9 Comments

Thank you again for your valued insight.

Hmm.. yes, politician's words are cheap. Until they actually rescind the law (or schedule such procedures) best not to assume outright victory.

Nevertheless I take Eugyppius' point that it is a small victory to have them publicly concede the failure of their policy.

Let's see what autumn brings. Based on my personal experience in Bayern last winter (my case/fine is still being processed) the Infection Protection measures and the wheels of bureacracy will be use to quell any undesirable protest movements.

Expand full comment
author

Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing, but let's not let our guard down, for this is (far) from over.

I hope your case goes well.

As to autumn, we'll see, but given the increasing rumbling w/regard to energy shortages, I suspect that there may be bigger worries (than Covid-19) ahead…

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022Liked by epimetheus

I mjst ask, does the austrian law regarding this work as ours do? Basically, swedish law on this topic works thus (super-simplified):

Some diseases, parasites et c are classified as a danger to society. If an outbreak is detected, locally or nationally, the doctor in charge of epidemic prevention makes a judgement call regarding measures. This can range from having a stern talk with the carrier(s) and giving them guidelines to the carrier(s( being incarcerated in a medical facilitiy indefinetely (which would require something like an outbreak of smallpox or similar).

The decision mat be challenged in court, and the doctor is answereable only to his peers in the profession. That's the legal bit.

In reality as we saw last year, there's nothing stopping politicians from enacting laws and procedures too, using a disease as an excuse and thereby sidestepping the whole pesky thing of medical professionals not acting on politicial orders.

Reading you and Eugyppius, I get the feeling that german and austrian law on this functions the same way, despite both nations having both consitutions and constitutional courts, which Sweden lacks completely.

Antoher question if I may, are there any provision for the constitutional courts to hand out punishments for violations? Our equivalent, ironically called the Constitutional Committee, can at worst say "Bad politician! Bad! Shame on you!", that's the remit of their power.

And as they cannot even force someone summoned before them to appear, they aren't so much toothless as they are completely jawless - the committee being made up out of politicians from the parties in parliament, using the same proportionality, means it's about as much a check on overreach as the russian Duma.

Expand full comment
author

In short: yes, the laws appear to 'work' quite comparable to the Swedish case.

In the Austrian Epidemics Act of 1950, though, those illnesses are actually listed by name; the main consequence being that once a physician or lab detects any of these pathogens, the authorities must be notified, which is then followed by bespoke measures.

(As an aside, more than 20 years ago, I experienced this myself as I apparently caught a stomach bug, and when my lab work came back, it showed the presence of a bacterial pathogen that fulfilled the above-mentioned notification requirements. Consequently, a morbidly obese, chain-smoking official from the 'health & human services' department of the Vienna State bureaucracy stopped by a couple of times…)

You know, the powers that be could have just 'amended' the Epidemics Act with two passages, e.g., Sars-Cov-2 and Covid-19, and be done with it. Instead, they enacted an entirely new law that overrides virtually all constitutional liberties, and this leads to another issue with the political system we're living under (the post-WW2 one): technically, as well as legally, it takes a 2/3 majority in parliament (in both chambers) to amend the constitution, but do note that the Covid-19 Emergencies Act does not fall into the category of constitutional law.

In other words: I think this is as close to a coup d'état as there may be one.

Expand full comment

Oho, ours did both! They added Covid to the dangerous diseases list /and/ tried to put into effect coercive measures and lockdowns, though for once their ineptitude, turpitude and general epic failure-ness worked in the public's favour.

Maybe that's the only good thing about how our parliamentay system is set up: there's no need for a coup d'état, since there's no accountability or constitutional checks and balances anyway.

Expand full comment

The regime's plan has failed and they are scared. Bourla's talk about annual vaccines is just whistling in the dark.

However, comparing the regime's war against us with WW2, we are in 1942 in terms of progress towards winning the war.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022Liked by epimetheus

Maybe ask Tom which side is which in this conflict, could be important.

Me, I'm thinking the opposition towards Covid-fascism is best likened to the finns, both as inspiration for bravery in the face of insurmountable odds (25 soviets for every finnish soldier!) and because it paints the Covid-fascists as not-too-different from the likes of Beria and Molotov.

Expand full comment

Since I heard of the latest news in Austria regarding the mandates, I've been looking forward to hearing your take on it. I am saddened but not surprised that your more nuanced analysis of it is less rosy than others'. My gut tells me you are right.

Expand full comment
author

Dear Sophia, I hope I'm wrong (but past experience is a quite hard teacher in these regards).

We will see what, if anything, happens. My gut feeling is that 'they' will somehow manage to 'miss' the parliamentary procedural deadlines for a revocation before summer, and who knows what will happen in a couple of weeks…

Expand full comment