Hacker News Reader

Comment by moroz2137 | Hacker News Reader

A point a lot of people seem to miss is that there is a huge difference between making a vaccination mandatory, taking full responsibility for any side effects, and forcing people to get vaccinated by depriving them of their basic rights if they don't, but not taking any responsibility for side effects.

View on HN

unwilling to get vaccinated is at least from a legal perspective not a "basic right". Austria had compulsory vaccination before (Smallpox). Measles vaccination is mandatory in Germany. The law is that during a pandemic the country is able to impose mandatory vaccinations.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy#Compulsory_...

I think even from a practical perspective it is shaky - forced medical procedures are distasteful but they are already morally on the table for things like insanity and similar things where decision making is impaired. So the raw power to do it is probably there and the ethical line is always subject to negotiation.

But how often are emergency powers of this nature rolled back? If governments put the monitoring systems in place to enforce a vaccine mandate it is never going to go away. It'll be War On Terror all over again, the theatre for getting on a plane is still ridiculous 20 years later. The vaccine mandate tracking and enforcement seems a lot more invasive than that.

We don't have mandatory smallpox vaccines in Austria anymore, even though we had them in the past. I really see no way how these energency powers will stay.

But you're using that precedent to mandate another treatment, so in a way they did stay around.

But is that a bad thing necessarily? If we have powers that we can use in emergency situations and there's precedent they will only get used in such, isn't that the ideal state?

Looking at the US, because they keep good records on emergencies, it has been unlikely for an emergency situation to end from around 1994. There appears to still be an ongoing emergency that started in 1979.

This is a relative strong precedent in the west of emergency powers being used in an ongoing way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...

I'm not sure the US counts as precedent for Austria or that Austria even counts as "The West" seeing how it's a constitutionally neutral country

It's not as clear cut as you say. The German constitutional court has not given its last word on the topic, even though they said in a preliminary decision that sufficient protection against Measles outweighs the right of unvaccinated children to go to school.

Nobody's actually forcing one to get vaccinated against measles in Germany. It's only mandatory for kids which go to daycare, kindergarten or school and their caregivers and teachers. OTOH, going to school is mandatory, so for kids it is pretty much mandatory by extension.

That is right and very important to note. German law also enables employers in the realm of those institutions to terminate employment of non-vaccinated employed caregivers. There are some very tricky edge cases like some vaccinations done in the former GDR which are not sufficient - it has something to do with the vaccination being a living/dead shot but I’m not a physician.

Generally speaking, the European view on freedom firmly remains rooted in Kant-ian ethics and always weighs personal or individual freedoms versus the impact on society. This of course heavily influenced the philosophy of law and in direct consequence the laws and constitutions all over Europe.

We have free universal healthcare in Austria. And the state carries responsibility for problems as long as a vaccine has been officially approved. It was possible to get COVID vaccine before approval (off label it's called) but you assume responsibility.

Also mandatory vaccines are not new either

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211029-why-mandatory-va...

Well, people still have the ability to refuse at great costs to themselves and ultimately the state itself. I think the low level of protection and associated risks cannot establish enough room for a vaccination mandate. And that mandate is also again something different than a pass. I am vaccinated but I won't use a green pass. That shit won't ever go away again and we would see this every winter when the flu hits a bit harder.

Shouldn't the medical companies carry the responsibility?

For Austria they are completely new... And AFAIK there's no European country which requires all adults to get any vaccine, it's mostly kids and specific professions.

But... If you vaccinate all kids, you've effectively vaccinated all future adults. As of today, most countries in the EU, including Austria, have their populations vaccinated against a bunch of things ( measles, tuberculosis, etc.) by mandates for child vaccination. Just because now it's to be done to adults doesn't change things much IMHO. If Covid stays with us, a vaccine against it will probably be administered to future children as a matter of policy like tuberculosis today.

For the most time we had vaccination quotas beyond 95% with voluntary vaccinations. Truth is, the performance of the current ones is mediocre at best as Covid already mutated. This isn't comparable with vaccines for a lot of other diseases aside maybe for the flu.

What brought us into this mess was idiots in charge and part of the population being exceptionally scared. We will continue this way and the situation won't improve until we are in a state like Sweden or Spain.

Only for the cases where vaccines are effective for life (tetanus is not, as an example).

And I don't think it is something to celebrate to force adults to live with the consequences of their parents decisions for life. I am not a parent, but would vaccinate my for all disease still endemic in my area. I would still worry that I might fuck them up permanently doing so.

> tetanus is not, as an example

And at least in some places, you have to redo a tetanus shot at different ages to keep up the immunity.

>If you vaccinate all kids, you've effectively vaccinated all future adults

Not when the COVID-19 vaccine lasts 8 months.

It will depend on the specific vaccine. The tetanus, diphtheria and another one last 10 years and are redone occasionally, so the same logic applies.

Not quite, smallpox vaccination was first enforced in 1939 (I know..) and then again post-WW2 in 1948. We do have a precendent!

Apparently what a lot of people seem to miss is that this is not what is happening.

Who knows what's happening? Everything depends on the enforcement, and there's no details on that yet except that it will be a "Verwaltungsstrafe" not to get vaccinated.

This would be a fine, but that's not saying much.

> but not taking any responsibility for side effects.

Maybe you missed that, but the US Government does take responsibility for side effects.

VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [1]

VICP = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [2] -> this is for injuries you suffer from any vaccine

CICP = Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program -> this is for things such as the Covid vaccine

[1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/

[2] https://injurycompensation.hrsa.gov/

Covid vaccines are not covered under the VICP program: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/covered-vaccines/i... They are covered under https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp Which has notable differences (worse) in injuries covered, appeal possibilities and benefits. Differences: https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-vicp

That's exactly what I was saying.

Would you mind explaining the difference between how these two scenarios play out, in practice?

In a country with a sensible healthcare system there will likely be no difference. In the US, say, there may well be. For example, if there are health consequences due to taking the vaccine, who pays?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com