Within that framework, SRG SSR is given independence both from an organisational perspective and in terms of its programmes, and SRG SSR’s editorial work is neutral and impartial.
If you think they are partial you can write them a formal complaint.
In 2020 I would say about 14%
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kultur-medien-informationsgesellschaft-sport/medien/medienrechtliche/ubi.html
1 Like
what‘s the status quo? Very little restrictions, Switzerland always had the most relaxed rules in Europe (except Sweden maybe, but that strategy failed, don‘t try to convince me otherwise).
1 Like
That is not how risk management works. The Federal Council has to manage with uncertainty and can’t tie themselves with too specific promises. They can link measures to some indicators, like the availability of hospital beds or the transmission rate of the virus, but they can’t take an engagement that those parameters won’t evolve negatively in the future and that they won’t have to take measures to protect the population if that happens.
Risk management calls for a lot of flexibility in decision making, that’s why it’s such a difficult exercise right now. We’d want certainties and guaranties, but there really is none that could happen. What is working and that we have to trust is that the democratic and scientific processes are working and that a balance with which we can work is reached.
As you state, the risk of insurrection and/or loosing credibility and no executive decision being applied anymore is part of the risk assessment that the authorities are doing. They know they’re walking on thin threads and that, itself, makes the exercise very difficult. I’m grateful to them for how they are handling it.
There will always be talk of more measures, just like a market crash is always just around the corner. We, as general public, have a wide diversity of views and assessments. Some think Big Pharma will push for a third shot, some think SARS-CoV-2 will turn out to be flue-like and come back every year in varying strains requiering new shots, some are appalled we are even talking about a third shot when big parts of the world still don’t have an easy access to enough of the two first doses, considering this is a worldwide matter and Switzerland is not likely to make isolating itself sustainable, if it is at all possible.
Right now, politicians are probably more worried about not getting re-elected (plus the (veiled) threats they’re likely to be receiving) so that figures into their risk assessment. If the measures are there to stay, as you say and as seems to derive from the Rockefeller Fundation scenario (I haven’t read it yet), it’s likely we’d get accustomed to the presence of the illness rather than the measures taken against it and it could turn into an insurrection.
This is part of why we have a militia: so that the general population is ready, trained and connected enough to overthrow the government if needs be. It’d require a very wide consensus and the costs of doing that are very high, whether it succeeds or not. In my assessment, we are very, very, very far from such a scenario as of now. If it keeps going through 2032? Maybe.
I’m lucky enough to have a stable salary, access to most of the activities I like and no extravagants needs. The measures I’m getting are very tame right now (wearing a mask for 40 seconds in order to go from the entry of a restaurant to a table where I sit? Maybe 30 min if I’m doing my groceries?). Currently, I’m more bothered by the people who refuse to follow the measures and/or crowd themselves, increasing the risk for the rest of the population around them.
That being said, to answer your question, it would take several strong beliefs:
- That the measures enforced don’t follow a scientific basis.
- That not following them doesn’t carry a heavy risk of health disaster and that there are no better ways to avoid it than following the given measures.
- That it is, indeed, an exercise in power and not an attempt to protect the population.
- That the democratic process doesn’t work anymore and that we can’t vote ourselves out of the situation (in that, laws have been passed making the measures illegal but them being still maintained) and that we can’t demote the elected officials anymore (because there are no more elections or because their results are not followed).
- That there is no other and better way to handle the situation.
Right now, we are very, very, very, very far from having any of these boxes ticked for me. So yeah, nothing forseeable for me in the somewhat near future.
2 Likes
I didnt even know that Germany introduced the certificate for restaurants etc. 
We just went to Lörrach and were asked for a certificate. Luckily we are all vaccined. Would have sucked to drive 45min just to get rejected lol.
And nice to hear they enforce it, because the registration-rule has only been half-heartedly enforced and therefore followed in CH up to now (although not “ignored by everyone”, as others have claimed - I have been asked to register when the menu is brought, and asked if I registered when the order was taken).
In one german city, I think Hamburg, they go one step further and have the concept of 2G and 3G places.
2G places take only vaccinated or recovered persons (Geimpft, Genesen) and at 3G places they take vaccinated, recovered or tested persons (Geimpft, Genesen oder Getestet). The businesses can decide themselves which model they want to apply.
I take that as proof that there’s no microchip in the vaccine. I mean, 2G? Come on, geez!*
*Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
1 Like
These “low” risk figures are figures with severe pandemic restrictions in place.
I’m going to be honest if impolite here:
Your spewing that nonsense about totalitarian government and massive propaganda doesn’t help your arguments - and it doesn’t help you being taken seriously. Quite the contrary.
You literally don’t seem to know that a totalitarian government and “massive” government propaganda is, if you think Switzerland has one - or would be on the way to becoming one.
…in Nigeria.
They weren’t predicting the same for the developed world.
Exactly. It will be a political decision. And restrictions won’t go on forever. People will be willing to accept some risk to go on with their lives. We’ve seen that the re-opening of retail stores and restaurants. Whether it the mandate will fall or it will be tacitly ignored, we are also going to see it with the mask requirement eventually.
The fitness clubs’ changing rooms are a good example: It doesn’t make much sense to mandate masks in changing rooms - when you’re much more likely to be exposed to viruses during longer mask-free stay in the actual gym facilities. As such, people have ignored the mask mandate in changing rooms. They know that the rules aren’t making sense consistently.
3 Likes
Remember last year, there was some bad news around Brasilian president Bolsonaro and vaccination. Now I know why…
1 Like
I don’t understand how this is meant to work. You get sued for a liability tied to your vaccine, you deflect the lawsuit toward the government, who has signed an agreement for that but the government doesn’t pay, so you seize a military base (the buildings, not the soldiers) and since the government is a nice guy, the soldiers in it don’t immediately forcefully seize it back because it would look awesome for your company to be petitioning its (the US) government to interfer with the affairs of another sovereign nation for breach of contract when the contract was that you could get their military bases, ambassy and national bank buildings? I mean, those terms would be deemed void in most jurisdictions.
Aren’t you the perfect counter example?
1 Like
Absolute Bullshit.
In every point made in this pamphlet, there is but a seed to truth bloated and distorted to absurdity. perfectly typical conspiracy trash.
Did it ever occur to you that what you do and spread is dangerous, rather outright harmful? Harmful in that it might prevent others from doing the right thing, getting vaccinated and adhering to covid measures?
11 Likes
At this point I think that it’s safe to assume that either, he won’t change his view and thus discussion is worthless, or that he’s acting as a troll. We should stop feeding him and focus on mustachian-related topics.
6 Likes
etc etc.
The danger of some sort of free speech.
The video talks about Pfizer asking for collateral as guarantee of payment from Argentina and Brazil. Some additional insight, if you look in the annual accounts of pharma companies you often see these countries mentioned under “sovereign debt risk”. They have volatile governments and pay late. Argentina has defaulted on sovereing debts more than once in recent years, it has also nationalised assets of foreign companies (Repsol) and this year instituted a one off wealth tax on the wealthy
A separate debate is whether Pfizer should be allowed to charge so much for the vaccine in the first place
1 Like
Good gosh Patron,
The comment sections are filled to the point of nausea of anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-vax, anti-measures, anti-masks rantings. Didier Raoult in France was more mediatized than any other scientific. You can express yourself here and where you want, the Friends of the Constitution can make a Refendum, even two. One of the debates I provided has even more people against mask and measures than pro-measures. What do you want more??
What the heck is wrong with thoses sceptics, it drives me completly nuts. And they are warning you of the drama in which society is sinking instead of beiing constructive… Yeah, because “THEY KNOW”
5 Likes
Ehm?^^
[stopping here]
that’s alot more of
than you ever presented.
You are not anywhere close to bringing up something similar. All your anti-stuff has (almost) zero merit to it. But it carries all the tricks and deceptions know from strawmen, conspiracy theories and other areas that fall under “free speech but dangerous”.
The only thing one can do against this is constant debunking.
9 Likes
Nothing stops you from starting a news paper, setting up a TV station etc. You can invite any guests you like, publish anything etc.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean other are forced to publish what you want to say/hear. It means you can do it if you deem it necessary.
Nah, if you disregard scientific consensus which is based on sound evidence bases on flimsy, none-verifyable arguments, come up with ‘alternative facts’ and loose all rationale in a discussion people might point out your errors. Only if you keep going with the same or similar nonsense arguments you’ll get ignored or labeled a conspiracy lunatic.
6 Likes