Austria Makes Covid Vaccine Mandatory for Entire Population

[+ Tygerscent]

How much more constructive would this thread be regarding Austria and similar decisions if it were not encumbered/overshadowed by triggering~
 How much constructive would the world be if it were not encumbered/overshadowed by triggering~
 The point of this thread has morphed into something besides itself~ 
 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Tygerscent

[Monarchy79]

29 minutes ago, TumYum said:

i guess some people -- even the smallest amongst us -- will do anything to be remembered

Augustus will be remembered for quite a few things… that’s for sure…. 

[thedanNYC]

On 11/27/2021 at 5:10 PM, tassojunior said:

While Austria is mandating vaccines for all, next-door Switzerland is voting tomorrow (Sunday) in a nation-wide referendum on whether to do away with vaccine and lockdown requirements. It should be a fair view of how the people feel. 

If a new variant is resistant to the present covid vaccines and also doesn't help prevent serious cases, then vaccines are still going to be required as virtue signaling (ie: to show you're not a Republican), as flimsy masks are now. 10% of the 600 passengers from two planes in Amsterdam tested positive last night even though I assume most were vaccinated. Hopefully the vaccines are still effective at preventing serious cases, like they are with Delta. 

Just to close this loop, 62% of voters backed the Covid law. So it will remain in force.

A rejection of the Covid law would've have certainly crippled the government's ability to manage the pandemic, especially because the current requirement to show a corona certificate for indoor activities (e.g., indoor dining, gyms) would've been struck down.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by thedanNYC

[coriolis888]

On 11/27/2021 at 8:10 AM, tassojunior said:

While Austria is mandating vaccines for all,

clip -

as flimsy masks are now. 

 

Two weeks ago I returned to the U.S. from Austria wearing the typical thin, familiar light blue mask we buy and see in the markets and around town in the U.S.  When I checked in for my return flight to the U.S., I was told that the thin blue mask I was wearing is not acceptable for passengers on Austrian Airlines. 

I was then told that I had to buy an "N-95" mask that is sold at stores just past security in Vienna.  The masks are quite different and fit tighter than the thin ones we are used to here. 

After the long flight, wearing the tight fitting mask, I noticed my ears were a bit tender from the forceful stretch of the band that holds the tight fitting mask. 

I fully understand their rules.  I wonder why we in the U.S. are allowed the flimsy thin blue masks seen in most places.   

 

[+ tassojunior]

4 hours ago, thedanNYC said:

Just to close this loop, 62% of voters backed the Covid law. So it will remain in force.

A rejection of the Covid law would've have certainly crippled the government's ability to manage the pandemic, especially because the current requirement to show a corona certificate for indoor activities (e.g., indoor dining, gyms) would've been struck down.

 

 

And now it's settled in a democratic way and has virtually unanimous support for a democratic decision. I think about the same margin would back similar covid laws in most countries. Unfortunately in countries like ours, 38% is too high a % to offend and most of them feel they are in the majority unless clearly shown otherwise. So we still let unvaccinated people fly and don't require vaccine cards for most things. 

[+ Tygerscent]

Reducing covid takes three things: reducing transmission, reducing mutation and cooperative effort from the populous~ If people ignore these things, expect covid and all that comes with it to continue~
 

[+ Tygerscent]

On 11/27/2021 at 7:45 AM, TumYum said:

heya, massageAdam...

yes there are some hateful/awful people here, but their voices are disproportionately represented relative to their actual number. learn who to ignore and you will be fine here.... it has been my method for happy survival!

Ya… this sand box needs some love~ 

[BSR]

9 hours ago, lonely_john said:

I completely agree. Disinformation concerning public health should not be allowed in any online platform because the potential to cause harm to others just by spreading lies is too big. Disinformation is deadly.

I disagree.  Disinformation can spread by many other means:  the water cooler at work, friends hanging out, neighbors chatting, the guy next to you at the gym, etc.  If someone posts something inaccurate on social media, it gives others the opportunity to post evidence proving the inaccuracy.

My biggest problem with the argument that disinformation should not be allowed on social media is that a few oligarchs get to decide what is & isn't true.  Social media oligarchs quashed the story about Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 election because it was allegedly "disinformation."  Well, whaddya know, the NY Post's story turned out to be 100% true.  Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey just wanted to protect Biden.  43K votes in 3 state's would have flipped the election to Trump.  Such is the power of those who decide what is & isn't "disinformation."

[lonely_john]

43 minutes ago, BSR said:

I disagree.  Disinformation can spread by many other means:  the water cooler at work, friends hanging out, neighbors chatting, the guy next to you at the gym, etc.  If someone posts something inaccurate on social media, it gives others the opportunity to post evidence proving the inaccuracy.

My biggest problem with the argument that disinformation should not be allowed on social media is that a few oligarchs get to decide what is & isn't true.  Social media oligarchs quashed the story about Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 election because it was allegedly "disinformation."  Well, whaddya know, the NY Post's story turned out to be 100% true.  Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey just wanted to protect Biden.  43K votes in 3 state's would have flipped the election to Trump.  Such is the power of those who decide what is & isn't "disinformation."

NO. AND DO NOT MAKE ANOTHER POLITICAL POST HERE. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH ONLY.

Edited November 29, 2021 by lonely_john

[+ Tygerscent]

2 hours ago, BSR said:

I disagree.  Disinformation can spread by many other means:  the water cooler at work, friends hanging out, neighbors chatting, the guy next to you at the gym, etc.  If someone posts something inaccurate on social media, it gives others the opportunity to post evidence proving the inaccuracy.

My biggest problem with the argument that disinformation should not be allowed on social media is that a few oligarchs get to decide what is & isn't true.  Social media oligarchs quashed the story about Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 election because it was allegedly "disinformation."  Well, whaddya know, the NY Post's story turned out to be 100% true.  Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey just wanted to protect Biden.  43K votes in 3 state's would have flipped the election to Trump.  Such is the power of those who decide what is & isn't "disinformation."

Equally deadly is not believing and spreading Truthful accurate information~

  The real issue seems to be the ability for people to reason what actually is true and not true~ 

  Many people believe what is comfortable and easy for them to believe and they don’t challenge their own ideas enough to ever get away from their own personal truth and the personal truth of those who believe like them~ 
  When something is politicized, it becomes an even bigger shit pile of stupid because people start competing against each other as opposed to competing with them themselves. Perhaps if people would look within themselves and challenge their own ideas to see what is true or not true we might rise above propaganda and media/political influence. Look within and make the changes there first~ 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Tygerscent

[Guest]

9 hours ago, coriolis888 said:

...

I fully understand their rules.  I wonder why we in the U.S. are allowed the flimsy thin blue masks seen in most places.   

 

Actually, I'm not sure you fully understand. There is no scientific evidence that N95 masks are more effective than surgical masks at decreasing the spread of the virus. Even if they were, those masks have to be professionally fitted. You can't just buy one of the shelf and assume it's the proper fit. Finally, I can't imagine lasting a long plane flight wearing those masks. They make me sweat like a bandit under there and are extremely uncomfortable. If you know of a scientific study I've missed, however, please provide the reference.

This is from a study which was a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence available (combines the data from multiple randomized clinical trials):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32246890/

"Conclusions: Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non-aerosol-generating care. "

https://www.medscape.com/answers/2500114-197511/are-surgical-facemasks-more-effective-than-n95-masks-in-preventing-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19

"...the authors concluded that surgical facemasks could prevent the transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza when worn by symptomatic persons and that this may have implications in controlling the spread of COVID-19. [143]

In a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis, Smith et al found that N95 respirators did not confer a significant advantage over surgical masks in protecting healthcare workers from transmissible acute respiratory infections."

Edited November 29, 2021 by Unicorn

[Cooper]

Administrator’s Note:

Gentlemen, The OP requested that you refrain from posting political messages. He’d like his thread to remain in the Lounge. Please, respect his wishes.  Thanks! 

[thedanNYC]

7 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Actually, I'm not sure you fully understand. There is no scientific evidence that N95 masks are more effective than surgical masks at decreasing the spread of the virus. Even if they were, those masks have to be professionally fitted. You can't just buy one of the shelf and assume it's the proper fit. Finally, I can't imagine lasting a long plane flight wearing those masks. They make me sweat like a bandit under there and are extremely uncomfortable. If you know of a scientific study I've missed, however, please provide the reference.

This is from a study which was a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence available (combines the data from multiple randomized clinical trials):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32246890/

"Conclusions: Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non-aerosol-generating care. "

https://www.medscape.com/answers/2500114-197511/are-surgical-facemasks-more-effective-than-n95-masks-in-preventing-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19

"...the authors concluded that surgical facemasks could prevent the transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza when worn by symptomatic persons and that this may have implications in controlling the spread of COVID-19. [143]

In a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis, Smith et al found that N95 respirators did not confer a significant advantage over surgical masks in protecting healthcare workers from transmissible acute respiratory infections."

I'm not a doctor, so I don't follow the research on PPE. So I'll start by saying that my post is not meant to suggest you're wrong about the science (especially given that I couldn't access full copies of the articles you referenced).

 

Instead, I want to focus on policymaking. I highlighted a few key words in the quotes you posted to point out that non-aerosol-generating care is not the same context as people talking, sneezing, coughing, etc. in a crowded supermarket; that surgical masks could prevent Covid transmission such that they may help with controlling the pandemic doesn't need to be understood by policymakers as meaning that surgical masks are as good as N95 masks (or good-enough masks period); and that N95 masks not conferring a significant advantage over surgical masks doesn't mean that policymakers don't have grounds to choose to pursue what little advantage N95 masks may provide. 

 

Also, nobody is getting their masks professionally fitted. And, as a physician, you know first-hand that a surgical mask and an N95 mask simply fit differently out of the box, with the N95 having a much tighter fit around the face (especially after you pinch in the nose clip). Also, asking people to wear N95 masks sets a standard that ensures everyone is using the same kind of protective mask. Those are just a few reasons why Austria's policy can make sense to people like @coriolis888. 

 

Having said that, I understand where you're coming from believing that Austria's policy doesn't make sense unless someone can pull up a study explicitly saying that N95 masks are (significantly?) more protective than surgical masks. But I think most people would agree that state/local rules in America allowing people to wear whatever they think the word "mask" means is not rooted in science (either?). In that context, Austria's policy makes more sense to me than America's when it comes to squeezing out every (possible?) benefit out of a mask mandate.

[NJF]

A quick way to differentiate a true N95 mask from a lesser KN95 mask is whether the straps go over to the back of your head or just loop around your ears. The ones ear-loop straps will not fit tight enough to meet the N95 standards. A true N95 fitted properly is uncomfortable and I doubt that anyone can wear it over an extended period. There are good reasons that people suited up for level 3 and 4 works only work for a relative short shifts.

However, there is another side about masking that people don’t talk about. It is really about reducing what comes out of a person’s mouth and nose. Preventing virus or bacteria coming out of a sick person certainly reduces the transmission of the disease to other people. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, thedanNYC said:

I'm not a doctor, so I don't follow the research on PPE. So I'll start by saying that my post is not meant to suggest you're wrong about the science (especially given that I couldn't access full copies of the articles you referenced).

 

... N95 masks not conferring a significant advantage over surgical masks doesn't mean that policymakers don't have grounds to choose to pursue what little advantage N95 masks may provide. 

... as a physician, you know first-hand that a surgical mask and an N95 mask simply fit differently out of the box, with the N95 having a much tighter fit around the face (especially after you pinch in the nose clip). Also, asking people to wear N95 masks sets a standard that ensures everyone is using the same kind of protective mask. Those are just a few reasons why Austria's policy can make sense to people like @coriolis888. 

...Austria's policy makes more sense to me than America's when it comes to squeezing out every (possible?) benefit out of a mask mandate.

I'm sorry I have failed to explain some basic technical terms, which may have led to confusion. First of all, is the term "significant." In science, "significant" means that there is less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to chance (hopefully one gets to 1%, but 5% will do for one randomized clinical trial, though generally meta-analyses require much higher standards, since they pool data from multiple studies). It's not the same as "important," meaning useful in real life. A difference can be statistically significant, if the sample size (number of people studied) is large enough, without being important. In other words, if you study enough people, you can find real, but very tiny differences. 

If someone claims that N95's are better than surgical masks, it's up to that person to provide evidence that there's a difference, not the other way around. However, in this case, multiple studies have looked at that question, and none of them have found a difference. Even when adding up all of the studies, there's still no evidence. Since adding up lots of studies involves a very large number of people, a meta-analysis is powered to find even very small differences. So if there is any difference, it's too miniscule to be measured.

When I say "fitted," I don't mean just trying it on like you're in a clothing store to see if it fits you. When I was a practicing physician, I (and other doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, and so on) would periodically have to go in for fitting. This involved having a hood put over my head and having bitter aerosols pumped in to make sure I couldn't smell or taste the bitter substance, indicating that particular shape of N95 was right for me. 

I would hope that lawmakers would make policies based on what scientists say and what science demonstrates rather than on their own personal intuitive feelings or on what Aaron Rodgers would say. This has not been the case for Austria. 

[thedanNYC]

11 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

I'm sorry I have failed to explain some basic technical terms, which may have led to confusion. First of all, is the term "significant." In science, "significant" means that there is less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to chance (hopefully one gets to 1%, but 5% will do for one randomized clinical trial, though generally meta-analyses require much higher standards, since they pool data from multiple studies). It's not the same as "important," meaning useful in real life. A difference can be statistically significant, if the sample size (number of people studied) is large enough, without being important. In other words, if you study enough people, you can find real, but very tiny differences. 

If someone claims that N95's are better than surgical masks, it's up to that person to provide evidence that there's a difference, not the other way around. However, in this case, multiple studies have looked at that question, and none of them have found a difference. Even when adding up all of the studies, there's still no evidence. Since adding up lots of studies involves a very large number of people, a meta-analysis is powered to find even very small differences. So if there is any difference, it's too miniscule to be measured.

When I say "fitted," I don't mean just trying it on like you're in a clothing store to see if it fits you. When I was a practicing physician, I (and other doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, and so on) would periodically have to go in for fitting. This involved having a hood put over my head and having bitter aerosols pumped in to make sure I couldn't smell or taste the bitter substance, indicating that particular shape of N95 was right for me. 

I would hope that lawmakers would make policies based on what scientists say and what science demonstrates rather than on their own personal intuitive feelings or on what Aaron Rodgers would say. This has not been the case for Austria. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to write this explanation. I'm willing to accept your representation that studies have found no difference in how protective N95s and surgical masks are, which would mean they are interchangeable. If that's the case, what is it you think Austria did wrong here? Is it that you think surgical masks should be allowed because they're more comfortable and cheaper than N95s, or some other reason? Or is it that you've found a source suggesting that Austria's mask mandate requires an acceptable type of mask (i.e., N95s, which are just as effective as surgical masks), but they did it for the wrong reasons?

[+ tassojunior]

Obviously the N95's are "safer" and why extreme conditions require them by law and many surgeons actually use them, not "surgical" masks. My dentists use them also. They are expensive and a PITA to put on with the two loops over the back of your head, not ears, and hard to breathe in. I think most international airlines accept KN-95 masks which are the Chinese "equivalent"  but have ear loops and are cone-shaped instead of round (and fold flat). I can't seem to breathe in the N-95's much but the KN-95's are fine. The only problem is a lot of KN-95's have slots of holes which make them compromised. I put tape over the holes inside. They're comfortable (and easier on the wallet too). With Delta 100x more contagious and the new variant 1000x more contagious, I'm not sure how protective cheap masks are anymore for catching or spreading. Fauci's advice 2 years ago that masks do nothing to protect may finally be coming true. 

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

Obviously the N95's are "safer" and why extreme conditions require them by law and many surgeons actually use them, not "surgical" masks. My dentists use them also. They are expensive and a PITA to put on with the two loops over the back of your head, not ears, and hard to breathe in. I think most international airlines accept KN-95 masks which are the Chinese "equivalent"  but have ear loops and are cone-shaped instead of round (and fold flat). I can't seem to breathe in the N-95's much but the KN-95's are fine. The only problem is a lot of KN-95's have slots of holes which make them compromised. I put tape over the holes inside. They're comfortable (and easier on the wallet too). With Delta 100x more contagious and the new variant 1000x more contagious, I'm not sure how protective cheap masks are anymore for catching or spreading. Fauci's advice 2 years ago that masks do nothing to protect may finally be coming true. 

how many times will you pivot to Fauci and blame him?

He simply wanted to keep masks for healthcare workers! 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, thedanNYC said:

 

Thanks for taking the time to write this explanation. I'm willing to accept your representation that studies have found no difference in how protective N95s and surgical masks are, which would mean they are interchangeable. If that's the case, what is it you think Austria did wrong here? Is it that you think surgical masks should be allowed because they're more comfortable and cheaper than N95s, or some other reason? Or is it that you've found a source suggesting that Austria's mask mandate requires an acceptable type of mask (i.e., N95s, which are just as effective as surgical masks), but they did it for the wrong reasons?

What Austria did wrong was to rely on feelings or intuition, rather than on science, or someone who was familiar with the science, from guiding their legislative action (assuming it's true that N95 masks are required in Austria, which I haven't independently verified, but I think that's what we're discussing). If the goal is to prevent spread of the Covid-19 virus, there is no "reason" to require N95's, if by reason we mean "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic," rather than "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event."

Not only is there no evidence that N95's are better at preventing Covid-19 transmission, there's actually evidence that it does NOT. To require something that's not only many times more expensive, but also many times less comfortable with no reason whatsoever, is obviously highly irrational. Given their high cost, I imagine that most people who'd use them would try to keep reusing them for as long as possible, and might even be more likely to pull them down to cough or sneeze (since otherwise you'd be stuck in a tight-fitting sack of mucous). 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

Obviously the N95's are "safer" and why extreme conditions require them by law and many surgeons actually use them, not "surgical" masks. My dentists use them also. They are expensive and a PITA...

Safer for what? Not for Covid-19 spread. Maybe to decrease the risk of tuberculosis transmission or anthrax spread, or for some other reasons. The subject of this string is Austria's attempts to reduce Covid-19 spread. I've assisted in hundreds of surgeries and have never seen a surgeon wear an N95. I don't know about dental literature. It's certainly possible that some dental procedures or instruments produce microscopic particles which are captured better by N95's. But that is not the subject of this string, again. 

[coriolis888]

15 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

What Austria did wrong was to rely on feelings or intuition, rather than on science, or someone who was familiar with the science, from guiding their legislative action (assuming it's true that N95 masks are required in Austria, which I haven't independently verified, but I think that's what we're discussing).

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-01-25/austria-requires-medical-grade-masks-in-public-doubles-social-distancing-minimum

[thedanNYC]

21 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

What Austria did wrong was to rely on feelings or intuition, rather than on science, or someone who was familiar with the science, from guiding their legislative action (assuming it's true that N95 masks are required in Austria, which I haven't independently verified, but I think that's what we're discussing). If the goal is to prevent spread of the Covid-19 virus, there is no "reason" to require N95's, if by reason we mean "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic," rather than "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event."

Not only is there no evidence that N95's are better at preventing Covid-19 transmission, there's actually evidence that it does NOT. To require something that's not only many times more expensive, but also many times less comfortable with no reason whatsoever, is obviously highly irrational. Given their high cost, I imagine that most people who'd use them would try to keep reusing them for as long as possible, and might even be more likely to pull them down to cough or sneeze (since otherwise you'd be stuck in a tight-fitting sack of mucous). 

 

Well, if N95s are as effective as surgical masks, then there's as much scientific reason for requiring N95s as there is for requiring surgical masks. N95s are easy to purchase in Austria for less than a Euro each, cheaper if you buy in bulk. So it seems like your issue is that Austria is requiring use of the more expensive of the two equally effective mask types. That's fair, but it doesn't establish that Austria didn't rely on science when choosing which mask type to require that people use.

Whether that price difference is driving people to reuse N95s more than they would reuse surgical masks is something we don't know. That seems to be a feeling or intuition, rather than science (lighthearted poke there, couldn't resist). 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, thedanNYC said:

 

Well, if N95s are as effective as surgical masks, then there's as much scientific reason for requiring N95s as there is for requiring surgical masks...

Come on. Are you just being argumentative? It can make sense to require EITHER, but, since they're equally effective, not allowing the far less expensive and far more comfortable mask obviously is nonsensical. Yes, one would have to do a study to find out for sure if people are more likely to repeatedly reuse a mask which costs 1 Euro instead of 10 cents, but there is no reason to forbid the surgical masks in the first place. 

Of course, I'd argue that in a setting in which everyone's vaccination status is proven to be positive, a masking requirement is overkill to begin with--but that's a whole other discussion. 

[coriolis888]

8 minutes ago, thedanNYC said:

 

Well, if N95s are as effective as surgical masks, then there's as much scientific reason for requiring N95s as there is for requiring surgical masks. N95s are easy to purchase in Austria for less than a Euro each, cheaper if you buy in bulk.

I reported upthread that I recently returned to the U.S. on Austrian Airlines.  At check in, I was told that the thin blue mask I was wearing (that most people wear in the U.S. and elsewhere) are not acceptable.  I was directed to one of the stores just past security at the airport to purchase an N95 mask.  

The masks are not "less than a euro each" rather, they are six euros and are not sold in bulk at the airport stores.  I did not check in town to see what the bulk prices are.  

In the the U.S. I would not wear such a tight fitting mask.  I had to wear the mask for ten hours on the airplane and when I got to the U.S., my ears were sore and tender because of the tight fitting loops that hold the mask to the face.  

 

[thedanNYC]

8 minutes ago, coriolis888 said:

I reported upthread that I recently returned to the U.S. on Austrian Airlines.  At check in, I was told that the thin blue mask I was wearing (that most people wear in the U.S. and elsewhere) are not acceptable.  I was directed to one of the stores just past security at the airport to purchase an N95 mask.  

The masks are not "less than a euro each" rather, they are six euros and are not sold in bulk at the airport stores.  I did not check in town to see what the bulk prices are.  

In the the U.S. I would not wear such a tight fitting mask.  I had to wear the mask for ten hours on the airplane and when I got to the U.S., my ears were sore and tender because of the tight fitting loops that hold the mask to the face.  

 

The masks are absolutely less than a Euro each outside the airport, where everything is significantly cheaper.