Malibuflyer wrote:
That is like stating we do not need laws, courts or police because everyone who needs protection of his property should by a gun and not expect others to protect his property on his behalf.
Well, not really.
First, you need the law to be somewhat stable to know what is allowed or not.
And not anyone can ask for your ID and medical data while you just want to live your life (re our thread on police rights and ID checks).
What Macron announced is being asked twice a day (in malls, trains, restaurants, cinemas, theaters etc…) for ID and vaccine certificate (by any employee, like a waiter).
After months and months of swearing they would NEVER EVER EVER do this. Our higher courts wrote a few weeks ago that such measures would be totally illegal.
To me it looks more like “(mainland) Chinese policing” than a liberal justice system.
The only countries I know doing this are PRC and Pakistan. Please tell me if there are others.
Trains for example work normally with mandatory masks (basic common sense) for over a year and it doesn’t cause any issue.
Why mandate the vaccine ? It is pure legal pressure to force a behaviour they don’t want to be responsible for (otherwise they would just mandate vax to the whole population).
Jujupilote wrote:
First, you need the law to be somewhat stable to know what is allowed or not.
And not anyone can ask for your ID and medical data while you just want to live your life (re our thread on police rights and ID checks).
That sounds like a contradiction:
If we “need a law” to tell what is right or wrong, then the law could say that you need to present ID and vaccination status whenever I want it.
There is no fundamental difference between a law that says “I must not take your car away even if I’m stronger than you” and a law that says “I must not risk to infect you even if my body would cope with an infection better”.
This is not GA because it doesn’t affect GA flights (reasons already discussed)…
Apart from the sensational language (typical of the Daily Trash) this is one of the rare reports of how this (apparently) actually works. The BBC never carried any story of what happens if you fail the pre-return test, and the airline doesn’t somehow sort you out. Well, logically, they probably can’t fly back somebody testing positive!
Mildly amusing is that these girls went to Zakynthos which is the place in Greece for the “get p1ssed and puke all over the pavement at 3am” parties, and, yeah, if there was any CV19 going spare, they would have got it…
Presumably, a smile at a Greek waiter and they will get regular “exercise allowance” 
– better than the UK solitary confinement option in a potentially windowless hotel at Stansted airport.
Jujupilote wrote:
The only countries I know doing this are PRC and Pakistan. Please tell me if there are others.
Ireland is implementing it. Currently you can’t eat indoors in restaurants (outdoors is possible, but not great given our weather!). Pubs have been closed since March 2020 (at least for indoor service).
In the next week or so, restaurants and pubs will be allowed to serve people indoors, provided they have evidence of the client being fully vaccinated.
There was a recent news article here that summarised the position in other EU countries. As I understand it the following European countires require evidence of vaccine or covid test:
Austria
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Latvia
Lithuania
Monaco
Moscow (Russia)
Slovenia
Soon to be Ireland.
The article was written 3 weeks ago, so likely to have have been changes since then.
Article/
Malibuflyer wrote:
There is no fundamental difference between a law that says “I must not take your car away even if I’m stronger than you” and a law that says “I must not risk to infect you even if my body would cope with an infection better”.
Except that the first is accepted by just about everyone on the planet, certainly every civilised person in every civilised society.
The second is a crazy notion based on the demonstrably incorrect idea that it might be possible to prevent endemic circulation of this virus and its derivatives throughout the world for the foreseeable future.
Put simply, anyone who believes that they have the right (or even the possibility) of proceeding with the rest of their lives with no risk of exposure to this virus is trying to hold back the tide.
Taking vaccines (or wearing masks) won’t compare to carry guns to exercise my “2nd amendment right” in my garden full of kittens, I think enlisting in police/army would be a better comparasion there is always a fine line between civil duties & individual liberties, in any society, there is always some who will take the collective burden of the former and some who selfishly enjoy the latter, with CV19 the fine line is actually given by the amount of individual liberties (1-1/R0), so not everybody can keep their head in the sand: the choices are pretty obvious it’s accepting the vaccine or the risk of getting the virus…
I am not sure if any country will be back to full lockdowns? vs mandating vaccinations/tests?
Dublin, it will be mandatory for indoor and outdoor eating, even just you and your wife. Or your kids too, it is mandatory above age 12.
It makes zero sense.
If Parliament voted license removal or jail for any 1mph speeding, or banned any car above 150hp, , it would be 100% legal and aimed toward a worthy cause.
But any objective doesn’t allow any mean (I don’t know the english quote).
I am sure we are heading to a new lockdown, vax or not. I wait for Macron’s speech announcing and trying to make us forget his current tactic Of course the pro vax will accuse the non vaxed !
Did they hire and train ICU assistants ? Buy respirators ? Oh, probably forgot…
Edit : we are already in a context of shrinking liberties. Our same government is already about to forbid homeschooling. Why ? Nobody know the true reason (the official reason is about terrorism, who can believe it?).
Graham wrote:
Put simply, anyone who believes that they have the right (or even the possibility) of proceeding with the rest of their lives with no risk of exposure to this virus is trying to hold back the tide.
And furthermore there are reasonable limits that apply to accommodation of a tiny minority at the expense of both the majority and in fact everybody who relies on a productive society – notably including those who for whatever reason have less capability than average and particularly need a normal society to support them.
If my body and vaccine tolerance were compromised in this situation, in a way representative of a very small fraction of the population, there is precisely no chance that I would be so egocentric as to want to impose my individual needs on normal people living a normal life. The idea that law might promote me in doing so, or force others to wrap their lives around me is simply wacko.
If adults want to be largely immune, they need to get vaccinated. If they choose not to do so, that’s fine, obviously they are choosing to live with the consequences that for most of them won’t be great. The tiny fraction of people who cannot be protected by vaccine or natural immunity are going to have an altered lifestyle if they want to avoid CV-19 completely. That is not exactly a new concept, it’s normal life in the real world with the personal responsibility that comes with it.
Silvaire wrote:
The tiny fraction of people who cannot be protected by vaccine or natural immunity are going to have an altered lifestyle if they want to avoid CV-19 completely.
Just to be completely transparent: This “altered lifestyle” basically comprises of dying pretty fast. That is because many of these people do not have the choice – even not theoretically – to be in close physical contact to others (at least if they want to life). Many of them are depending on some kind of care.
Yes, I can imagine such a completely liberal “if you don’t like it go away” kind of society.
If you do not like that I’m naked in public, you have to go away.
If you don’t like that the people on the next table in the restaurant smoke (or create a bad smell “the natural way”) you can stay at home.
If you don’t like that the guy next to you in the movies shouts into his mobile during the entire film then don’t visit the movies.
If you think it’s to risky for your children to play outside if I drive along your house at 120mph with my Porsche then keep your children in house.
Yes, we can imagine that and it would work. But no, this is (fortunately) how our society works and this would not be a world I would live in.
In the world we live (and in which I want to live) we consider for whom it is a lesser burden take care of the society. Is it a lesser burden for me to get the jab or for the non vaccinable to stay at home the entire life? Easy answer if you ask me!
Freedom of the individual has a high value without any doubt – but for those people who want to be part of any kind of society it is limited. Not because of the “others” or even the “evil government” but because that very individual has made the choice to accept the rules. It’s exactly the pacte social that Rousseau described. This contract is an all or nothing thing – one can not cherry pick “I accept this clause because it serves me well but I do not accept this other clause because it is only good for others”
Graham wrote:
Except that the first is accepted by just about everyone on the planet,
Actually not: There is a tremendous amount of research that if you take away the risk of personal consequences (i.e. guarantee that it will not be prosecuted/punished) the concept of “you shalt not covet…” is by far not accepted by “just about everyone”.
It is a rule that at some point in time a majority agreed upon and then imposed onto the whole society by means of law, police, fines, etc…
Malibuflyer wrote:
In the world we live (and in which I want to live) we consider for whom it is a lesser burden take care of the society. Is it a lesser burden for me to get the jab or for the non vaccinable to stay at home the entire life? Easy answer if you ask me!
But that is not the balance that is in play. The real balance is whether almost everybody has to compromise living a normal life forever so that almost nobody can benefit specifically, and which will inevitably result in less for all more broadly. It’s a slippery slope.
Honestly, I read some of the attitudes here and
I think Europe is going completely nuts again as it did at least three times in the 20th century. Good luck with sorting it out, but when it goes off the rails I wouldn’t expect to be rescued from it again.
