Given that the currently available vaccines are all non-sterilising (do not prevent infection and transmission), it is difficult to see this as a measure aimed at controlling transmission.<p>It is <i>terrifying</i> to me that a government is confining healthy people to their homes for refusing a treatment that they (rightly or wrongly) believe is not in their best interests.<p>Of course, recorded cases are likely to fall naturally at some point. If the fall is coincident with the introduction of this rule, we can expect the same across the West.
> we don't live in a police state...<p>Shocking statement that demonstrates more attempt to spin than inform.<p>Supposing we take the webster dictionary definition of police state: "political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"<p>Considering this effects up to 40% of the population according to the article it checks quite a few boxes:<p>1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely).<p>2. Repressive government control: There's no argument this fits the strictest definition of repressive.<p>3. Exercise of power by the police: There's no statement they'll use "secret police" but certainly the enforcement will be aggressive and severe to keep 40% of the population locked down. It's not like watching one person's house. That's a lot of people.<p>For the record, I am not against vaccines. I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. The "price to pay in society" isn't to violate your bodily autonomy, and therefore the non-aggression principle, but make a personal decision to avoid or interact with people you disagree with.<p>It turns out that all it took to test the waters of liberty and free will was deciding what you want to, and what you dont want to, put in your body. You would even think this would be a cut and dry case considering the alleged "libertarian" leanings of HN, but to my surprise it seems many people are willing to sacrifice this fundamental liberty for ephemeral (possibly even negative) gain. We're 2 years into 15 days to flatten the curve. We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down <i>permanently</i>. At that point they may as well be thrown in prisons, or camps, or whatever the dictator says to do. Democracies can't simply hold you down and inject you with chemicals but coercing these people with objectively police state style tactics is the way tyrants dressed as democratic leaders effectively accomplish the same thing.
How many Austrians have already recovered from Covid infection and thus have long-lasting nasal/mucosal sterilizing immunity that stops both infection and transmission, unlike vaccines which reduce severity of symptoms and risk of death?<p>CDC estimates 146 million Americans have already been infected, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...</a>
All of the headlines I've seen on this are misleading. It's not actually a lockdown for unvaccinated people, it's a lockdown for unvaccinated and never infected people (see <a href="https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-information/entry-regulations" rel="nofollow">https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-in...</a>).<p>I think this would surprise a lot of Americans at least, since their government pretends that prior infections don't matter.<p>That said, it does send a chill up my spine to read about a country locking down a specific subset of their population.
Meanwhile, Sweden enjoys extremely low case numbers and fatalities.<p>Perhaps Sweden did the right thing? Unthinkable, let's repeat failed policies ad infinitum!
Good for them.<p>I wish other governments did the same. We could all work together to get rid of this disease, but this will never happen if we let people that refuse medicine to walk freely contaminating others.
You can leave your place also for any physical and mental recreation. Otherwise you can buy everything on the internet so this is mainly bad for the local shops. The gov is rather hysterical because of the recent corruption scandal
With the side-effect that if one is vaccinated with the Janssen vacin, one cannot enter Austria.
But also, in the Netherlands, booster shots for those people are not available.
So quite a few people are now prohibited from entering Austria just because to get assigned to have the Janssen vacin instead of e.g. Biontech/Pfizer.
"In the fall of 1988, the Los Angeles Times published one of the first feature stories in the U.S. media about the Cuban HIV sanatorium system. The article quoted a New York City doctor that had visited Havana, who called the institutions 'pleasant but frightening,' and that their use as a public health response to HIV could 'only be termed totalitarian.'"<p>'From 1986 until 1994, Cuba quarantined people living with HIV in medical facilities called sanatorios, or sanatoriums.'<p><a href="https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/29/cuba%E2%80%99s-hiv-sanatoriums-prisons-or-public-health-tool" rel="nofollow">https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/29/cuba%E2%80%99s-hiv-sanator...</a>
According to this source [0], it looks like something like 80% of the population is vaccinated. If they are still implementing lockdowns with an 80% vaccination rate, maybe it's time to acknowledge that the efficacy numbers we've been fed are a little optimistic?<p>This is hardly unique to australia. UK, Ireland, Israel, and other highly vaccinated nations are experiencing record case numbers. Where is the skepticism? I feel like 80% of the population has gone totally crazy, completely unwilling to question the safety or efficacy of the vaccines, as though they were sacrosanct.<p>0. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2021/nov/08/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-australia-vaccination-rate-progress-how-many-people-vaccinated-percent-tracker-australian-states-number-total-daily-live-data-stats-updates-news-schedule-tracking-chart-percentage-new-cases-today" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-inter...</a><p>Edit: article is about austria. Still, the accusations of being "antivaxx" are dishonest. Not all vaccines are created equal. And in any case a ≈65% vaccination rate failing to contain the virus still does not bode well for estimates of effectiveness. Something's not right and the discussion needs to be had.
Austria also discusses switching to 1G what would mean that only people who count as fully vaccinated would not be locked down but there is still discussion on the definition and limitations of this.<p>There is also further discussion about requiring PCR-Tests for the non restricted groups.
I think this isn't enough and wrong way to do things. Only true way would be maximum of 24h old test result. Anything else is putting others including vaccinated people in danger.
Can we find a source for this story reputable enough that the sidebar isn't half "Amber" alerts?<p>[EDIT:] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/world/europe/austria-chancellor-lockdown-unvaccinated.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/world/europe/austria-chan...</a>
> The vaccines don't stop people from spreading it though...? (dead comment that deserves a reply)<p>It is ostensibly for their own good and to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system that, coincidently, has reduced capacity over 2020.
Litmus test on whether this is about "health" and "science" rather than mindless compliance: are people who already had covid exempt from the lockdown and vaccination? And if not, why not?