Because we’re yet to see a proof of it.
3 Likes
That’s your opinion
And the one of any reliable source online. Also analyzing the data it’s obvious.
I have never seen that fat people or smokers or people who drink alcohol have been systematically discriminated and that they had to proof that they are non-smokers, non-alcoholics, and provide a certificate that their body fat levels are below a certain level before entering a restaurant or fitness center, etc.
You can’t smoke inside because other people may get sick, people need to prove they did not drink to drive, smokers need to pay huge taxes on cigarettes, etc… They are all incentives. It’s the same.
I never tested myself for Covid and never will do so.
I’ve heard of these novax notests people, didn’t think to be talking with one… 
We can end here the discussion, I won’t reply, I’ve better things to do than discussing with someone who doesn’t want to “put a stick up his nose”.
Also I notice now the “taxation is theft” avatar I understand that if this is your social sense, making a covid test must feel unbearable…
7 Likes
I was also hoping to see more of such opinions, but we can’t have all in life and sometimes we must accept there are different opinions than ours.
Hey I’m glad that you’re saying it.
Similarly, the science and numbers interest me. Particularly the worrisome, very official but likely understated numbers concerning deaths and negative reactions to the western mRNA and adenovector vaccines.
But, as it’s been said before, the science and numbers won’t change the fact that you and I have adopted a different perspective to the majority on this forum. A perspective where, notably, even science can not be allowed to curtail the liberties that are the foundation of our civilization. So it doesn’t really matter which camp is interpreting the official statistics correctly.
Anyway, I’d rather see what these guys here have to say about investments and frugal living. At least they understand one path to individual liberty.
1 Like
The government decisions are backed by sound science, and I don’t see why people that take de decision not to get vaccinated should be shielded from negative consequences. You have the freedom to choose, but that choice has consequences.
It’s like refusing to get a driving license, and then complaining that the government blackmails you by not allowing you to get behind the wheel.
4 Likes
That is where you go wrong.
All the rest is window dressing.
2 Likes
Obesity is contagious? Must be me, but I can’t find the peer-reviewed (meta-)studies.
1 Like
No. From what I understand - and it’s a small but crucial difference - there are about 8 hospitalisations per 100 people of the age group. Roughly speaking - and that’s without hospitalisations for pregnancy (only women can be pregnant, and being pregnant is not disease).
What’s making you think it can’t be? 
2.7% for just one particular emerging contagious disease would be a lot - compared to about 8% for all other injuries and diseases combined.
2 Likes
The bigger issue is likely that a fairly large share of Covid hospitalizations result in a multi-week ICU stay, if I remember correctly. That’s not the case for the average non-Covid hospitalization.
32.4% of all currently hospitalized Covid patients are in the ICU. However, only 2.2% of currently hospitalized non-Covid patients are in the ICU.
2 Likes
What‘s the source of the data? I just seems very high to me
So, I’ve got this idea … let them only participate in society if they get vaccinated against corona, or have a recent negative test.
Oh…
Incase people didnˋt know you can mute/hide a whole thread using the bell icon on the right side.
11 Likes
- About 120 - 150 hospitalisations per 1000 inhabitants over all age groups.
- More than 1 million hospitalisations each year since 2013.
- Spitalaufenthalte 2008.
While I haven’t found a comprehensive statistic off-hand, 8% seems a reasonable rough figure.
When I see stories like these 2 from the UK, I wonder why anyone would take the risk to prove a point
1 Like
Interesting
20 characters
I thought we’d tried that with cigarettes, shocking pictures on the boxes, special talks in schools, bans in closed public spaces, frequent articles in different medias… while it has probably decreased consumption, smoking is, as far as I’m aware, still very much alive.
I was refering to your road crashes hypothetical. 
(Edit: and so, no, we wouldn’t be voting in favor of 20 km/h on highways after just two years of the state heavily campaigning against car crashes.)
In some way, we’ve spent way more resources for way longer on smoking prevention than we have in two years of fighting Covid, so the scales may actually be tilted in the opposite direction.
Also, and I know we don’t agree on that, the need that sometimes arises for emergency measures is why we keep a Federal council at all. Without need for emergency powers, we could do just fine with just the Parliament and the administration.
1 Like
Excellent example.
Few people would accept a 20km/h limit on motorways.
But most people are reasonable and accept that there is some speed limit.
Few people would accept each and every conceivable restriction to slow spread of COVID.
But most people accept and adhere to some restrictions that most believe are reasonable.
Some don’t - just as there are people who think they must be (or it is cool) driving 260km/h in public.
Be it for freedom’s sake, as means of exercising one’s free will or as a protest against the government.
I mean, who has ever died driving 200+ km/h on a Swiss motorway? Chances are small, aren’t they?
7 Likes
Where?
You mean 30km/h in cities?
Or those drivers who are fast asleep at 90km/h in the middle lane on the motorway?
Or is this another Patronesque exaggeration?
5 Likes
Can we stop with the slippery slope fallacy? Which countries have not relaxed restrictions when pandemic situation got better? (Even China did…)
2 Likes