Now france, soon germany: because the state does not manage to convince the burgers from immunization, is set to indirect prere. That’s dishonest. A comment
The view to france is worth this day to get an impression of what’s in germany as well as other parts of europe and the world. With the "passe sanitaire", the health pass, prasident emmanuel macron de facto imports a vaccination requirement.
Not by law or only qua regulation, but indirect, through the backtime; not in hot disputes, but cold and without further debate.
From 21. July will show such a pass, who aims free access to shopping centers, gastronomy or leisure facilities. At the same time, the cost of alternative PCR tests should increase significantly.
Anyone who mistreates the vaccines approved in the EU – whatever does not want to vaccinate from other reasons, not only has a short and medium term looking for. With the new framework conditions, the safe coming refresh vaccinations are enforced from the outset.
The example of paris makes school. Just a few days ago, the chairman of the catalyst association in rhineland-palatinate, peter heinz, has demanded significant freedoms for unvaporously.
"The non-vaccines are not the freedom to store their mask. You can not go to the stadium, not to the swimming pool and not without a mask in the supermarket shopping. And you can not permit unburdened and those with just a simple vaccine anymore to go on vacation", heinz said in the interview with the rhein-zeitung.
A vaccination requirement, according to heinz, he refuses.
Responsible failure for the central task
This attitude is not only scandalos for a functionary of the healthcare system, because it is dishonest, but also because it shows the failure of those responsible, whose main task had to be liable to convey medical measures to increase the acceptance in the population and to protect the public health.
In this point, not only the rhineland-palatinate KV-chief peter heinz.
The fact is that in relation to the corona vaccines approved in the european union, many questions are open despite increasingly solid database. This alone, because the study and observation period is too short to convene relatively secure statements about the benefits of immunization.
But as long as the open questions are not clarified and no social consensus has been established, the decision for vaccination remains an individual decision.
And no, such a consensus is not achieved, even if the vaccine rate rises. Otherwise, there were no warnings "sanctuary".
Otherwise, there was no debate on non-perceived vaccine dates.
Otherwise, there were no burgers who do not perceive the payers.
Otherwise, there was no proposals to pay people for vaccinations.
Much answers that the gang to the vaccine doctor is due to pragmatic considerations than a real conviction.
Still: too little transparency, too much willing
The reason for this is the constant lack of transparency of corona policy and the willkur of the maws. Thus, in may, the bundestag decided a corona regulation, according to the vaccinated indefinite immune, which, on the other hand, only six months. Lothar wieler, the prassident of the robert koch institute, ranked on demand from journalists, it gives "no very high, convincing evidence" for the six-month rule. Nevertheless, wieler said, the data ranged out to determine, "that a coarse part of the people who were infected has six months has an immune protection."
Faith, interpret, interpret – in normal times that no one was rubbed from the stool. In corona times but hungen belief, interpret and interpret freedoms and burger rights.
That’s why the cold vaccination requires how you are now increasingly being abandoned, rejecting. And when vaccinations are to be enforced despite lack of database or lack of ability to convincing any findings, then please open and free. Corresponding laws and regulations have been at least the debate on a solid basis. Or is that avoided because such regulations have been revised too often since the beginning of the pandemic?