Ich finde, wir sollte sprachlich besser zwischen Impfgegner:innen und Impfpflichtgegner:innen unterscheiden.
Grund: Ich denke, es gibt gute Argumente gegen eine allgemeine Impf*pflicht*. Aber die Gefahr, mit querschwurbelnden irrationalen Impfgegner:innen assoziiert (und entsprechend sozial sanktioniert) zu werden, ist eine massive mentale Hürde diese zu äußern.
#Diskurspolarisierung hilft nicht bei schwierigen Entscheidungsproblemen.
Venn-Diagramme vllt. schon eher..
@cark under normal circumstances I would be with you!
But, we failed last summer and the problem is: we need 90% vaccinated people!
- We can try harder to convince the rest of that 90% by some random measures.
- We can try harder to convince the rest of that 90% by some random measures and by vaccination mandates.
- We can let covid just do its thing.
The choice is to pick the one with the highest success chance and fix its problems as good as we can.
@cark it was never about making covid "go away" it is about bringing it to a so called "endemic state" that does not overload our healthcare system.
There are some very interesting papers from RKI out there, but you can calculate those 90% on your own with simple school math (and some error margin) if you relate ratio of vacced/unvacced patients in any hospital with the current vaccination rates.
I did not rule out the convincing part, but that is not enough. We tried!
@cark this one is interesting. It is a recent graph from salzburg. As far as I read this, the red line is caused by 30 % unvaccinated people, and the green line is caused by the 70 % vaccinated people.
This is the social network for Conesphere.com's community.