to vaccinate their children against such contagious diseases as measles and pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough. So-called anti-vaxxers have often eschewed modern medicine for more traditional health regimens, turning to the Internet’s flood of health and wellness blogs for direction. Blog posts with titles like “Massive Vaccine Cover-up Confirmed: Secret Documents Prove Vaccines Cause Autism” and “Studies Show That Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease” inflate the risks of childhood vaccinations but end up getting disseminated throughout Marin.

That was from 2015. Fast forward to 2021, and we have this from the NY Times:

The Highest Vaccination Rate in California

The pocket of California that has emerged as a leader in Covid-19 vaccinations may come as a surprise.

Seventy-eight percent of people living in Marin County are fully vaccinated against Covid — the highest rate of any county in California (and just about anywhere in the nation).

“We still have pockets of very vocal vaccine refusers,” the county health officer, Dr. Matt Willis, told The San Francisco Chronicle, but “it’s clear the community culture has shifted.”

For years, resistance to childhood vaccinations was something embraced by left-leaning, hippiesh types. But opposing Covid-19 vaccines is associated with President Donald J. Trump, an unlikely stance in Marin County, where 82 percent of voters cast ballots for President Biden in 2020.

So, looks like the sea change in vax attitude may be at least partially attributed to TDS. Somewhat disappointing that it wasn't a clear cut case of the recognition of science and reason, but any means to an end, I guess.

 

[laughing dog]

Your sentence does not address my point that " You cannot begin to name all those people with your imputed thoughts."

Your sentence is meaningless.

Ordinarily, I would defer to an expert in the provision of meaningless sentences, but you are mistaken. Perhaps if you point to the words you don't understand, you can be educated.

You wrote "The point is the number of people who would not have considered forced vaccinations under any circumstances in 2020 are now not only indifferent to the possibility, some are expressing support for it." You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

My evidence is my lived experience. Or more specifically, it is from observing expressed sentiments on social media between 2020 and now. Now, I don't mind if you don't believe me that I've noticed the change. But in terms of evidence of people supporting or being indifferent to the Austrian mandate--I would say the number of people on this thread who are indifferent or expressing support is more than zero. Indeed, not a single person has actually questioned this move.

As I suspected, your claim is another example of evidence pulled out of your ass.

I get that vaccine mandate upsets your values. There is no need to create "truthiness" to support your concerns. The gov't of Austria believes it needs to institute a vaccine mandate because it is more important to protect its citizens and to prevent its health care system from being over-whelmed than to preserve the choice to vaccinate or not of its citizens. You disagree with that policy.

Well, yes, I disagree with that policy. But I make the additional observation that there is ratcheting support for illiberal solutions to the Covid pandemic. Certainly, Biden in November 2021 would not agree with Biden in November 2020, when said he did not see a place for a vaccine mandate if he were elected President.

Well there are people who actually learn from experience and change their minds.

Also, whether a 'vaccine mandate' upsets my values depends on the specifics of a policy.

Sure Jan. It is obvious you care more about some abstract vision of "civil liberty" than the health and welfare of the Austrian people.

 

[Thomas II]

Most of you fuckers ten years ago used to be HIGHLY skeptical of massive corporations and now you are sucking their dicks.

Hey, some of us ARE their dicks.
Get over it.

 

[Metaphor]

Ordinarily, I would defer to an expert in the provision of meaningless sentences, but you are mistaken. Perhaps if you point to the words you don't understand, you can be educated.

Your sentence is meaningless because I don't have to name any people or impute any thoughts to them for what I've said to be true.

Well there are people who actually learn from experience and change their minds.

Yes. That's why people tend to leave the left as they grow older.

It is obvious you care more about some abstract vision of "civil liberty" than the health and welfare of the Austrian people.

It is precisely the health and welfare of the Austrian people that I am thinking about.

 

[Elixir]

Well, yes, I disagree with that policy. But I make the additional observation that there is ratcheting support for illiberal solutions to the Covid pandemic. Certainly, Biden in November 2021 would not agree with Biden in November 2020, when said he did not see a place for a vaccine mandate if he were elected President

As Sleepy Joe readily and forthrightly admitted while you weren't paying attention, he didn't anticipate the kind of stupidity and irrationality that spawned the vaccine resistance movement.
Irrational actions that jeopardize public health do lead directly toward "illiberal" solutions because public health is a higher priority than freedumbs like drunk driving and infecting others with a deadly disease.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, yes, I disagree with that policy. But I make the additional observation that there is ratcheting support for illiberal solutions to the Covid pandemic. Certainly, Biden in November 2021 would not agree with Biden in November 2020, when said he did not see a place for a vaccine mandate if he were elected President

As Sleepy Joe readily and forthrightly admitted while you weren't paying attention, he didn't anticipate the kind of stupidity and irrationality that spawned the vaccine resistance movement.

How myopic of him.

Irrational actions that jeopardize public health do lead directly toward "illiberal" solutions because public health is a higher priority than freedumbs like drunk driving and infecting others with a deadly disease.

Being unvaccinated is not drink driving nor does it mean infecting others. But, keep up the analogy. That's the exact way to win over hearts and minds.

 

[Elixir]

Being unvaccinated is not drink driving nor does it mean infecting others.

On an individual level that's true. Which is why the individual should have taken a back seat for a while when doing so could have saved hundreds of thousands or (eventually) millions of lives and save the global economy from the fits and coughs it now suffers.
Drunk driving doesn't mean crashing either. And crashing a car can't cause thousands of other people to crash the way willfully failing to take easy steps to mitigate a pandemic disease can.
So yeah, it's a failed analogy in that sense. It's hard to think of anything heinous enough to draw an analogy to what right wing extremists and conspiracy theorists have wrought upon us.

 

[Metaphor]

So yeah, it's a failed analogy in that sense. It's hard to think of anything heinous enough to draw an analogy to what right wing extremists and conspiracy theorists have wrought upon us.

I'm sure the outsized deaths in those groups will bring you some comfort.

 

[Elixir]

I'm sure the outsized deaths in those groups will bring you some comfort.

Thank you for your concern, but don't be so sure.
Yet.
Right now, I just find it sad and STUPID.
But that could change:

...the data so far suggest the new variant has mutations “consistent with enhanced transmissibility,”

If it turns out to be more contagious AND more deadly, as well as remaining responsive to existing vaccines (an unlikely combo, IMHO) then yeah - it might deal out a worthwhile lesson for whatever anti-vaxxers remain after it kills most of them... and I'll be laughing through my tears. What else can you do in the face of such abysmal stupidity? If most anti-vaxers die, that will be cause for much grief, including my own, as there are people I would hate to lose numbering among the misguided. I would certainly prefer to dwell on the invaluable learning experience such a tragedy would entail.