Do Americans Still Trust Their Public Health Agencies? 

READ MORE

That’s why when reading Sebastian Schäffer’s response to my earlier article on 51łÔąĎ, I welcomed his perspective on the matter. However, I couldn’t help but notice certain misassumptions he has made regarding my stance on the pandemic and the dilemma Austria currently finds itself in. Furthermore, I would have hoped that some of the studies I previously included, pertaining to rising infection rates among those vaccinated and the efficacy of vaccines in combating new strains, would have been addressed in his piece. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of his comments and focus on the crux of the issue: the efficacy and ethical component of vaccine mandates. 

Divisional Sentiments

This ongoing pandemic has caused people from all over the world to experience a host of emotions, including apprehension, doubt and anger. Schäffer is not alone in feeling frustrated that things have “gone this far” regarding the status quo in Austria. Those who have read my article know that frustration is a key sentiment felt not only by myself, but by countless people around the globe. We need only to look at riots in the or the to confirm this.

I believe Schäffer is mistaken in assuming that mandatory vaccinations would “help to alleviate” the division in Austrian society. But don’t take my word for it. Thomas Czypionka, head of health economics and policy at the Vienna-based Institute for Advanced Studies, that a vaccine mandate “deepens the chasm in our society” and “may well serve as a strong push to more radicalization — especially with our history.”

Similar sentiments are echoed by Eva Maria Adamer-Konig, head of public health at FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences in Graz, who is of the conviction that most unvaccinated people “will probably even go into more resistance.” In an interview with Time magazine, she a pertinent study by the European Journal of Public Health in 2016 that found mandates for selected vaccinations can make people more likely to refuse other vaccinations they had previously been comfortable with. I would invite our esteemed readers to have look at the study and assess its implications for today.

Nonetheless, the question remains: How can those who have fundamentally opposing views still remain inclusive, fair and non-partisan when attempting to dissect the hard facts and plethora of information available on this subject?

Shunning Those You Politically Oppose

A recurrent theme not only in Schäffer’s response, but from many media outlets covering the recent demonstrations in Vienna was the presence of right-wing and extremist sympathizers. Schäffer affirms that hidden “reasons” were behind the massive protests in the Austrian capital on November 20 and that one should remain cautious over those who “organize and attend such protests.” To my dismay, not a single source or reference was included to provide further insight into these hidden “reasons.” It is true that among the protesters in Vienna were those from the far right. Yet, as already confirmed, the protest was not merely limited to individuals with such political leanings.

Let it be known that the ideology and policies embraced by the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) could not be more antithetical to my own political beliefs. Also, those demonstrators who wore yellow Stars of David with “unvaccinated” during the protests are not only tone-deaf, but their actions were abhorrently reprehensible. (I myself did not see any badges at the protest, but I acknowledge a few people were reported to have worn them.) But does this give us the right to shun and disenfranchise the concerns of the protesters as a collective based on the actions of certain individuals? That would be akin to trivializing and marginalizing the Black Lives Matter movement based on the violent actions of a few rioters. That sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? 

Yet even if someone is politically opposed to those who have a different view on COVID-19, does their voice bear less significance as a result, and should they be treated disparagingly? As Voltaire reportedly once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Citizens of a democratic nation have an equal say in matters pertaining to their country. That means I can protest against a common issue even with my most staunch political adversary. For one to claim that “opposition to COVID measures plays into the hands of populists … for their own agenda” is, again, an assumption without any factual clarification.

Furthermore, even if criticizing the state broadcaster ORF has been a tactic employed by the FPO, if I criticize them as well, does that automatically nullify my critique from being valid? I could not wrap my head around this faulty reductionist logic. Citing an article from The Atlantic pertaining to anti-vaxxers in Germany in which Austria is not even mentioned and correlating this by vaguely implying these two countries are similar (perhaps based on a shared history) is frankly confusing and misleading to the reader. Germany and Austria are two separate nations, with different cabinets and policies regarding COVID-19. 

Being Receptive to Data Contrary to Your Beliefs

When mentioning the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin in my earlier article, I was simply raising awareness of the manner in which certain news outlets such as CNN spun a story to serve a specific agenda. Yet since this topic has been raised in Schäffer’s response, I feel compelled to expand on this subject.

To tie FPO leader Herbert Kickl’s stance on the drug with its efficacy to treat COVID-19 is an attempt to politicize the narrative around ivermectin. For if I oppose Kickl, and if Kickl supports using the drug as a plan B, does this automatically mean I oppose ivermectin?

What is conveniently disregarded by Schäffer is a lengthy case in Uttar Pradesh, the most populated state in India. The state, which is home to around 241 million people, has fewer than 20 infections and zero deaths a day in recent months, ranking it last in cases per capita amongst India’s 28 states and eight union territories. Ivermectin has been widely distributed across the population for use during early infection with COVID-19. Further studies from in 2020, based on data pulled from a pool of 1,200 hospitals, showed that patients who received ivermectin had a “65% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation and an 83% reduction in overall death rate.” These studies probably bear greater weight in shedding light on the efficacy of the drug than a lone hospitalization case in Austria. That, in my opinion, is false balancing.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

This leads to my next question: Why are certain studies promoted and others banished from seeing the light of day? Could the fact that ivermectin, a generic drug that holds no patents, be a threat to the pharmaceutical establishment that is producing COVID-19 vaccines en masse? Also, what leverage do these pharmaceutical companies exert on political parties via lobbying and on global media through donations? 

I find these to be suitable questions, with significant relevance to the discourse and in need of further exploration. Let us not forget that the majority of people vaccinated are from the Western world, with many developing countries unable to get their hands on jabs. If that isn’t indicative of a greater two-tier system or “medical apartheid,” then I don’t know what is.

Other Metrics to Measure the Toll COVID-19 Has Taken on Us

The over-burdening of our health-care system is often mentioned and many believe a heightened vaccination rate would alleviate some of that pressure. I would be doing the readers of 51łÔąĎ and myself a disservice if I chose not to address this point. Indeed, vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalization rates and the severity of infection from COVID-19. It is also true that many of our health-care professionals are being pushed to their limits.

Schäffer ends his article by saying that the well-being of society is more important than one’s personal health. I would therefore like to discuss other metrics in assessing COVID-19‘s toll on society, irrespective of fatalities and hospitalizations. We are witnessing a staggering number of , drug , cases of , and alarming accounts of as a result of the pandemic and the ongoing lockdowns. In Austria, this year has been a for the number of husbands murdering their wives. I ask our readers to assess this phenomenon and question whether this too is deserving of our attention and alarm.

With the emergence of the new highly contagious Omicron strain, which is purported to have 30 mutations in the virus’ spike protein, will current vaccines be effective in quelling this variant? As mentioned in my previous article, COVID-19 vaccines have shown significantly less efficacy with the Delta variant — a far less contagious strain than Omicron — than natural immunity from infection, as per a in Israel.

Regarding the history of mandatory vaccinations of smallpox that many pro-vaxxers are referencing today, this comparison lacks credibility. Smallpox vaccines are effective in preventing infection, whereas those vaccinated with COVID-19 jab are just as likely to the virus as those without, as stated in my previous article. Additionally, the smallpox vaccine was first in 1796, and its implementation in England and Wales was between 1840 and 1890, which allowed over half a century to elapse for sufficient data to be gathered before the vaccine was mandatorily inoculated.

COVID-19 vaccines are barely a year old, with insufficient data regarding their long-term side effects. They are also being deployed through emergency use, which means neither governments nor pharmaceutical companies bear in their adverse effects. So, what justification will a person have when someone who is opposed to getting vaccinated is coerced by legal means to get the jab and then develops life-altering conditions such as , which has led some countries to the use of mRNA vaccines in teenagers? What other side-effects could potentially arise if vaccinating our children also becomes subsequently mandatory? Considering the data on vaccines and their efficacy has changed considerably this past year, would it not be safe to assume that it will continue to change? These are some of the material questions many people are seeking answers to.

To ensure this is not a back-and-forth exchange, this will be my final statement. I urge all of us to remove the political prism through which we view this topic. We should be receptive and fair to studies that may go against our convictions and remain inclusive in appreciating concerns from those with whom we may not agree. Only then will we be better off as individuals and society as a whole. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Debate Over COVID-19 Is Exactly What Austria Needs appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

We arrived at Rathausplatz just after noon on Saturday and were surprised to see a sizable turnout was already present. In particular, it was interesting to see people from all walks of life come together to voice their discontent with what many believe to be an authoritarian decision by our government.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions have caused heated debate in Austria and around the world. It has led to rifts within households, arguments amongst friends and clashes between political opponents. Nearly two years since the outbreak of the virus, many of us are left with questions unanswered over our inalienable rights, our livelihoods and the state of our future. What is more startling is how the narrative surrounding the coronavirus and its transmission has changed, leaving many skeptics wondering whether the Austrian government has our best interests at heart.

Whilst walking around before the march commenced, I noticed many women holding signs stating, “My Body, My Choice.” Before Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg’s press conference announcing the new restrictions and vaccine mandate, it seemed unfathomable that a democratic country like Austria could force individuals to either get vaccinated or suffer the consequences. Starting November 15, those unvaccinated were ordered to stay at home or incur a hefty fine. This was a lockdown specifically for people who chose not to receive a jab.

Despite Austria being a relatively small country, news of a national lockdown and vaccine mandate sent shivers throughout the globe. Stock markets around the world did not take the news lightly, with most tumbling considerably. My sister was surprised to hear this. “How can the policies of one small nation have such an impact on the international market?” she asked. I replied saying that many were that Germany and other countries in Europe would follow suit and that this would create a ripple effect. 

Vaccines

When the rollout of vaccines began at the beginning of 2021, many were optimistic that it was the beginning of the end for restrictions placed on our lives and that some degree of normalcy could return. Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Moderna touted their two-dose vaccines to be over 90% effective in preventing the transmissibility of the virus, and governments were quick to encourage people to get their first jab immediately.

However, as the coronavirus inevitably mutated into thousands of strains, as all viruses do, this efficacy rate was now in question. US President Joe Biden’s former senior adviser for COVID response, Andy Slavitt, in July that the dominant Delta variant is far more contagious than previous strains and will inevitably get it. Despite this, many governments around the world argued that a vaccine was paramount in slowing down the spread of the virus and that this was the soundest policy to embrace.

Yet data collected by seems to indicate otherwise. South Korea, which has vaccinated 80% of its population, has seen a considerable in COVID-19 cases. The situation is similar in the United Kingdom and Israel, which have comparably high percentages of their population vaccinated. A year-long recently revealed that those vaccinated are just as likely to transmit the virus as those who are unvaccinated.

This begs the question: Are vaccines the solution in controlling the spread of the coronavirus and stopping the global pandemic? Also, why are so many governments adamant and unrelenting in getting their populations vaccinated? 

Solidarity

As a large group of protesters could be heard coming our way on Vienna’s Ring Street, I could sense that the march was about to begin. Police were out in droves, with news outlets reporting that 1,300 officers were dispatched, many coming from rural parts of Austria. I saw a number of flags being waved, including Italian, Croatian, Slovenian, Polish and countless Austrian ones. A strong sense of solidarity was on display, and I couldn’t help but notice that many, regardless of their nationality, felt that this was their patriotic duty to turn up and speak out against what they felt was an infringement on their basic rights.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The atmosphere was positively charged. Despite the big crowds, people were cordial in making way for others, and some would strike up friendly conversations with one another. The man who was tasked with giving a speech about why we were protesting started speaking about a two-tier system that the government had created and the division it has sown between people. Demonstrators were clapping and cheering in agreement, and I found myself nodding along to the point he had raised.

I recall hearing the term “medical apartheid” a few months ago, which I found apt in describing the current status quo. It is undeniable that those who have chosen not to get vaccinated have endured social consequences in various forms. Previously, in order to visit a restaurant, museum or club in Austria, one had to provide proof of vaccination, a recent recovery from COVID-19 or a negative PCR/antigen test. The latter has since become inadmissible. Institutions such as universities do not accept proof of recovery from the virus either, known as the â€ś1G” rule, for lectures. This applies to both students and staff.

These measures are interesting considering that researchers in Israel that antibodies resulting from infection last longer against the Delta variant than those produced by two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. So, the question is what will be the next step taken by our government? Will booster shots become mandatory at some point?

Media Reporting

As my sister and I looked back at the crowds, we saw a sea of people. We couldn’t tell where it started and where it ended. I asked, “How many people do you think turned out today?” She replied, “Around 8,000 to 10,000?” That seemed to be far fewer than what I thought — more like 25,000. After a few hours and worn-out soles, we decided to go home and make use of what was left of the weekend before the lockdown begins. I arrived at my apartment and noticed my sister had sent me a message. It was an article by that said over 40,000 people attended the demonstrations in the capital.

To my dismay, the state broadcaster , along with many national and news outlets, downplayed and dismissed this protest as one organized and “led by right-wing extremists and hooligans,” which was simply inaccurate and truly unfortunate to read. This raises questions as to what motives or agendas these media organizations have and the negative consequences of their reporting on people’s trust in the veracity of their content.

I couldn’t help but think about the Joe Rogan debacle over the anti-parasitic drug and how news broadcasters such as CNN deliberately twisted information. Rogan, a well-known podcaster who chose not to get vaccinated, contracted COVID-19 a few months ago and recovered. He took ivermectin, a drug prescribed by his doctor to treat early symptoms of COVID-19. Upon taking the drug, CNN and other outlets spun the story and said he took a “,” conveniently ignoring that have provided sufficient evidence into the effectiveness of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients.

For the record, I am not against anyone getting the jab; I got vaccinated this summer to avoid restrictions on my movement and activities. Yet, just as it is a person’s right to get vaccinated, if someone opts not to do so, that is their choice. If we allow the Austrian government to unequivocally determine what is best for us when the evidence is changing constantly, then I fear this will give the government a carte blanche to meddle in our private affairs without reservation. And we will have given them the mandate to do so.

That is a terrifying prospect and must be avoided at all costs. For what is more sacred and personal than our own rights, health and well-being?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Austria’s COVID-19 Measures Have Gone Too Far appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.