I note that some local German authorities are considering this as well (Berlin specifically) and, whatever the merits of it, it seems like a recipe for trouble.
Personally I’m not sure what additional benefit against transmission it gives over and above the current restrictions and I suspect it will fuel a greater sense of grievance. If it is designed to nudge vaccination levels upwards then it may have some success but the costs of that in terms of social unrest and dissatisfaction may be high. I guess we will see.
Yes, it’s a lose–lose situation. With new infections higher than they’ve ever been, reimposing some sort of control measures is necessary. The choice the government was faced with was whether to strain the patience and goodwill of the 2/3 of the population who have already been selflessly and tirelessly doing everything they can to stop the spread of the disease, or to further alienate the crackpots and plague rats making up the remaining 1/3 of the population.
The question is not whether any precautions are necessary or helpful, but whether that particular choice is the best one.
Plenty of other countries have managed surges without re-imposing such strict measures. Versions of “vaccine passports” and requirements to mask are already in place in Austria. The unvaccinated are already restricted in what they can do and where they can go.
If that hasn’t pushed the jab rate up enough then I’m not conviced that this will and rather think that it will cause public disturbance without actually making the infection rate any better or the jab rate substantially so.
See, I just don’t think that sort of language is really appropriate. It makes me really uncomfortable to hear people talk about actual human beings in that way. Cathartic it may be but is using that language going to help or hinder?
Not hard enough in this case. Kickl says getting Covid-19 hasn’t changed his views on vaccination. And in all likelihood he’ll end up better off because of his illness: if he recovers (which is likely, as he’s asymptomatic) then for the next six months he’ll be able to enjoy all the same privileges as vaccinated people (going to bars, nightclubs, movie theatres, etc.).
I don’t see what you mean. The deaths don’t “manage” the surge though they may be a result of a surge in infections.
Countries may choose to accept higher levels of infection (and resulting deaths) without imposing additional restrictions. In a well-vaccinated country that has proved be an acceptable form of management.
It is a source of constant bafflement to me that anyone, absent a compelling medical reason, refuses to do so. I admit though that I don’t know of anyone in my circle of family and friends who openly admits to not doing so.
I believe that was the point. Much of the US seems uninterested in actually managing it, and seems to expect it to be dealt with by letting the infections run rampant in the unvaccinated, just letting nature take its course.
I don’t think that government lockdowns for the unvaccinated are a bad idea. We already know that external pressure does convert some people. And, for the rest, it limits their ability to spread the virus. Sure, some may hold out in a game of chicken, but the government has more resources.
I’m not saying it definitely will work better than other options, but it’s something worth trying, I think.