| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4410 Posts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-22/vaccine-holdouts-face-4-000-fine-in-austria-s-virus-crackdown There will also be fines, of up to 1,500 euros, for refusal to take a booster shot, according to Minister for the Constitution Karoline Edtstadler. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18274 Posts
On November 23 2021 08:17 WombaT wrote: It’s a good system, if you have perfect information, if you don’t Im unsure it’s all that sensible. I’ll add that I’m, massively biased here. I can’t get travel insurance at a reasonable rate, because of being bipolar. So I don’t take it. I have zero interest in engaging in risky behaviours, my foreign excursions are mostly limited to catching up with old friends. But I’ve got a premium that at worst is 4-8x the standard normal rate. Perhaps it’s prudent on averages but it isn’t necessarily reflective of my own personal circumstances. Extrapolate this out further and it gets silly. For, whatever reason x individual isn’t willing to be vaccinated, but they’re very cautious in their day to day, mask up, adhere to social distancing etc etc. Vs someone who is vaccinated, but is massively cavalier with everything else. They’re travelling with no quarantining, they’re dropping wearing a mask etc. Who’s worse and who’s contributing more to the Covid scenario? Not to even mention if the rationale is to reduce bad health outcomes there are maybe other factors that are relevant. I think there’s a danger of utter complacency based upon one’s vaccination status that none of the other stuff is particularly important, and one is a ‘good’ person for getting their shot and that’s the end of any wider social responsibility. Bit of a tangent here, but where on your travel insurance application do you have to mention you're bipolar. I don't think I've ever seen a field with "previous conditions", let alone one that they condition your quota on, and I travel a fair bit. Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked worldnomads.com, an insurer I often used, and they definitely didn't ask about preexisting conditions before the payment page. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 23 2021 11:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Regarding Austria the fine for not taking the initial vaccines is up to 3,600 Euro, but there is also a fee of up to 1,500 Euro for not taking a booster. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-22/vaccine-holdouts-face-4-000-fine-in-austria-s-virus-crackdown Gotta say that I don't really agree with this. All you're doing is making those people believe in their conspiracy theories even more. Considering the availability of vaccines in wealthy countries, I think it is time to try the herd immunity strategy that Sweden tried early in the pandemic. Let's call it the fuck the unvaccinated strategy. Just have hospitals tell unvaccinated covid patients to go home and quarantine. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5800 Posts
On November 24 2021 04:23 andrewlt wrote: Gotta say that I don't really agree with this. All you're doing is making those people believe in their conspiracy theories even more. Considering the availability of vaccines in wealthy countries, I think it is time to try the herd immunity strategy that Sweden tried early in the pandemic. Let's call it the fuck the unvaccinated strategy. Just have hospitals tell unvaccinated covid patients to go home and quarantine. Studies show that reasoning someone out of believing in such nonsense is practically impossible. They dig in even more. Perhaps different ways of forcing them to get vaccinated are the only realistic option. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 24 2021 06:12 maybenexttime wrote: Studies show that reasoning someone out of believing in such nonsense is practically impossible. They dig in even more. Perhaps different ways of forcing them to get vaccinated are the only realistic option. I remember when the vaccine first came out there were some conspiracy theorists telling me that eventually everyone is going to have to get the vaccine or be fined/imprisoned. Honestly those people are so delusional you're never going to be able to convince them to get the vaccine. I think Austria's approach is the only reasonable approach for those crazy people. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 24 2021 09:56 JimmiC wrote: It was always going to be progressively more push to get those who didn't get it to get it, if voluntary didn't have enough people to stop the pandemic. Funny. When they came out with vaccine passports to go to restaurants or bars and I said it's not going to stop there and it's going to lead to harsher and harsher restrictions you called it a "slippery slope fallacy." Now that we've arrived at "vaccines or fines/jail" your response is "it was always going to be progressively more push." Make up your mind. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On September 28 2021 05:33 JimmiC wrote: There is a reason that slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Per usual, after you have been proven wrong you just adopt the "I always knew this was going to happen, that's just how government works." Lol... This is why I hardly ever engage with you Now this is where you typically respond with some 10-page essay of verbal diarrhea to say how this is all out of context and this is not what you were saying blah blah blah User was warned for this post. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Of course, one may argue that being imprisoned at home is less severe than having new substances jabbed into our bodies. So a gradual rollout for the latter is more legally and politically acceptable. The other alternative answer to "why force vaccination now" is that circumstances have changed. But has it? Things have improved among the vaccinated (except for elderly and vulnerable). Didn't we always know or suspected that the efficacy of vaccines wouldn't last? Anyway, the more governments turn to this reasoning, the more they open themselves to criticism that policies are being made with incomplete scientific certainty. Anyway, this is not to question the need of any mandatory vaccination policy, but rather the difficulty in execution in terms of winning public trust. Booster take up is much slower than the original vaccines. So the hesitancy for boosters will become a problem. We seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle... | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
On November 24 2021 15:03 BlackJack wrote: Yeah Okay JimmiC. I'll requote my post from September where I said the government was going to gradually make harsher and harsher restrictions and you called it a slippery slope fallacy: Per usual, after you have been proven wrong you just adopt the "I always knew this was going to happen, that's just how government works." Lol... This is why I hardly ever engage with you Now this is where you typically respond with some 10-page essay of verbal diarrhea to say how this is all out of context and this is not what you were saying blah blah blah Don't forget adding 10+ google links at the end of the post. If you disagree, he'll just say that you didn't even read them so you don't understand what he's talking about. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22281 Posts
On November 24 2021 15:40 RKC wrote: I think you can certainly argue that Delta has very much changed the circumstances. Its incredibly infectious and has completely changed the math compared to before.If a gradual mandatory vaccination policy was the plan from the very start, this is somewhat inconsistent with the strict lockdown measure early in the pandemic. Of course, one may argue that being imprisoned at home is less severe than having new substances jabbed into our bodies. So a gradual rollout for the latter is more legally and politically acceptable. The other alternative answer to "why force vaccination now" is that circumstances have changed. But has it? Things have improved among the vaccinated (except for elderly and vulnerable). Didn't we always know or suspected that the efficacy of vaccines wouldn't last? Anyway, the more governments turn to this reasoning, the more they open themselves to criticism that policies are being made with incomplete scientific certainty. Anyway, this is not to question the need of any mandatory vaccination policy, but rather the difficulty in execution in terms of winning public trust. Booster take up is much slower than the original vaccines. So the hesitancy for boosters will become a problem. We seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle... Before Delta voluntary vaccination would likely have been enough to manage it. Now it isn't. For me personally the debate about how to move forward is getting increasingly frustrating. In the Netherlands politicians are debating about moving from a corona pass for vaccinated, cured or tested to only vaccinated and cured. Effectively locking the unvaccinated out of bars, restaurants, cinema, concerts ect. A lot of parties are against it, talking about splitting society and violating peoples right. But what I never see are alternatives. The Netherlands is at the biggest peak we have ever had in number of cases. Hospitals are again filling up and becoming steadily more and more critical. People are becoming laxer in following other non-invasive measures. Something has to give, we can't keep just going and hoping it works out in the end. So what alternatives other then more restrictive measures for unvaccinated or another big lockdown for everyone is there? And another lockdown runs into the trouble of what the point is. Previously we were buying time for the vaccine rollout. That's done, everyone who wants it has it. A lockdown now doesn't solve anything, yes it would push the numbers down and relieve hospitals but only for its duration, we've be right back running headfirst into another peak on the other side of it because nothing has fundamentally changed. I can understand the resistance to more government 'interference' but I find it hard to sympathize when no one seems to come with alternatives that don't involve sticking your head in the sand and hoping this is all a bad dream. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5800 Posts
On November 24 2021 14:06 BlackJack wrote: Funny. When they came out with vaccine passports to go to restaurants or bars and I said it's not going to stop there and it's going to lead to harsher and harsher restrictions you called it a "slippery slope fallacy." Now that we've arrived at "vaccines or fines/jail" your response is "it was always going to be progressively more push." Make up your mind. Because it is a slippery slope fallacy. It's not vaccine passports that led to harsher measures. That's utter nonsense. It's the delta variant and insufficient vaccination rate that led to harsher measures. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26664 Posts
If, on the other hand you’re making the observation that a precedence for mandates is established with a particular goal, in this case reducing spread/hospitalisations, and, in some capacity that end goal isn’t met, then it’s logical that the scope will be expanded to attempt to hit that goal. They’re superficially similar, but different arguments. As everyone in this thread knows by now my reading comprehension and memory are both pretty ropey, but I think Blackjack has mostly been making the latter argument, the non-slippery slope one. Some posters have got their rubber tire out and had a good wee ride down the slippery slope at almost any available opportunity, but I don’t think Blackjack is making arguments on that basis. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45678 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 24 2021 21:01 WombaT wrote: The application here of the slippery slope is some variant of ‘if the government seizes control here, what else will they do?’ Or an inference that they’ll just keep expanding the scope of mandates for some nebulous goal. If, on the other hand you’re making the observation that a precedence for mandates is established with a particular goal, in this case reducing spread/hospitalisations, and, in some capacity that end goal isn’t met, then it’s logical that the scope will be expanded to attempt to hit that goal. They’re superficially similar, but different arguments. As everyone in this thread knows by now my reading comprehension and memory are both pretty ropey, but I think Blackjack has mostly been making the latter argument, the non-slippery slope one. Some posters have got their rubber tire out and had a good wee ride down the slippery slope at almost any available opportunity, but I don’t think Blackjack is making arguments on that basis. Yes, precisely. It's the difference between a slippery slope and the Boiling Frog. It's obvious from that post I was going for the latter metaphor. JimmiC just likes to poorly apply the term slippery slope to arguments he disagrees with because he thinks it makes him win the argument, even though as DarkPlasmaBall pointed out, a slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy if there is evidence for them. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs herO
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs Solar
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
