Maybe they see numbers heading down, and this is a move which looks politically savvy – like Scotland announcing its own special version of everything England does 
Now that it has been confirmed that the vaccines prevent transmission of the virus almost as good as infection, I feel like the discussion about wheter vaccinated people should get their rights back (mislabelled as “vaccine privileges” here in Germany) will erupt anew and in force.
Several high ranking judges have already commented that further restricting the activities of vaccinated people, who thus pose no or minimal threat of infection to others, is unconstitutional. I bet that fairly soon, someone will bring such a case before the courts, possibly the Constitutional Court itself, and then politicians will fail terribly with their fake-solidarity strategy of “no privileges for vaccinated persons until everyone got a chance to be vaccinated”.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It would be quite absurd if at the end, those countries who forego the European certifications and buy what they can will be much better off than those who wait for Godot.
We are only talking a couple of months after all. Everybody will be vaccinated in September instead of July. In the grand scheme of things, this means nothing. What means something politically and amongst the public is that the actual vaccines used are:
If that is questioned, then the “public imagination” will go wild, and this will make lots of fuzz, and be very bad for the whole vaccine program. We have to live after vaccination also. I wonder how long it takes before we start the hear about “long vaccine side effects”. Practical experience with the vaccines has shown that Pfeizer is better than expected, AZ is worse than expected (in more than one way). The Chinese vaccine(s) and Sputnik are also very good, Sputnik in particular.
Personally I couldn’t care less which vaccine, who makes then and where, but given a choice, I for sure would take one with the least fuzz and most “good vibes” associated with it. Right now that is Pfeizer and Sputnik, and only the Pfeizer is available to me (of those two, but there are others of course).
MedEwok wrote:
Good job, Norway, I’d say…
It’s actually rather surprising to me. It for sure has been bad for hotels, restaurants, concerts, airlines, those kind of things, but everything else is going just fine. This week it is winter holydays, and all the ski resorts are filled with people. GA has been a blast here without all these Boeings in the way Utterly bad for Norwegian of course.
The ones who have had it bad is the old people at institutions. Very strict visiting rules (gone now due to vaccines). Then there are the students at universities. Imagine as first year student, not knowing any other, and then to start with online lectures. Not being able to meet others, to socialize, party, having a good time. That must be a very lonely and utterly boring experience. I’m sure lots of them meet up anyway, but that’s not the point.
For the majority of the population, it hasn’t been difficult in any way. We have lived our lives as usual. No Grand Canaria, no Prague/Berlin for pre-Christmas stuff, replaced with other stuff here in Norway. In my simple minded view, I am more surprised that lots of other countries have done so bad, even though they have had medieval looking lock downs and whatnot.
MedEwok wrote:
Several high ranking judges have already commented that further restricting the activities of vaccinated people, who thus pose no or minimal threat of infection to others, is unconstitutional. I bet that fairly soon, someone will bring such a case before the courts, possibly the Constitutional Court itself, and then politicians will fail terribly with their fake-solidarity strategy of “no privileges for vaccinated persons until everyone got a chance to be vaccinated”.
It’s hard to see how this can be worked out in the real world.
Government messaging has been that we vaccinate the most vulnerable first to prevent the most deaths. The alternative approach would have been to vaccinate the ‘spreaders’ (younger and more mobile) first which would probably have brought cases down much more quickly, but would have appeared heartless so was unworkable politically. Now to tell people that you will be ‘released’ essentially based on age….. I’m not sure that’s going to fly. The young already (even pre-Covid) feel shafted in favour of the old, and the prospect of months where they can’t go to pubs or restaurants but the pensioners can is a step too far.
There is pretty much zero talk of ‘vaccine privileges’ in the UK, and that is with our media that notoriously needs no invitation to speculate. I think it’s acknowledged across the board to be unworkable and fundamentally unfair. In any case, we didn’t begin the programme with any sort of tagging or certifying, so coming up with a workable and secure system of proof would be an enormous challenge.
LeSving wrote:
have no side effects -
Side effects are perfectly acceptable, and what we have seen so far (from all the vaccines) is just completely insignificant in terms of how side effects in general are viewed. Most medications have them. In some cases, pretty horrific side effects are tolerated because the option of not taking the medication is worse. A sore arm or feeling a bit rubbish for a few days just does not register vs what is being done here.
MedEwok wrote:
I feel like the discussion about wheter vaccinated people should get their rights back (mislabelled as “vaccine privileges” here in Germany) will erupt anew and in force.
Yes: I fear, they will!
MedEwok wrote:
I bet that fairly soon, someone will bring such a case before the courts, possibly the Constitutional Court itself, and then politicians will fail terribly with their fake-solidarity strategy of “no privileges for vaccinated persons until everyone got a chance to be vaccinated”.
Yes, might happen – but the effect on society and economy would be devastating in real life.
Just imagine that restaurants (only one example) are no longer closed by executive order but are free to open if (and only if) all employees are vaccinated.
First all public aids for such businesses will be ceased immediately – if it is not for compensation effects of an executive order such subsidies to local businesses are outright against European law. It’s no longer the public’s fault but that of the shop owner if he doesn’t take care of the right personnel and to get vaccinated himself. Same is most likely true for private business interruption insurances.
Second, the business might be legally allowed to open – but will it be economically feasible? What share of the customer population of a typical restaurant will be already vaccinated when the court ruling comes into effect? Eve if the owner manages to find vaccinated staff, will he also find enough vaccinated customers?
Third: Control. How are we going to control that really only vaccinated people exercise these freedoms. Even today where it is extremely clear that whenever police sees 5 adult persons sticking together in public w/o masks and distance they are in breach of the rules it is difficult enough to enforce. What happens if they need to check documents before they can know? What happens with people that forgot the documents at home? Lifting the restrictions for vaccinated people would basically make it impossible to enforce any restrictions on any people effectively – with the respective risk for the next wave.
More generally: If a court would pass such a ruling it would imho be the best thing that can happen to our politicians. Defining a plan to reduce restrictions is more difficult than to impose them – and only few people are currently practically thinking about that. An “It’s the court’s fault that business go bust” is a politicians dream…
LeSving wrote:
In my simple minded view, I am more surprised that lots of other countries have done so bad, even though they have had medieval looking lock downs and whatnot.
Well… I would say that at least since the summer of last year, it has been clear that factors other than lockdowns are the most important ones.
Graham wrote:
Side effects are perfectly acceptable, and what we have seen so far (from all the vaccines) is just completely insignificant in terms of how side effects in general are viewed. Most medications have them. In some cases, pretty horrific side effects are tolerated because the option of not taking the medication is worse. A sore arm or feeling a bit rubbish for a few days just does not register vs what is being done here
That was not my point. The point is, in the eyes of the public, AZ is bad, Pfizer is good, and side effects is one factor. As far as I’m concerned AZ with their dodgy business practice, and with good help from the UK I have to include, has shoot themselves in the foot. AZ is full of bad vibes, while Pizer is only good vibes. The public loves good vibes, and hate bad vibes. And since AZ doesn’t really do any difference now regarding the vaccine uptake, they cannot produce enough, it is better all things considered, to simply disregard AZ altogether as a vaccine. Ramping up production of Pfizer (for instance) is a much, much better way forward, and several others are coming on line.
AZ is full of bad vibes, while Pizer is only good vibes
That must be the work of local media/politics, because the two are very similar in performance, side effects, etc.
Peter wrote:
That must be the work of local media/politics, because the two are very similar in performance, side effects, etc.
I also don’t recognise that at all from the Swedish discussion.
