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..
I am not convinced that we "need 90%". Covid will likely not go away even then. Because current vaccination work not as good as initially hoped.
I think we should try harder to convince people e.g. by increasing funding for *reliable* and *verifiable* science communication and mandatory counseling.
But "forcing" people to be vaccinated against their will is imho not a "success" because it threatens peaceful and liberal society in the long run.
@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.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!