Would you support lockdowns for the unvaccinated ?

Austria is days away from ordering millions of unvaccinated people to stay at home, its chancellor has said, in a rare move that underscores the increasing exasperation of European leaders towards those who have not yet been inoculated against Covid-19.

Under Austria's plan, which was agreed in September, unvaccinated Austrians will face a stay-at-home order once 30% of intensive-care beds are occupied by Covid-19 patients. The current rate is 21%, according to the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), and a surge in infections has pushed it up quickly.

Unvaccinated people are already excluded from entertainment venues, restaurants, hairdressers and other parts of public life in Austria. If the new measures come into place, the unvaccinated will be ordered to stay home except for a few limited reasons; the rules will be policed by officers carrying out spot checks on those who are out.

Around 65% of Austria's population is fully vaccinated against Covid-19, one of the lower rates in the European Union.
''It is clear that this winter will be uncomfortable for the unvaccinated," Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg warned on Thursday.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

No, I don't. I would much rather they were required to do daily PCR tests.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@EuphoricTurtle The problem is that costs a fortune for no reason and with the time it comes back positive you just created another outbreak so it is kind of a waste of time.

Elessar · 26-30, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Make them pay for it. Over here the stubborn are paying for their own tests. So long as they're happy wasting €45/week and one hour in queue once every two days, we're all happy I guess.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow How much does it cost to keep people at home if they can't work from home?

And I'm not suggesting the state pays for the tests.
Here in Portugal the % that the state pays for PCR tests has decreased substantially which means those who have to do them without a prescription from the National health service have to pay more out of pocket.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@Elessar Exactly!

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@EuphoricTurtle If the state doesn't pay for it and mandate it, it will not happen.

Nobody is going to pay for it if there is no enforcement.

And how much will another large outbreak cost?

And frankly if you work in a field where you can't work from home and refuse to do the responsible thing that is their problem.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I'm suggesting the state DOES mandate it but not pay for it.

The same enforcement (and its cost) you have in place to see if people are vaccinated can be used to check if people have had their daily test.

If everyone who has a positive test is obligated to quarantine, you will avoid such outbreaks.

It's not THEIR problem, it's OUR problem as a society.
And however I not only disagree with them does not mean I think they should be hung out to dry. That's why I'm even reluctant to refuse/ differentiate hospital care for those who aren't vaccinated.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@EuphoricTurtle This does nothing to address the issue of how many people they have infected before the test results come back.

As for people who make bad decisions about their livelihood they should be prepared to accept the consequences of their decisions. If there are no consequences for making such decisions there is zero incentive to do the right thing.

As for hospital care that should not be a factor at all unless they are strapped to the point of requiring triage and rationing of medical supplies.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I clearly said the tests requirements should be daily. And as you know, lockdowns don't mean you can't leave your house at ALL. You can still leave to buy groceries and other activities.

So it addresses it in at least in the same way. In my modest opinion, even better.

As for bad consequences, are you equally willing to;
-deprive smokers from lung transplants?
-deprive heavy drinkers from liver transplants?
-deprive overweight people from bypass surgery?

SomeMichGuy · M

@EuphoricTurtle

I think ONGOING smokers who have refused cessation techniques/therapies SHOULD be denied lung transplants unless no one else needs that lung before it "expires".

Same for heavy drinkers & liver transplants (with the equivalent caveats).

Since we aren't talking about a transplant in your last case, I would support greater cost to us for such surgery, IF we have refused weight control measures.

Here in the US, obesity is a huge problem (pun...accepted, even if not intended)...and there id not much active encouragement from insurers to get fit.

And getting fit is the BEST way to decrease our shared healthcare costs.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@EuphoricTurtle Daily testing doesn't really solve the problem because you have about a week (3-5 days) before the results come back. You can infect alot of people in a week.

Without contact tracing it doesn't take long for it to get really messy.

And this other people is just a distraction that has nothing to do with anything.

Fun fact, in many countries those things actually do disqualify people from transplant lists already.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@SomeMichGuy
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree.
Same thing applies to drug rehabilitation such as the distribution of methadone. (I failed to mention this one)

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I'm assuming the PCR tests are made available in a matter of hours (as they are here in Portugal).

And once again the same issue of infection and contact tracing exists with lockdowns as they only reduce infection rates they do not eliminate infections.

As for your fun fact, you are referring to people who;
-still smoke
-still drink
-are still overweight

SomeMichGuy · M

@EuphoricTurtle So you don't think smokers who refuse cessation therapies should be put at the back of the line for lung transplants?

And that heavy drinkers who refuse help to quit drinking should be put at the back of the line for liver transplants?

We all end up paying for these. Should we invest in someone who is just going to abuse a new organ over someone *not* doing that? In these narrowly-defined instances, shouldn't we put money preferentially where it is likely to be spent on someone who treats this amazing gift with respect?

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@SomeMichGuy
I beleive it should be a factor to take into consideration but not that it should automatically put them in the back of the line.

Same goes for those who require methadone who have relapsed before.

It's clear from your comments that your main concern is healthcare costs, and granted the best way to keep that down is to deny people care in the first place.

My main concern is public health.