Perfect opportunity to clear up a common misconception:
PII is more or less an American term. In the context of European legislation such as the GDPR, there is no such thing as "PII".
Within Europe and within the context of the GDPR, you do however talk about "Personal Data".
Personal Data and PII are both about data that can identify a person, but Personal Data (Europe) is much broader than PII (US) from a regulatory perspective.
This was a pet peeve of the best GDPR lawyer I ever worked with, and now it's a pet peeve of mine as well. :-)
You could use a differentially private mechanism like randomized response to gather the data. This would protect the individual through plausible deniability and still allow some kind of research about what factors correlate with anti-vaxxers. But I doubt that this is what the Spanish government is going to do.
I think you think to highly of Spanish government and culture. This is purely a pressure mechanism. They are a very young democracy and their authoritarian instincts are still very fresh. For instance their first lockdown was extremely rigid and enforced with heavy policing and also neighbors were eager to enforce it on each other. Experiencing the first days there and then going back to my home in the north of Europe, the difference was night and day.
> For instance their first lockdown was extremely rigid and enforced with heavy policing
You seem to think that's a bad thing? I had built a life in northern Europe over the past decade, then I decided to leave when I realised neither the government nor the people seemed actually inclined to lockdown. Now for the past 6 months I live in a country with single-digit local contagion cases and the street I used to live in Berlin is the hardest-hit in Germany... Go figure
The country I now live reached its status by closing borders for non-essencial travel, extremely rigid fines for breaking quarantine on arrival, and heavy police enforcement of those fines.
I have been splitting my time between a covid-free country and a covid-ridden country and it is very VERY hard to get peers from the so-called "free" nations see how their individualistic obsession with personal rights and privacy are completely self-destructive under the current environment.
They can't even fathom that living in a covid free nation isn't even that onerous in the day to day. Contact trace and socially distance. Wear a mask and actually DO quarantine.
They're more ready to make up excuses:
- China and Vietnam are faking their numbers
- New Zealand is a low density remote island
- Australia became an authoritarian state
- Taiwan were already prepared
- Singapore is a dictatorship
Meanwhile these nations have only had to protect their entertainment industries (domestic tourism is clawing back some of the lost tourism income now) but all these other free countries like the UK have lived with restrictions most of 2020 now and have ALSO torpedoed their economy AND had the most casualties.
At this point I'd almost rather go full cynic and just appreciate covid as an agent of natural selection rather than collectively ruin the prospects of the future generation, but of course that is also politically untenable. So given that dichotomy of choice I will gladly cede some human rights to empower my government actually do their job.
The connection between open economies and harsh Covid measures is somehow lost on a lot of people. As a result, the se people are out and about for keeping everything open, Covid is spreading and the economy has to be closed down (at least parts of it anyway). Which prompts more "open up" activism, and the cycle starts again.
None of these (except maybe the "faking their numbers" one) are just "excuses". It is easier to control immigration if you're on an island vs. if you're smack dab in the middle of Europe with lots of people crossing the border on a habitual basis (e.g. workers, friends, families, etc.). It is true that Asia is better prepared because of the Sars epidemic that never really reached other parts of the world (at least not Europe, to any significant amount). It is also true that certain constitutional rights, as well as matters of political structure such as constitutionally enshrined federalism, make centralised decision making much harder than in some other states. And you also can't deny the difference in mentality between different kinds of cultures. You have to understand things in their cultural, political and geographical context.
I live in Germany, the country that GP moved away from. Now I don't want to make any excuses for the myriad failures that Germany, and its 16 individual constituent states, have made, not the least of which was inadequately using the time in summer when the numbers were down to prepare for the inevitable second wave. But Germany is still doing better by far than any of its direct neighbours on basically every metric, and also better than the vast majority of European countries in general.
Now do I wish we'd learn more from other countries, that some people took the virus more seriously, that we'd have incidences below 50 (or even 10) cases per 100k people? Yes, of course. But it's not as if nothing is being tried and you do have to balance different aspects. Germany went into a stupid, pointless semi lockdown in November that had basically only negative effects (closing down everything that is nice, such as theaters, while keeping open shopping malls), while not really helping much at all, but it has since been corrected and we're now in a second lockdown which I hope will be kept in place until numbers are sufficiently low again.
People here are listening to scientists and they do eventually do things not too badly considering everything, even if it's not perfect.
Seriously though, "vaccination is not mandatory but we keep a registry and we share it with partners, and it will have awesome data protection" sounds problematic - even if it were true that data protection is awesome, and even if there was a legal basis - what is shared, what is the data used for? Who is going to be considered a legitimate "partner"?
I doubt politicians' capacity - worldwide - to ask the right questions and find good agreements.
I have heard this before but I never understood why- 'not getting vaccinated affects everyone else'. My thinking is that if you already got vaccinated then you should be good to go. How does my not getting vaccinated then harm others. What am I getting wrong? Update: I asked the question in all sincerity and thanks for all the answers; but I don't get why my comment/question should be downvoted.
Some people cannot get vaccinated so they rely on heard immunity. Also the vaccine is 95% efficient, still the 5% also prefer that the virus cannot propagate.
So the mRNA vaccine is not safe for those people? Genuinely curious. Plus, in any case, they should probably take cautions themselves if they know they have not been vaccinated for those reasons.
Currently people with strong allergies are not recommended to take it, since it can lead to allergic shock. Then my prediction is soon that people with autoimmune diseases might be recommended not to take it, and later people who have an infection leading to have reverse transcriptase in their body (the last two is just my glass ball telling me)
Then the vaccine is not approve for youth below 16 (if I remember correctly)
And what about the 5% not respondinding to vaccination, they don't know that, so everybody should continue to take precautions?
I have an autoimmune disorder, so I am reluctant to take it, considering how early it is, and that I have been exposed to COVID-19 and I most likely have/had it.
No, I am just saying that you cannot realistically expect everyone to care about your health, so you should take precautions as much as you can, because presumably you care about your health (much more than randoms). That is all.
If enough people choose not to get vaccinated the health system will continue to struggle. In the UK there is now a mammoth backlog of procedures to clear that will take years. This effects everyone, not just the individual.
What is the transmission rate for asymptomatic people? I am asking because my grandma has been visited by a family member who tested positive that day, but nothing has happened.
No, those people endanger themselves by going out in public. Instead they could stay inside as much as possible to reduce risks - even indefinitely self quarantining if needed. Or maybe they should only go outside if they’re wearing a full body PPE that is sealed off and has its own air supply.
My point is, those who can’t get vaccinated have choices to keep themselves safe, and their decision not to take on those inconveniences shouldn’t result in OTHERS being coerced to undergo a medical procedure. I think it is disingenuous to place agency on those taking no action by skipping the vaccine.
A single person not getting vaccinated isn't much of a problem, perhaps they will infect a few people but then the infections (and maybe the infected...) will die out.
This only happens is most people are vaccinated, if a sizable portion of the population is not then the outbreak will just keep expanding and will not stop, with the consequences we are all aware of.
By not getting vaccinated when you are able to, you remain able to catch the virus and spread it to others.
Since vaccination is never 100% effective, your choice increases the risk to people who are vaccinated, as well as those who have not yet been able to receive that vaccine, and those who cannot receive it for medical reasons.
Because there is no such thing as 100% immunity; you could get sick even if you have been vaccinated. Because there are people who absolutely cannot be vaccinated for a variety of reasons, and as a society, we want to try to protect those people by ensuring as many others as possible are vaccinated. Honestly, I am on the side of choice, but we have to be honest and understand that our choices can affect others.
1 )Not everyone can get vaccinated due to existing pathologies or simply being allergic to some components of the vaccine. For these people it's important to reach herd immunity as it's probably their only defense. Consequently, if people decide not to get vaccinated, reaching that threshold is harder and harder and it will force those who can't get the vaccine to live in segregation/fear.
2) The cost of a vaccine shot (both in terms of money and equipment/personnel needed) is orders of magnitude less than curing the disease. If you don't get vaccinated and you get said disease more healthcare resources need to be allocated to you. This will probably lead to increase taxes or budget cuts in other areas or, more worryingly, you could indirectly kill someone else with a curable disease because there were no resources to cure him/her.
vaccines don't always work on people with immune system deficiency/ on immuno-suppressants, like people after surgeries, transplants, or who have hiv, lupus etc as well as babies who haven't developed immune systems yet or those with weakened immune systems due to age/alcohol abuse/disease etc
most vaccines are 60-99% effective even if you're healthy and have been vaccinated you can still get sick if the disease is heavily present.
What is my transmission rate? Now add the fact that I leave the house once or twice per like half a year. I do not want the vaccine, but at the same time I doubt I am going to transmit to anyone. Frankly, if I did not get it from my positive family member with whom I live, then there is no way I am going to transmit it to others.
I’m surprised people in this thread sort of seem surprised about this. It’s only a matter of time before visa approvals are tied to vaccination (or exemption) proof in my opinion. In the case of Spain sharing data with other EU countries this theory doesn’t really apply due to freedom of movement but I wonder if even that will be curtailed in the event of no vaccination?
Ehh I don’t know if we’ll get there. I mean people don’t have to prove they’ve had a measles vaccine to travel, which is much more dangerous than covid. This all being predicated on enough people actually _getting_ the vaccine that we reach herd immunity like with measles
Keep in mind that requirement is because we can’t eradicate yellow fever like we did smallpox, and hopefully covid. Yellow fever is endemic and has natural animal hosts which we can’t control
I don't think the leap from this to an international known-infected-with-STDs registry is that large. It'd probably be a net health win to be able to restrict the movements of people with HIV, for example. I dunno, do they already do that?
Arguments of "but getting the vaccine is voluntary and having HIV isn't" are logically sound and true - but I don't think the people who write these rules care so much about that. These precedents don't go away. Covid isn't scary enough to throw away core concepts of privacy and liberty, and it has been nearly a year now. A year is a long time.
Hopefully! To expand a little: I think there should be a grace period of maybe a couple of years until the safety of the vaccine is established more deeply, but it's not reasonable to expect this not to be enforced afterwards.
In places where yellow fever is endemic, for example, many countries require vaccination if you want to visit.
The pandemic is happening now, hundreds of thousands of people are dying and the hospitals my wife works at here in London are getting hammered. No grace period. As you say there are plenty of precedents for restricting travel rights based on vaccination, this is not a new idea.
It's a matter of choosing which risks we're willing to take. An extremely low risk from the vaccine, bear in mind all vaccines carry risks, or the known risks from a virus that has killed pushing two million people and itself seems to have long term health impact on many survivors. My wife is a Nurse and had the virus in April, she's had chest infection problems ever since and is currently on long term antibiotics to try and shake it off.
Waiting to check for long term effects is a novel and unprecedented standard for a vaccine. Yes the testing process usually takes several years, but testing for long term effects would take much, much longer. Nobody has ever held a vaccine to that kind of standard before, so why are we suddenly panicking about it now?
I'm fine with people choosing not to get vaccinated, but I'm also fine with them losing their travel and some employment privileges as a result.
> What if we later find out that the first generations of the vaccines came with a whole bunch of delayed-action side effects?
What if you killed my mom because you were more worried about theoretical side effects than the very real lethal direct effects that are currently taking lives?
What if your mom took responsibility for the risks of her own choices self quarantined permanently instead of asking everyone else to take on a risk with a rushed vaccine that has undergone no long term testing and uses a new approach (mRNA) to vaccination?
I’m not trying to be snarky but this common argument of blaming those who don’t want a vaccine is an abdication of personal responsibility for one’s own safety.
Some people have the hard decision of having to self-quarantine permanently and being able to pay their bills on time and/or have a roof over their heads. Choosing between dying hungry and homeless versus dying sick is not appealing to anyone and some argue that one purpose of a government is to deal with dilemmas like these.
>What if your mom took responsibility for the risks of her own choices self quarantined permanently
> common argument of blaming those who don’t want a vaccine is an abdication of personal responsibility for one’s own safety.
My mom is extremely careful does take responsibility for her own safety.
What you are saying, that she should have to self-quarantine for years because people are unwilling to EITHER take the vaccine OR choose accept the restrictions on their movements that society requires to stay healthy.
If we had taken stronger steps to contain this, we might not need to push everyone into vaccinating. The same people who pushed back against those steps are now complaining that we are in a situation where mandatory vaccination for certain types of activities has become necessary.
One cannot brush these things away so easily. It is basically the first time Mr A vaccines are used, so basically apart from the known unknowns there might be a few unknown unknowns.
The risks of the vaccine deserve serious discussion. The person I was responding to was not doing that. They were fanning fears with a vague hypothetical without any reference to real risk assessments.
I replied in a similarly flippant fashion to make a point.
This is useful information for health services in case this person gets sick or injured. The virus can travel rapidly through hospitals, so un-vaccinated patients can be isolated from the general hospital population to reduce the chance of transmission.
Un-vaccinated people are potential vectors of the disease, able to contract it and spread it to others. As such they have chosen to pose a risk to the rest of the population, so their rights to travel and perform activities such as some jobs might be restricted.
The fact that protecting data is difficult doesn't mean we should never collect data. Choosing not to be inoculated is a major health choice that has significant impact on risks to ourselves and others, especially when travelling internationally and I can see legitimate reasons health services need that information.
Same with HIV, HPV, and other viruses, with closer ranges, and potentially deadlier consequences. Yet no one, for obvious reasons, demands a registry of HIV+ people.
The only difference is that population is now ripe for the acceptance of borderline-tyrannical measures, given the months-long fear carpetbombing campaign.
And yes, I'd get the vaccine, once properly tested for side effects. I'm just not too keen on making citizen lists.
You can’t catch HIV or HPV by walking past someone in a shop or sitting near them in a train. If we could, obviously we’d be treating them differently.
As much as I hope people will get vaccinated, this is a scary step bringing us closer to a dystopic society. Setting up these systems for enforcing injections could well be abused in the future. And you are only going to create more distrust among vaccine skeptics... Why enforce a vaccine for a disease that barely kills anyways? To me it feels like this crisis is being uses to push legislation which would otherwise never be passed.
>> Why enforce a vaccine for a disease that barely kills anyways?
Because it overwhelms the health systems. Even if I take your premise that it “barely kills” (and 1.7m people would disagree) the UK health system has a huge backlog of routine operations to get through due to the number of people requiring treatment (even if they don’t die). When we have a virus this infectious, and we have a treatment available, why should we allow someone’s “freedom” to jeopardise the health and well-being of others? Should we allow the option of declining the vaccine but ban the person from using public health care if they catch the disease? Sounds dystopian but seems fair.
Edit: I understand this is a topic people have strong opinions on but downvoting simply because you disagree is useless. Engage in debate. Respond.
The average victim of COVID is aged over 70 with multiple comorbities, i.e. precisely those people that the youth demographic isn’t enthusiastic about sacrificing their lifestyle for. If you simply triage that demographic out of treatment, then suddenly there is no especial burden on the health system at all.
1. What do you mean by victim? Death? If so, my point was about hospitalisations which happens to a larger age range of people.
2. Many countries have tried “shielding” vulnerable people. It hasn’t worked and it’s also incredibly difficult on those people.
3. The less vulnerable demographic needs to make sacrifices, just like everyone else. Why should they get to continue with their “lifestyle” while the older demographic get locked in their homes? I say this as a young person.
"Mr Illa said people would be contacted by regional authorities when it was their turn to be inoculated."
So they are just going to some how contact everyone who has an ID? This seems like something that should be between someone and their doctor. If they have one or want one.
Then what about it mutating, are they going to have a new one and do this every year? Don't want to sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I'm skeptical of this whole thing.
Sorry, but you do sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. I suspect the reasoning for this measure is to prevent everyone calling them all the time to try and arrange a vaccination while there isn't enough vaccine available. Here in Germany they're doing the same thing (don't call us we'll call you) but are saying this is likely to change as more vaccine becomes available.
I'm curious about the negative reaction about this news.
Here, growing up, we have a list of vaccines that a child gets as they grow up (tetanus, diphteria, chickenpox, etc). your pediatrist knows the schedule and follows along, obviously.
Perhaps the piece that is missing from an american mindset is that medical record is also in public hands, since healthcare is public funded and free for taxpayers. How else are doctors going to keep the record of the medical history of a patient?
I personally would love being able to travel without having to go through a PCR because there's a record somewhere that I'm immune for example. Those things aren't pleasant.
In America records are pretty much decentralized. If you switched to another dentist, you'd have to get the records from your old one. Same for regular doctors. Usually there's a release to fill out. And not even digital depending on where, some still use paper and pen and a folder.
I think some states started doing vaccine registers for schools and stuff. But if not and say you lose your proof and needed it for say going to another school or college, your option is to get a test if your immune, get it again or an exemption depending on the state... Like California only allows medical, while some states allow religious or personal exemptions.
Spanish healthcare is decentralized as well. Every "Comunidad Autónoma" (think about them as states in the US) has its own healthcare system. Which is a pain in the ass if you have some condition and something happens to you outside of your autonomous community.
Agreed. Voting machines definitely seem like a step backwards. Keeping doctors records on digital media and sharing them in case the patient switches doctors seems like common sense though.
In Portugal it is the same. I am not a socialist but i do not find public health and sanitation a political /ideological issue. It in my libertarian bag as it violates the freedoms and human rights of others to not have diseases. Not having a vaccine harms others through lack of herd immunity.
Also I would argue it is more a business issue. These countries rely a lot on the hospitality and tourism industry and lack of herd immunity means the economy is severely hamstrung. So yeah, it is actually a matter of economic survival. For me it should be mandatory, but as far as i know Portuguese constitution does not allow it. Even for the lock down they needed to declare national emergency, because otherwise there would not be a legal basis for it. The only other time there was an emergency was when the country was on the verge of a civil war after the carnations revolution in the 70s.
In Portugal you used to have a vaccine card, which some institutions required you to provide. For example, health professionals are required the vaccine bulletin to apply for work.
Except for the case above, I am not aware any other case where the vaccine record is required for adults. I actually lost my card several years ago. I think they started digitalizing it though, but i do not think it contains old information, only newly taken vaccine shots.
I said adults, because for children there is a caveat, where there is a de facto enforcement unless exempted by a medical doctor, or home school (very rare). To apply to a school your child needs to have the OPs mentioned vaccines. If you do not you will be denied application. Every year it is checked. As there is mandatory education in Portugal the way around it is very hard.
> Here, growing up, we have a list of vaccines that a child gets as they grow up (tetanus, diphteria, chickenpox, etc). your pediatrist knows the schedule and follows along, obviously.
This is such an important point !
History has many examples of how fatal and disabling diseases were conquered by medicine, giving billions of people healthy lives. Each of these victories is celebrated as human mastery of science, and dominion over its environment.
Fast forward to now, and there is a small but growing rejection of this idea, and instead the concept of individual liberty has become sacrosanct, to a point where it appears to be valued more than public health.
I dont think this is really the case.
I prefer to think that people have become accustomed to living comfortable long lives in excellent health and that people have forgotten how far we've come, and how we got here.
I haven't done empirical research, but most of the sentiment for freedom of choice seems to come from highly developed areas of the world, where people have lived with the expectation of good health and without fear of epidemics, for 2 or maybe 3 generations.
I have yet to read of any such sentiment in developing nations of Africa, Central America, and eastern Europe where they perhaps remain more aware of the dangers of disease spreading in a community.
The minister of health, Mr Illa, is not a doctor or anything like that. He has a degree on philosophy and is originally part of a party which wants to break up and harm Spain. He’s there because of quotas: the head of government is a psychopath who had to give positions of power to people of other parties so they would allow him to form government thus making him president.
I don't understand how people are fine with the TSA going through their luggage unmonitored for "omg terrorism" yet keeping a list of vaccinations for preventing a disease that has killed more people than all terrorists hits combined is dystopian.
All the conspiracy theories I've heard about the vaccine sound like child's play compared to a US airport.
Same reason we become much more animated when discussing abortion restriction, identification tattoos/implants, roadside blood draws, and other forms of abrogation of bodily autonomy.
There is an enormous difference in the personal sense of bodily violation between finding dildos in your checked luggage and being injected, against your will, with closed-source nucleotide chains that hack your own ribosomes.
Not to defend the TSA at all, but it's a much, much, more personal matter to have things done to our bodies than to our property.
"Things done to our bodies" describes all of medicine. Why the furore now? We already vaccinate all children and we agree that it's for the best, but when it comes to vaccinating adults to save them from the plague it's dystopian?
Well, we definitely don't vaccinate all children. US compliance rate for the seven-series is only 70%, and only 82% for the three-series (DTaP, Polio, MMR). So the culture of noncompliance even for fifty-year-old vaccine designs is still there.
That said, medicine is largely a voluntary affair. Nobody is getting up in arms over people choosing to get vaccinated; rather, they're bristling at the idea of being forced to do it, or at the very least suffering severe repercussions or going on a watchlist for choosing not to.
Surprise, surprise, governments take advantage of crises to grab power. It’s not like we haven’t seen this for the last 5,000 years. The scary thing is that as usual, a sizable portion of the population is ready and willing to trample human rights in the name of public safety.
Personally, I am planning a move to an unspecified rural area. Cities seem like ground zero for totalitarian measures and it will take much longer for the surveillance state to penetrate the countryside.
You do realise that this can be repeated right back at you? Your concern for the health and safety of your family does not trump my concern for the health and safety of my family.
Unfortunately for you, doing nothing is always a morally acceptable option in case of conflict.
Unfortunately for me, that won't matter. We've already forfeited so much power to the government that they can and will do whatever they like. And you'll be cheering on the sidelines.
In a democracy the government can't do whatever it likes, it does whatever the electorate are willing to allow or tolerate. The fact is the electorate are willing to allow government to do a lot more than many at the libertarian end of the spectrum like. However blaming "the government" rather than the collective democratic will of the people and their elected representatives sounds better.
I feel like the lack of recognition that "the government" means "the people's expressed will" (albeit there's a gap there in representative democracy) is a major problem in society.
Simultaneously said gap between the government and the people is also a massive problem.
It's a tough nut to crack (ie a hard problem) as those in power are generally loathed to close the gap, as that relinquishes power.
Meanwhile the average person send to be something of a political ignoramus prone to manipulation, whither the power and expression of democracy now?!?
What made/makes the U.S. unique is that it is/was founded not on allowing the will of the majority to dictate but rather on protecting and preserving the rights (freedoms and liberties) of the minority. The greatest minority is the individual. Just because >50% of the people will or want something does not mean that they and their government are not tyrannical. The majority can be wrong.
regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assertion (i didn't think the declaration of human rights had such a Chinese interpretation to it..), i guess if OP wants to move to the countryside - in somewhat isolation - the pair of you would be satisfied.
In Soviet times, the totalitarian rule of Stalin had a lot of trouble with regulating the lives of rural farmers. In the end they gave up and the farmers just kept observing their seasonal work schedules, banned holidays, and days of worship.
Honestly I can see the merit of keeping medical records for public health reasons, but no one can deny that governments and corporations are corrupt. Rural Americans enjoy a lot of freedoms, but they also cannot access many of the higher paying jobs. The internet has changed this.
Cities are definitely ground zero for totalitarian measures. Is this totalitarian? It's invasive, but it's under the pretense of public health. Where do we draw the line?
I appreciate that the users on this forum approach the crisis with a critical lens rather than blindly following liberal/conservative party lines. I don't think there are many people who are against the idea of preventing disease.
There should be synthesis between those who are concerned for public health and those who are concerned with losing their previously held rights as human beings. Instead we have blind political partisanship over a public health issue that should not be partisan.
EDIT:
Alright it seems this opinion is really unpopular. I can't even downvote other users, but I'd prefer to hear a critical response rather than a knee-jerk reaction. I support public health and vaccines. I support the right to worship, work, and travel freely. I am not religious, out of work, nor do I plan on traveling anytime soon. Why can't we have both?
I would sincerely like to hear a good argument for closing and actively policing houses of worship yet allowing the patronage of major retailers. This is the situation in the USA, and it worked similarly in the USSR.
I'll break the rule of not complaining about dowvoting once and say that HN has been guily of downvoting opinions which are unpopular, not just those that are factually wrong or detrimental to discussion.
Please all, adopt the policy of commenting after downvoting! Sheesh.
Good. If there's one good thing coming out of covid it's hopefully long term sustained attention towards disease burden and public health.
In this thread there are already people complaining about dystopias. My dystopia is hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable, mundane diseases every year because we give so little of a crap about public health that we let unvaccinated people into packed stadiums.
To me the dystopia isn't the future, it's the status quo. Forget covid, every few years we have bad flu seasons that overload hospitals and tens of thousands of people die. My question is why we didn't have a differentiated, technological systems that detects risk factors in public spaces. We just let it happen, literally every year.
Yes, like obesity, and smoking and whatever else. Which is why I also support incentives to take soda off shelves, give financial incentives to people who exercise, don't smoke and so on. What gives you the impression I somehow oppose that?
My dystopia is having had to stay in my tiny urban apartment without leaving for 70 days waiting for the government to take action and then when I realised they wouldn't, having to uproot and move to a different continent altogether away from the place I called home for the past decade in order to simply feel safe.
I support all measures to quash the anti-vaxers. There is still a chance that humanity can eradicate covid if we all get vaccinated. If the selfish conspiracy theorists get their way this disease will be with us forever and the virus could mutate into something more dangerous.
There will always be a level of risk greater than zero in life. Anytime you step outside, you’re exposed to so many different low probability threats.
If you are so risk averse, why not quarantine yourself indefinitely instead of forcing medical procedures on everyone else so that YOU can have free movement with a risk exposure that’s acceptable to you? It seems to me like you’re just as selfish as those you’re criticizing, since you want what’s best for your circumstances and values just like everyone else.
Between two different “selfish” perspectives, I would rather err on the side of bodily autonomy, privacy, and individual liberties.
What about pro-vaxers who would like to see a vaccine go through the usual testing process to determine if there are any long-term side effects. Are you going to lump them in your anti-vaxer box also?
This is the way the Socialist party thinks is Spain. As a matter of fact, in out country, each and every citizen has an ID card (they fingerprint you when you are at least 14).
It is very hard to stay away from the Government in Spain. Very hard.
As for health issues, everybody has an SSN and you have probably provided them with your address and a phone number...
And yes, no sane person believes this registry will be harmless.
Okay, context here. Around 2015, a measle epidemics broke out between switzerland and Eastern France. less than 2000 cases, 12 dead and a bit more than a hundred children disabled (the fever was too hot for the brain and they lost cognitive functions). Unluckily, in a school where barely 60% of children where vaccinated, lived a child who survived leukemia. Chemo was part of her treatment, so she never received a vaccine, not by their parent choice btw. I took care of her during my youth camp concellor days so i know she was very carefull with infections and hygiene. Well, anyway, she died from measles.
I don't care if you don't vaccinate your child, but if you don't, you should have to remove your child from school or club activities the moment an immunodepressed child enter it. Sorry if not vaccinating your child or yourself will deny you from service, i don't care. You have a choice, they don't.
The difference is choice. One child doesn't have a choice, the other does. Now, which one do you exclude from public life? I'd say the one that did not take necessary steps to protect themselves and others by choice. Personal freedom ends where others freedom begins, it also comes with great responsibility. All these "my freedom" people are simply spoiled, scared egoists in my opinion.
EDIT: In case of children, it is obviously the parents choice. Which goes back to the responsibility part.
If you have the keep a list of individuals like the Spanish are planning, it's a veiled threat based on the implicit acknowledgement that either the science or the administration are not being trusted.
That's a different problem to work on which this registry will not solve.
I'm sure that Norway would keep a registry of those vaccinated as well (almost the inverse); we already do for other vaccines. Although there has never been any sort of politics or coercion involved. Sharing it is another matter, though. As others have been saying, it's only a matter of time before various permissions get tied to vaccination status.
Wouldn't be surprised if multiple European authorities will cooperate regarding this. It's a very relevant example of differing attitudes in Europe vs. the USA regarding state powers. And honestly, while some European governments can be trusted to act with ethics, some can't.
I'm uncertain why I'm a bit creeped out by this. Something feels wrong about de facto forcing people to do a medical procedure, regardless of its intent. While we're not there yet, I think it is likely we will be soon. If e.g. border crossings, airplane rides or certain public gatherings require vaccination.
There might be an agrument here about the state vs. the private sector having such policies, but the question of how voluntary it really is exists in both cases. If e.g. you're unable to do your job without vaccination, and there's no definite reason, such as working with the elderly, why lack of one would make you unfit for the job... How voluntary is it, really?
Denmark does the same, adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the existing register of which vaccines people have received. The registry was used last year to remind parents to get their children vaccinated, when it turned out that most of those who hadn't gotten their children vaccinated wasn't against the vaccination program, their simply forgot.
It's also used to remind the elderly that their are entitled to free flu-shots.
Previously I wouldn't have been worried. I've always trusted our various governments to not misuse health records. With the current government I'm not so sure. The prime minister is enjoying record support, and it's not that I believe a different government would have done better, it's just the handling is down right creepy. Hoarding of power, bulldozing critics and make last minute half-assessed decisions all while the public is cheering them on.
The current attitude is that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to be 100% voluntary, but I also fear that is will only be in principle. If it's as you say required for border crossing, transport and so on, it's not really voluntary.
Danish experts have warned against forcing the vaccine on people could turn them against not only the COVID-19 vaccine, but the entire vaccination program in general.
Personally I think we should wait an see how many opt to not get the vaccine before dreaming up restrictions.
Being reminded by our pediatrician about outstanding vaccinations for our kids is great. Sucks to not have that for adults, with most vaccinations holding up for years it is so easy to forget about them. Really have to check my status...
Well you can have a situation where someone cannot take the vaccine because of adverse medical reactions and someone else who does not take does not take the vaccine objecting for personal reasons working at the same place of employment. Suppose the first one is already hired, and the second one comes in as a new hire. Does the first one now have grounds to litigate because their workplace is now potentially unsafe for them to work in through no fault of their own? What about the reverse situation? Does the employer not hire an otherwise capable employee because of a health reason that they have no control over?
> Something feels wrong about de facto forcing people to do a medical procedure, regardless of its intent. While we're not there yet, I think it is likely we will be soon. If e.g. border crossings, airplane rides or certain public gatherings require vaccination.
Think about the other people involved.
If I'm unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, I need the others around me to be vaccinated in order to be safe. If you allow unvaccinated people to roam unrestricted, I'm unable to participate safely in society.
So you have a choice between infringing on the freedoms of those who have a choice and those who don't. Which group should be protected?
I see no reason why the group that has a choice should be given priority over the group that doesn't. The group that has a cnoice can choose to take the vaccine and the restrictions end.
You can also take the argument to an extreme: what if the disease was life-threatening?
Should society respect somebody's freedom to the point of allowing them to endanger the lives of others?
If not, at what point does the severity of the disease make it okay to risk inflicting it on others?
The discussion is (de facto) coerced vaccination vs. voluntary. I think that enough people will voluntarily vaccinate that the population-level effects of insufficient vaccination will be small. If so, the points about "endangering the lives of others" do not carry much weight, and the discussion of whether one still has freedom to make medical decisions is very relevant.
If it could be mathematically proven that there is 0% risk of negative effects? Sure. Put a requirement for vaccination in the constitution. But the current RNA vaccines have not been tested at scale before, and empirical information about long-term effects is unknowable. Things are likely good based on current knowledge, but there is uncertainty.
Anyone who wishes to enact population-level policies in such a situation is making a statement about the likelihood of an "unknown unknown" that is unsupported by data. In the light of this, it is very ethically problematic to mandate anything at this point. That's even if you're open to de facto mandates regarding medical procedures in the first place.
Of course the consideration would be different if the disease had a 100% mortality rate, but such a situation would obviousy also affect people's decisions about whether to get vaccinated or not. You wouldn't see me presenting this argument of principles if that was the reality.
You can't determine with an equation at what point such policies would be palatable, but you can make comparisons to other dangerous activities that affect others. Smoking. Driving a car, or speeding. Drinking alcohol. (De facto) mandatory medical procedures seem excessive in the light of our current policies against such behavior.
One might make a different argument if the skepticism was so widespread that the vaccination program was ineffective, but let's revisit it if that happens.
Should be pretty simple to me: if one doesn’t take the vaccine and passes covid to someone else and this person comes to die it is manslaughter. Folks are putting others in risk by not taking the vaccine.
I wonder if we take this to its logical conclusion; McDonald's is culpable for millions of cases of manslaughter, what about diesel car owners? Meat eaters? Tourists taking carbon heavy flights?
You are talking about so called (negative) externalities. Pricing these costs in to the price of a product or service can incentivize less harmful behaviour. This is the idea behind having a carbon tax to help with climate change.
On mcdonalds, the only damage is to oneself (not others) so should be fine.
On carbon/pollution is much harder to show a direct cause and effect between one’s actions and harm done to another individual. But it seems logical to me that i
when/if zero-carbon were to become a serious thing there should be some kind of enforcement framework around it (like smog inspections we have right now but hopefully more effective...)
A virus is a separate agent from the people you allege are committing manslaughter. A virus is a background condition, like a weather event. An asymptomatic human shouldn’t be considered the agent committing a crime in your scenario, because they’re under no obligation to make changes to THEIR body to make YOU comfortable with a background environmental condition.
What a fear driven, nonsensical statement to make. Firstly the person who died would have had to not have taken the vaccine also; otherwise wouldn't they be immune to the serious side effects? Secondly, it's not even known if the vaccine prevents you getting the virus and transmitting it. Thus even vaccinated people could still transmit it.
Right, I’m assuming that covid, like most diseases, won’t be transmissible after the vaccine.
You’re also assuming that everyone will take the vaccine at the same moment in time, which won’t be true. Also, some people won’t be vaccinated on a first moment such as pregnant women.
I think the whole point is responsibility, going to a concrete example: let’s say I have the chance and refuse to take the vaccine, then I pass covid to a pregnant women which comes to pass away. How wouldn’t that event not be 100% my responsibility?
> Thanks to California Senate Bill 329, as of January 1, 2017, it is no longer a felony for people who are HIV-positive to have unprotected sex and not disclose their status.
From what I remember there has been an increase in infected people after this bill. I cannot back it up at the moment, but you might want to look into it.
There are reports in the German press today that the ruling parties are searching for ways to make discrimination based on your vaccination status illegal [0]. It seems to be already illegal for the government, but not so for private companies. For example, it seems to be perfectly legal at the moment for restaurants or airlines to only allow vaccinated people to enter. The fear of a schism and a further radicalization of vaccine opponents and corona skeptics is great.
And still the majority is pro-vacination. And pro lockdowns. German politicians are way to worried about an extremely loud, and arguably dangerous, minority. That is part of the reason why we missed our opportunity to prevent a third wave right for Christmas by locking down earlier in November. Seems our politicians didn't learn a thing.
We should just ignore those Querdenker and anti-vaxxers, enforce sanitary rules on their gatherings and do everything we can to defeat Covid. Otherwise this thing will become a bigger and bigger mess.
> an extremely loud, and arguably dangerous, minority
I fear this minority will grow significantly as soon as only an extremely small minority of vaccinated people is allowed to eat at restaurants, enter an airplane or visit a concert. Please remember that the overwhelming majority of the population currently has no access to vaccination, and won't have access for months to come.
And until everybody could have had access, the limitations you describe won't be put in place. Afterwards, things are different. But hey, when people refuse you can't help them. masks would be an option so, but anti-vaxxers won't wear those neither. Entirely their problem, if you ask me.
What happened to bodily autonomy and privacy? The officials’ comments in this article are downplaying what they would use this information for, which seems like gaslighting. They can’t expect us to believe that they would collect this data just for fun.
Personally I don’t think coercive methods to get people to undergo medical procedures like vaccination is morally acceptable. Even the vaccinations that public schools in some states require is a violation of bodily autonomy. And the suggestions that we tie freedoms of movement like visas to vaccination scares me, especially for the precedent it sets. Why draw the line with COVID-19, where the survival rate is more than 99.5%?
And I say this as someone who has all their vaccinations.
Seems like an optimization of the age-old practice of refusing entry of people into countries who are unable to prove they are vaccinated against common illness.
When I travel in for example Africa and South America and Asia I bring my yellow vaccination card together with my passport, and this information is used to make entry decisions when I'm at the border of these countries.
I'm not particularly upset at what Spain is doing here. We live in a society where people can travel freely within the European Union (Schengen). If you refuse to be part of societal obligations to combat a dangerous disease, then you shouldn't be upset if your traveling or interactions with other nation states will be impacted in one shape or another.
163 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 221 ms ] threadPII is more or less an American term. In the context of European legislation such as the GDPR, there is no such thing as "PII".
Within Europe and within the context of the GDPR, you do however talk about "Personal Data".
Personal Data and PII are both about data that can identify a person, but Personal Data (Europe) is much broader than PII (US) from a regulatory perspective.
This was a pet peeve of the best GDPR lawyer I ever worked with, and now it's a pet peeve of mine as well. :-)
What identifiers will be shared with other EU countries?
The only way to keep data confidential is not to gather it.
We need to gather data to operate government (in this case healthcare), so there has to be a more realistic approach than "don't gather any data".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_response
You seem to think that's a bad thing? I had built a life in northern Europe over the past decade, then I decided to leave when I realised neither the government nor the people seemed actually inclined to lockdown. Now for the past 6 months I live in a country with single-digit local contagion cases and the street I used to live in Berlin is the hardest-hit in Germany... Go figure
The country I now live reached its status by closing borders for non-essencial travel, extremely rigid fines for breaking quarantine on arrival, and heavy police enforcement of those fines.
They can't even fathom that living in a covid free nation isn't even that onerous in the day to day. Contact trace and socially distance. Wear a mask and actually DO quarantine.
They're more ready to make up excuses:
- China and Vietnam are faking their numbers
- New Zealand is a low density remote island
- Australia became an authoritarian state
- Taiwan were already prepared
- Singapore is a dictatorship
Meanwhile these nations have only had to protect their entertainment industries (domestic tourism is clawing back some of the lost tourism income now) but all these other free countries like the UK have lived with restrictions most of 2020 now and have ALSO torpedoed their economy AND had the most casualties.
At this point I'd almost rather go full cynic and just appreciate covid as an agent of natural selection rather than collectively ruin the prospects of the future generation, but of course that is also politically untenable. So given that dichotomy of choice I will gladly cede some human rights to empower my government actually do their job.
I live in Germany, the country that GP moved away from. Now I don't want to make any excuses for the myriad failures that Germany, and its 16 individual constituent states, have made, not the least of which was inadequately using the time in summer when the numbers were down to prepare for the inevitable second wave. But Germany is still doing better by far than any of its direct neighbours on basically every metric, and also better than the vast majority of European countries in general.
Now do I wish we'd learn more from other countries, that some people took the virus more seriously, that we'd have incidences below 50 (or even 10) cases per 100k people? Yes, of course. But it's not as if nothing is being tried and you do have to balance different aspects. Germany went into a stupid, pointless semi lockdown in November that had basically only negative effects (closing down everything that is nice, such as theaters, while keeping open shopping malls), while not really helping much at all, but it has since been corrected and we're now in a second lockdown which I hope will be kept in place until numbers are sufficiently low again.
People here are listening to scientists and they do eventually do things not too badly considering everything, even if it's not perfect.
Seriously though, "vaccination is not mandatory but we keep a registry and we share it with partners, and it will have awesome data protection" sounds problematic - even if it were true that data protection is awesome, and even if there was a legal basis - what is shared, what is the data used for? Who is going to be considered a legitimate "partner"?
I doubt politicians' capacity - worldwide - to ask the right questions and find good agreements.
So it's not as easy, especially since everyone wants to go to school, fly, shop and can infect others.
Then the vaccine is not approve for youth below 16 (if I remember correctly)
And what about the 5% not respondinding to vaccination, they don't know that, so everybody should continue to take precautions?
No, I am just saying that you cannot realistically expect everyone to care about your health, so you should take precautions as much as you can, because presumably you care about your health (much more than randoms). That is all.
My point is, those who can’t get vaccinated have choices to keep themselves safe, and their decision not to take on those inconveniences shouldn’t result in OTHERS being coerced to undergo a medical procedure. I think it is disingenuous to place agency on those taking no action by skipping the vaccine.
This only happens is most people are vaccinated, if a sizable portion of the population is not then the outbreak will just keep expanding and will not stop, with the consequences we are all aware of.
Since vaccination is never 100% effective, your choice increases the risk to people who are vaccinated, as well as those who have not yet been able to receive that vaccine, and those who cannot receive it for medical reasons.
1 )Not everyone can get vaccinated due to existing pathologies or simply being allergic to some components of the vaccine. For these people it's important to reach herd immunity as it's probably their only defense. Consequently, if people decide not to get vaccinated, reaching that threshold is harder and harder and it will force those who can't get the vaccine to live in segregation/fear.
2) The cost of a vaccine shot (both in terms of money and equipment/personnel needed) is orders of magnitude less than curing the disease. If you don't get vaccinated and you get said disease more healthcare resources need to be allocated to you. This will probably lead to increase taxes or budget cuts in other areas or, more worryingly, you could indirectly kill someone else with a curable disease because there were no resources to cure him/her.
most vaccines are 60-99% effective even if you're healthy and have been vaccinated you can still get sick if the disease is heavily present.
(1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_fever#Compulsory_vaccin...
Arguments of "but getting the vaccine is voluntary and having HIV isn't" are logically sound and true - but I don't think the people who write these rules care so much about that. These precedents don't go away. Covid isn't scary enough to throw away core concepts of privacy and liberty, and it has been nearly a year now. A year is a long time.
In places where yellow fever is endemic, for example, many countries require vaccination if you want to visit.
What if we later find out that the first generations of the vaccines came with a whole bunch of delayed-action side effects?
Waiting to check for long term effects is a novel and unprecedented standard for a vaccine. Yes the testing process usually takes several years, but testing for long term effects would take much, much longer. Nobody has ever held a vaccine to that kind of standard before, so why are we suddenly panicking about it now?
I'm fine with people choosing not to get vaccinated, but I'm also fine with them losing their travel and some employment privileges as a result.
What if you killed my mom because you were more worried about theoretical side effects than the very real lethal direct effects that are currently taking lives?
I’m not trying to be snarky but this common argument of blaming those who don’t want a vaccine is an abdication of personal responsibility for one’s own safety.
> common argument of blaming those who don’t want a vaccine is an abdication of personal responsibility for one’s own safety.
My mom is extremely careful does take responsibility for her own safety.
What you are saying, that she should have to self-quarantine for years because people are unwilling to EITHER take the vaccine OR choose accept the restrictions on their movements that society requires to stay healthy.
If we had taken stronger steps to contain this, we might not need to push everyone into vaccinating. The same people who pushed back against those steps are now complaining that we are in a situation where mandatory vaccination for certain types of activities has become necessary.
I replied in a similarly flippant fashion to make a point.
What if he gets cancer to let your mom live additional month?
Un-vaccinated people are potential vectors of the disease, able to contract it and spread it to others. As such they have chosen to pose a risk to the rest of the population, so their rights to travel and perform activities such as some jobs might be restricted.
The only difference is that population is now ripe for the acceptance of borderline-tyrannical measures, given the months-long fear carpetbombing campaign.
And yes, I'd get the vaccine, once properly tested for side effects. I'm just not too keen on making citizen lists.
Because it overwhelms the health systems. Even if I take your premise that it “barely kills” (and 1.7m people would disagree) the UK health system has a huge backlog of routine operations to get through due to the number of people requiring treatment (even if they don’t die). When we have a virus this infectious, and we have a treatment available, why should we allow someone’s “freedom” to jeopardise the health and well-being of others? Should we allow the option of declining the vaccine but ban the person from using public health care if they catch the disease? Sounds dystopian but seems fair.
Edit: I understand this is a topic people have strong opinions on but downvoting simply because you disagree is useless. Engage in debate. Respond.
The average victim of COVID is aged over 70 with multiple comorbities, i.e. precisely those people that the youth demographic isn’t enthusiastic about sacrificing their lifestyle for. If you simply triage that demographic out of treatment, then suddenly there is no especial burden on the health system at all.
2. Many countries have tried “shielding” vulnerable people. It hasn’t worked and it’s also incredibly difficult on those people.
3. The less vulnerable demographic needs to make sacrifices, just like everyone else. Why should they get to continue with their “lifestyle” while the older demographic get locked in their homes? I say this as a young person.
"Mr Illa said people would be contacted by regional authorities when it was their turn to be inoculated."
So they are just going to some how contact everyone who has an ID? This seems like something that should be between someone and their doctor. If they have one or want one.
Then what about it mutating, are they going to have a new one and do this every year? Don't want to sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I'm skeptical of this whole thing.
I'm curious about the negative reaction about this news.
Here, growing up, we have a list of vaccines that a child gets as they grow up (tetanus, diphteria, chickenpox, etc). your pediatrist knows the schedule and follows along, obviously.
Perhaps the piece that is missing from an american mindset is that medical record is also in public hands, since healthcare is public funded and free for taxpayers. How else are doctors going to keep the record of the medical history of a patient?
I personally would love being able to travel without having to go through a PCR because there's a record somewhere that I'm immune for example. Those things aren't pleasant.
I think some states started doing vaccine registers for schools and stuff. But if not and say you lose your proof and needed it for say going to another school or college, your option is to get a test if your immune, get it again or an exemption depending on the state... Like California only allows medical, while some states allow religious or personal exemptions.
Things like this are mindboggling to me. I don't understand how people can claim the USA is the greatest country in the world, it's so backward.
Also I would argue it is more a business issue. These countries rely a lot on the hospitality and tourism industry and lack of herd immunity means the economy is severely hamstrung. So yeah, it is actually a matter of economic survival. For me it should be mandatory, but as far as i know Portuguese constitution does not allow it. Even for the lock down they needed to declare national emergency, because otherwise there would not be a legal basis for it. The only other time there was an emergency was when the country was on the verge of a civil war after the carnations revolution in the 70s.
In Portugal you used to have a vaccine card, which some institutions required you to provide. For example, health professionals are required the vaccine bulletin to apply for work.
Except for the case above, I am not aware any other case where the vaccine record is required for adults. I actually lost my card several years ago. I think they started digitalizing it though, but i do not think it contains old information, only newly taken vaccine shots.
I said adults, because for children there is a caveat, where there is a de facto enforcement unless exempted by a medical doctor, or home school (very rare). To apply to a school your child needs to have the OPs mentioned vaccines. If you do not you will be denied application. Every year it is checked. As there is mandatory education in Portugal the way around it is very hard.
This is such an important point !
History has many examples of how fatal and disabling diseases were conquered by medicine, giving billions of people healthy lives. Each of these victories is celebrated as human mastery of science, and dominion over its environment.
Fast forward to now, and there is a small but growing rejection of this idea, and instead the concept of individual liberty has become sacrosanct, to a point where it appears to be valued more than public health.
I dont think this is really the case.
I prefer to think that people have become accustomed to living comfortable long lives in excellent health and that people have forgotten how far we've come, and how we got here.
I haven't done empirical research, but most of the sentiment for freedom of choice seems to come from highly developed areas of the world, where people have lived with the expectation of good health and without fear of epidemics, for 2 or maybe 3 generations.
I have yet to read of any such sentiment in developing nations of Africa, Central America, and eastern Europe where they perhaps remain more aware of the dangers of disease spreading in a community.
All the conspiracy theories I've heard about the vaccine sound like child's play compared to a US airport.
There is an enormous difference in the personal sense of bodily violation between finding dildos in your checked luggage and being injected, against your will, with closed-source nucleotide chains that hack your own ribosomes.
Not to defend the TSA at all, but it's a much, much, more personal matter to have things done to our bodies than to our property.
That said, medicine is largely a voluntary affair. Nobody is getting up in arms over people choosing to get vaccinated; rather, they're bristling at the idea of being forced to do it, or at the very least suffering severe repercussions or going on a watchlist for choosing not to.
Personally, I am planning a move to an unspecified rural area. Cities seem like ground zero for totalitarian measures and it will take much longer for the surveillance state to penetrate the countryside.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 25:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (...)
Your right ends when the rights of others begin. Rights don't exist in an absolute vacuum.
Unfortunately for you, doing nothing is always a morally acceptable option in case of conflict.
Unfortunately for me, that won't matter. We've already forfeited so much power to the government that they can and will do whatever they like. And you'll be cheering on the sidelines.
Simultaneously said gap between the government and the people is also a massive problem.
It's a tough nut to crack (ie a hard problem) as those in power are generally loathed to close the gap, as that relinquishes power.
Meanwhile the average person send to be something of a political ignoramus prone to manipulation, whither the power and expression of democracy now?!?
Do what you're going to do. You're in power. But don't insult us with the fluffy human rights rubbish.
Honestly I can see the merit of keeping medical records for public health reasons, but no one can deny that governments and corporations are corrupt. Rural Americans enjoy a lot of freedoms, but they also cannot access many of the higher paying jobs. The internet has changed this.
Cities are definitely ground zero for totalitarian measures. Is this totalitarian? It's invasive, but it's under the pretense of public health. Where do we draw the line?
I appreciate that the users on this forum approach the crisis with a critical lens rather than blindly following liberal/conservative party lines. I don't think there are many people who are against the idea of preventing disease.
There should be synthesis between those who are concerned for public health and those who are concerned with losing their previously held rights as human beings. Instead we have blind political partisanship over a public health issue that should not be partisan.
EDIT:
Alright it seems this opinion is really unpopular. I can't even downvote other users, but I'd prefer to hear a critical response rather than a knee-jerk reaction. I support public health and vaccines. I support the right to worship, work, and travel freely. I am not religious, out of work, nor do I plan on traveling anytime soon. Why can't we have both?
I would sincerely like to hear a good argument for closing and actively policing houses of worship yet allowing the patronage of major retailers. This is the situation in the USA, and it worked similarly in the USSR.
Please all, adopt the policy of commenting after downvoting! Sheesh.
In this thread there are already people complaining about dystopias. My dystopia is hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable, mundane diseases every year because we give so little of a crap about public health that we let unvaccinated people into packed stadiums.
To me the dystopia isn't the future, it's the status quo. Forget covid, every few years we have bad flu seasons that overload hospitals and tens of thousands of people die. My question is why we didn't have a differentiated, technological systems that detects risk factors in public spaces. We just let it happen, literally every year.
Like obesity?
Whoops, I forgot that this is about signaling your affinity to "science", whatever that is, not public health. Back under the bridge with poor me...
If you are so risk averse, why not quarantine yourself indefinitely instead of forcing medical procedures on everyone else so that YOU can have free movement with a risk exposure that’s acceptable to you? It seems to me like you’re just as selfish as those you’re criticizing, since you want what’s best for your circumstances and values just like everyone else.
Between two different “selfish” perspectives, I would rather err on the side of bodily autonomy, privacy, and individual liberties.
It is very hard to stay away from the Government in Spain. Very hard.
As for health issues, everybody has an SSN and you have probably provided them with your address and a phone number...
And yes, no sane person believes this registry will be harmless.
It's more like a different way of thinking rather than a left-right ideology.
This is not objective, ergo I downvoted.
"I think this registry will cause harm", seems like a reasonable statement, and assuming you mean that could you identify the harm you perceive here?
Okay, context here. Around 2015, a measle epidemics broke out between switzerland and Eastern France. less than 2000 cases, 12 dead and a bit more than a hundred children disabled (the fever was too hot for the brain and they lost cognitive functions). Unluckily, in a school where barely 60% of children where vaccinated, lived a child who survived leukemia. Chemo was part of her treatment, so she never received a vaccine, not by their parent choice btw. I took care of her during my youth camp concellor days so i know she was very carefull with infections and hygiene. Well, anyway, she died from measles.
I don't care if you don't vaccinate your child, but if you don't, you should have to remove your child from school or club activities the moment an immunodepressed child enter it. Sorry if not vaccinating your child or yourself will deny you from service, i don't care. You have a choice, they don't.
EDIT: In case of children, it is obviously the parents choice. Which goes back to the responsibility part.
Here's a good dashboard showing uptake rates of childhood vaccines in the UK: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTI3NWZhNzItMTIyZS00O...
If you have the keep a list of individuals like the Spanish are planning, it's a veiled threat based on the implicit acknowledgement that either the science or the administration are not being trusted.
That's a different problem to work on which this registry will not solve.
Wouldn't be surprised if multiple European authorities will cooperate regarding this. It's a very relevant example of differing attitudes in Europe vs. the USA regarding state powers. And honestly, while some European governments can be trusted to act with ethics, some can't.
I'm uncertain why I'm a bit creeped out by this. Something feels wrong about de facto forcing people to do a medical procedure, regardless of its intent. While we're not there yet, I think it is likely we will be soon. If e.g. border crossings, airplane rides or certain public gatherings require vaccination.
There might be an agrument here about the state vs. the private sector having such policies, but the question of how voluntary it really is exists in both cases. If e.g. you're unable to do your job without vaccination, and there's no definite reason, such as working with the elderly, why lack of one would make you unfit for the job... How voluntary is it, really?
It's also used to remind the elderly that their are entitled to free flu-shots.
Previously I wouldn't have been worried. I've always trusted our various governments to not misuse health records. With the current government I'm not so sure. The prime minister is enjoying record support, and it's not that I believe a different government would have done better, it's just the handling is down right creepy. Hoarding of power, bulldozing critics and make last minute half-assessed decisions all while the public is cheering them on.
The current attitude is that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to be 100% voluntary, but I also fear that is will only be in principle. If it's as you say required for border crossing, transport and so on, it's not really voluntary.
Danish experts have warned against forcing the vaccine on people could turn them against not only the COVID-19 vaccine, but the entire vaccination program in general.
Personally I think we should wait an see how many opt to not get the vaccine before dreaming up restrictions.
Think about the other people involved.
If I'm unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, I need the others around me to be vaccinated in order to be safe. If you allow unvaccinated people to roam unrestricted, I'm unable to participate safely in society.
So you have a choice between infringing on the freedoms of those who have a choice and those who don't. Which group should be protected?
I see no reason why the group that has a choice should be given priority over the group that doesn't. The group that has a cnoice can choose to take the vaccine and the restrictions end.
You can also take the argument to an extreme: what if the disease was life-threatening?
Should society respect somebody's freedom to the point of allowing them to endanger the lives of others?
If not, at what point does the severity of the disease make it okay to risk inflicting it on others?
If it could be mathematically proven that there is 0% risk of negative effects? Sure. Put a requirement for vaccination in the constitution. But the current RNA vaccines have not been tested at scale before, and empirical information about long-term effects is unknowable. Things are likely good based on current knowledge, but there is uncertainty.
Anyone who wishes to enact population-level policies in such a situation is making a statement about the likelihood of an "unknown unknown" that is unsupported by data. In the light of this, it is very ethically problematic to mandate anything at this point. That's even if you're open to de facto mandates regarding medical procedures in the first place.
Of course the consideration would be different if the disease had a 100% mortality rate, but such a situation would obviousy also affect people's decisions about whether to get vaccinated or not. You wouldn't see me presenting this argument of principles if that was the reality.
You can't determine with an equation at what point such policies would be palatable, but you can make comparisons to other dangerous activities that affect others. Smoking. Driving a car, or speeding. Drinking alcohol. (De facto) mandatory medical procedures seem excessive in the light of our current policies against such behavior.
One might make a different argument if the skepticism was so widespread that the vaccination program was ineffective, but let's revisit it if that happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
On carbon/pollution is much harder to show a direct cause and effect between one’s actions and harm done to another individual. But it seems logical to me that i when/if zero-carbon were to become a serious thing there should be some kind of enforcement framework around it (like smog inspections we have right now but hopefully more effective...)
You’re also assuming that everyone will take the vaccine at the same moment in time, which won’t be true. Also, some people won’t be vaccinated on a first moment such as pregnant women.
I think the whole point is responsibility, going to a concrete example: let’s say I have the chance and refuse to take the vaccine, then I pass covid to a pregnant women which comes to pass away. How wouldn’t that event not be 100% my responsibility?
What do you think about this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
From what I remember there has been an increase in infected people after this bill. I cannot back it up at the moment, but you might want to look into it.
It was changed from a felony to a misdemeanour.
We all know version 0.9.0 products, so some people may feel that they want to wait.
With the effectiveness (claimed!) of the vaccines, a self isolating non-inoculated person is far less of a threat than an inoculated party socialite.
The latter people brought us into this mess in the first place.
[0] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/union-und-spd-pru...
We should just ignore those Querdenker and anti-vaxxers, enforce sanitary rules on their gatherings and do everything we can to defeat Covid. Otherwise this thing will become a bigger and bigger mess.
I fear this minority will grow significantly as soon as only an extremely small minority of vaccinated people is allowed to eat at restaurants, enter an airplane or visit a concert. Please remember that the overwhelming majority of the population currently has no access to vaccination, and won't have access for months to come.
Personally I don’t think coercive methods to get people to undergo medical procedures like vaccination is morally acceptable. Even the vaccinations that public schools in some states require is a violation of bodily autonomy. And the suggestions that we tie freedoms of movement like visas to vaccination scares me, especially for the precedent it sets. Why draw the line with COVID-19, where the survival rate is more than 99.5%?
And I say this as someone who has all their vaccinations.
When I travel in for example Africa and South America and Asia I bring my yellow vaccination card together with my passport, and this information is used to make entry decisions when I'm at the border of these countries.
I'm not particularly upset at what Spain is doing here. We live in a society where people can travel freely within the European Union (Schengen). If you refuse to be part of societal obligations to combat a dangerous disease, then you shouldn't be upset if your traveling or interactions with other nation states will be impacted in one shape or another.