Latvia bans unvaccinated lawmakers from voting, docks pay
reuters.com
reuters.com
This only applies to 9 out of 100 members of parliament, and was support by 62 out of 100, so it's not like this is some stealth power grab - assuming all nine of the dissenting MPs are from the Opposition, the Opposition has gone from 38 votes out of 100 to 29.
That said, I don't know how the Latvian constitution works, but I'm wagering the Government can't push through anything with 62 votes for, 29 against that it couldn't already push through with 62 for, 38 against.
The whole point of a democracy is that you can vote out the majority ruling party. Once they start banning minority oppositions from voting at all, it's dead, it's over. The voters who selected those MPs are disenfranchised, it's not a democracy anymore. Very simple.
I'd simply state that many public health measures are mandated. This is just another one.
You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't have unprotected sex without disclosing it when you know you're HIV positive. You can't sell black tar heroin.
You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.
You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.
Also - hospitals have limited capacity designed for non-pandemic times. Vaccination against Covid prevents excessive demand from a preventable severe illness overwhelming healthcare systems, causing even more excess deaths, even if they didn't die from Covid, they died due to Covid.
Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.
I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others, and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.
None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, so they don't even fall into the same category. Thus, this argument is disingenuous.
> You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.
This is reasonable for a vaccine that has been well-tested using already proven technology, and by "well-tested", I don't just mean widely tested. I mean tested long-term with a control group. The COVID vaccines are not tested in that way. The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.
Also, it's only reasonable because such countries require it of non-citizens, who don't get the same privileges as citizens of the country do. When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power, and such an argument is disingenuous.
> You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.
That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Nothing the medical system did changed that. In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths.
Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes.
In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.
> Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.
Sure thing. The problem? These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.
Oh, and when there was such a law? It was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the only penalty was a one-time fine of $150 in today's money. I'd gladly pay such a fine and move on with my life.
However, that law and Supreme Court ruling were then used by the Supreme Court to justify the forced sterilization of women. It was playing with fire then, and it's playing with fire now. Do you want to live in a world where the government can make such medical decisions for you?
> I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others,
See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.
> and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.
Ill with COVID? Fine. I accept that. Ill with anything else? That would be disingenuous and pure power-seeking.
But even if ill with COVID, the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it means that you want such people to recover to them be useful as a shield against COVID for everyone else with their contribution to herd immunity.
Thus, in any case, denying medical treatment to the unvaccinated is not about health, it's about power.
Fair, I'll concede that they differ in that regard. And that other vaccines mandated for various roles were tested far more slowly than these ones.
However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them.
> The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.
Well, the control group has well and truly self-selected now, wouldn't you agree?
> When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power
I can't comment on this, as it's an American political thing. However, I'd be surprised if illegal immigrants working as nurses or teachers weren't also required to be vaccinated.
> That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared.
Well, dedicated medical professionals and ICU units existed before COVID appeared. So yeah. And it's not like Covid-19 is the first respiratory virus they've encountered.
> In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths
I'm sure there is such speculation, however, if you're being put on a ventilator, it's because you're close to death anyway. If you have any research on the increased death allegations, I'll read it with an open mind.
> Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes. In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.
I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida?
> These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.
This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so. That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such.
> See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.
Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected?
> Ill with COVID?
Yeah, I was implying it, but should've said it explicitly.
And my apologies, I was being glib to sound cool in an Internet fight (And I realise in the cold light of the new day that I failed miserably in that regard).
In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed.
Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
> the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it
I'm still unsure what you mean by this. Are you referring to people who've had it once, and are then reinfected? Are they really non-infectious when reinfected? There's plenty of reports of reinfection.
If you have anything I could read on their ability to transmit it (or lack thereof) on subsequent infection, I'd read it with an open mind also.
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403777/
[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487669/
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016344532...
[2]: https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/repeat-covid-19-positive-...
Myocarditis/pericarditis is much more likely the younger you are. It is not rare, according to the standards by which we have judged other vaccines, which have been pulled over less.
> I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida?
Yeah, higher than New York, as far as I know. The vast majority of deaths in the early part of the pandemic came from New York.
> This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so.
No, that power was never given in the US Constitution. Executive edicts only apply to the Executive Branch. In other words, the President can only issue orders to the employees in the Executive Branch; he cannot issue orders to ordinary citizens. And he can only issue orders to the Executive Branch in order to enforce laws passed by Congress.
By the way, Congress also does not have that power.
> That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such.
No, unfortunately, the Roberts Court will bend over backward to give the government what it wants. See the opinion that declared Obamacare Constitutional. The legal reasoning is still considered one of the weakest the Supreme Court has ever published.
> Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected?
Correct.
> In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed.
And I can understand that. I have a relative who is rabidly anti-COVID vaccine. She is...unhealthy, and because of her health choices, she would probably benefit from the vaccine. But her radical opinions are blinding her to the best course of action for herself.
I'm not rabidly anti-COVID vaccine; I want people to have the choice to get it or not.
> Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
Agreed.
I have decided to not get it for several reasons, not least of which is that I am staying healthy, but I also have seen evidence that pilots seem to be affected by it more than the average person (high altitude seems to be a factor). I want to be a pilot, so that worries me.
But I also made the decision that if I get COVID and need to go to the hospital, I'm SOL because I've made that choice. My wife has been told to not take me to the hospital in that situation.
People can claim I would cave if it happened, and while that might be fair, we never know unless it does. But for now, I do not want to contribute to the lack of hospital beds. That's the sacrifice I intend to make for society because yes, I agree that sacrifices need to be made in a pandemic.
> Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
I agree with you completely here. It's disingenuous of them. Downright dishonest.
> I'm still unsure what you mean by this. Are you referring to people who've had it once, and are then reinfected? Are they really non-infectious when reinfected? There's plenty of reports of reinfection.
Correct. Non-infectious when reinfected.
> If you have anything I could read on their ability to transmit it (or lack thereof) on subsequent infection, I'd read it with an open mind also.
Nothing to read except an admission from the CDC that they have no data showing that the naturally immune transmit COVID when reinfected. [1]
I can guarantee you that the CDC would be publishing that information if they had it because it undermines the credibility of natural immunity and bolsters the credibility of the vaccines.
Instead, they do not even gather that data, so either it's not important (it is), or they don't want to have it because it would undermine their agenda. There might be another reason, but after all of the lying they admitted to, I'm not inclined to trust them.
[1]: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/145895373739794841...
At some point you'll have to accept that death is a natural part of life, but I have a feeling that you're willing to sell yourself and the future of everyone who comes after you for a tiny bit of safety that is actually biologically infeasible before you need to look reality in the eye.
The virus wouldn’t have a high survival rate if we didn’t have these measures. Otherwise hospitals would be completely overrun, which would not only increase death rates directly related to COVID but also those of people with any other illness who rely on hospital care to survive.
You can’t have it both ways: if you’re against the measures then you have to accept what that would mean.
Where's your proof? Seriously. How do you know it would be worse? We might all have herd immunity by now and not be worried about it.
Also, if people are so worried about hospital capacity, why are they firing doctors and nurses who haven't had the shot, but have natural immunity? The CDC recently admitted they have no data showing that people with natural immunity spread COVID [1]. Yet the vaccinated can (and if you don't believe that, then you have not been paying attention). So why are naturally-immune doctors and nurses being fired when we supposedly need them most, to stop ICU's from being overwhelmed?
The reason is because it's not about health. It's about control.
So when you bring up the argument that ICU's are being overwhelmed, I just ignore it; it's a distraction. You just don't know that yet.
[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/12/cdc-admits-it-has-no-ev...
But the data showing that mass-vaccination has reduced deaths and kept ICUs from overflowing is so blatantly obvious that you have to be exercising willful ignorance to not accept it. It's basically flat-earth level of denialism. You can see the direct correlation between vaccination rates and deaths/ICU intakes by looking at the data.
That begs the question: what happens when their efficacy wears off, as it appears to do?
It's not a flat-earth level of denialism. It's taking into account all factors, and in science, all factors matter. [2]
[1]: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spr...
[2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...
Yes, they certainly have.
Look at the ratio of cases to deaths in the data from countries where people generally believe in science and are accurately measuring data: Canada, Germany, Israel, France, etc.
Look at Portugal, with the highest vaccination rate in Europe and see how there are 3-6 deaths/day despite a resurgence in cases.
The US has a low vaccination rate, and is in complete disarray regarding COVID (in many cases simply due to the fact that each state has its own policies/problems), but most modern countries are carefully balancing policy to keep ICUs at a manageable rate.
Why not allow nurses and doctors to be unvaccinated and "keep ICU's at a manageable rate"?
Also, Israel was first to acknowledge the waning effect of vaccines.
And for Portugal, when was their vaccination campaign? Was it less than 6 months ago? If so, the vaccines have not worn off yet.
Most of them are also political opportunists, knowingly lying and manipulating the weakest in our societies.
Their political work mostly boils down to amplifying harmful misinformation and giving it legitimacy and credibility through their office — all for their selfish political ends.
That being said, they are democratically elected representatives, and banning them from the democratic process rightfully raises questions about legitimacy of such measures, regardless of morality of their political ways.
But in addressing those questions, we have to consider consequences of their political action, which are accounted in tens or even hundreds of human lives lost EACH DAY.
What do we value more? Human lives, or the right of immoral political actors to exploit the drawbacks and imperfections of our fragile democratic processes?
Sure, if we do the same for the politicians like New York's governor who forced nursing homes to take COVID-positive patients and actually killed people.
However, is there political action really killing people? The CDC had admitted that they have no data showing that naturally immune people spread the virus [1], but vaccinated people do. So perhaps those politicians are helping save lives by encouraging people to become naturally immune instead!
In other words, you assume they are killing people. That assumption is disingenuous.
> What do we value more? Human lives, or the right of immoral political actors to exploit the drawbacks and imperfections of our fragile democratic processes?
The slowness of democratic processes, and allowing people to make their own decisions are features, not bugs.
Also, the biggest killer of people throughout history has always been governments that are out of control. This is a case of a government going out of control, which has far more deadly potential than not getting vaccinated for a virus with a 99+% survival rate and where the vaccinated still spread the virus.
[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/12/cdc-admits-it-has-no-ev...
How much are people actually terrified by propaganda in media that are able to justify this decisions? Why we need to repeat history over and over?