EU mandantory chat control

[PlainName]

look at the smallpox vacine uptake improving after the mandates were scrapped

Are you sure you're thinking of the right disease?

Given these risks, as smallpox became effectively eradicated and the number of naturally occurring cases fell below the number of vaccine-induced illnesses and deaths, routine childhood vaccination was discontinued in the United States in 1972 and was abandoned in most European countries in the early 1970s

So you're saying that once the disease was done for and routine inoculation was scrapped because of that, vaccination by choice really took off?

[Zero999]

Monkeh, oops, yes, I did type that line too fast. There have been periods in history where governments have mandated vaccines, not so much in the recent history (pre-2021) of developed nations, but plenty around the turn of the 19th in to 20th century. That said, at all those times a "vaccine mandate" meant "take it or we'll hit you with a one-off fine" not "take it and then be trapped in a digital ID card prison of surveillance, or don't take it and be thrown out from society as a whole". So while mandating a vaccine itself isn't so unprecedented, the level of coercion involved in 2020/21/22 and the evils of making the state a middleman in every human interaction via QR codes at doors is still very much a novelty. What was learnt as good public health practice from all those historic periods though, was that vaccine uptake and general health of populations improves if mandates are avoided, look at the smallpox vacine uptake improving after the mandates were scrapped. Perhaps I should have said that evidence based practice had by the 21st century lead to the realisation that vaccine rollouts should be done calmly and without coercion and are more successful when the public doesn't get turned against them by coercive activities, rather than mistakenly saying that such sensible practice had always been the historic reality.

They were certainly the first vaccine mandates in the history of the EU.

It's terrible the way those who decided not to get vaccinated were treated. It was never tested to prove it stopped transmission and whist it did to some degree, it soon became apparent it wasn't anywhere near effective enough to mandate it. Most people who turned down the COVID vaccines are not anti-vaxers. I know plenty of people who had other vaccines, yet decided against having this one. It's perfectly fine to be concerned about new vaccines based on an experimental technology. Plenty of doctors are question the risk vs benefit analysis, especially in the young and healthy.

[MadScientist]

There was not and cannot be a eu wide mandatory vaccine policy. It’s a national decision that’s all. Some countries brought in rules for certain categories of people.

Again the mistaken notion being peddled by some here of eu wide mandatory vaccine policy is completely false the EU does not have a legal basis for such action.

Most eu counties did not enforce widespread vaccine mandates at all in fact.

[Galenbo]

Most eu counties did not enforce widespread vaccine mandates at all in fact.

No they only enforced measures that caused the unvaccinated to loose their job and/or income.
Yes that happened, yes they did that.

[Zero999]

There was not and cannot be a eu wide mandatory vaccine policy. It’s a national decision that’s all. Some countries brought in rules for certain categories of people.

Again the mistaken notion being peddled by some here of eu wide mandatory vaccine policy is completely false the EU does not have a legal basis for such action.

Most eu counties did not enforce widespread vaccine mandates at all in fact.

No one said the EU mandated it. Many people are critical of the EU for going along with it and failing to take action against member states who committed human rights abuses, even if they thought they were doing go. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[PlainName]

This is all very Y2K-ish hindsight.

I don't see any way some particular thing would or wouldn't've happened had we done or not done something - it is all pure conjecture. All we can really say is that we did so-and-so (or not) and such-and-such happened (or not). Anything else is a 'grass was greener over there' fiction based entirely on one's viewpoint.

Maybe we can move of from this sometime. If you need to keep dragging it up, perhaps give a thoughtful solution for handling the next killer pandemic better.

[Zero999]

This is all very Y2K-ish hindsight.

I don't see any way some particular thing would or wouldn't've happened had we done or not done something - it is all pure conjecture. All we can really say is that we did so-and-so (or not) and such-and-such happened (or not). Anything else is a 'grass was greener over there' fiction based entirely on one's viewpoint.

Maybe we can move of from this sometime. If you need to keep dragging it up, perhaps give a thoughtful solution for handling the next killer pandemic better.

What makes you think that? I can't see any similarity with Y2k. China maintained lockdown for nearly 3 years, whilst Sweden didn't do it at all, yet in both cases everyone got it, regardless.

[SiliconWizard]

There was not and cannot be a eu wide mandatory vaccine policy. It’s a national decision that’s all. Some countries brought in rules for certain categories of people.

Again the mistaken notion being peddled by some here of eu wide mandatory vaccine policy is completely false the EU does not have a legal basis for such action.

Most eu counties did not enforce widespread vaccine mandates at all in fact.

No one said the EU mandated it. Many people are critical of the EU for going along with it and failing to take action against member states who committed human rights abuses, even if they thought they were doing go. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Absolutely, but in this particular case, the fact it was all done with good intentions is dubious.

[PlainName]

This is all very Y2K-ish hindsight.

I don't see any way some particular thing would or wouldn't've happened had we done or not done something - it is all pure conjecture. All we can really say is that we did so-and-so (or not) and such-and-such happened (or not). Anything else is a 'grass was greener over there' fiction based entirely on one's viewpoint.

Maybe we can move of from this sometime. If you need to keep dragging it up, perhaps give a thoughtful solution for handling the next killer pandemic better.

What makes you think that? I can't see any similarity with Y2k. China maintained lockdown for nearly 3 years, whilst Sweden didn't do it at all, yet in both cases everyone got it, regardless.

China and Sweden are completely different - population, location, vaccination effectiveness, infectiousness of it, etc. Why not compare Sweden with Italy, where it was pretty much a massacre at the start?

The point is that you can't say "if they'd done such-and-such this would happen, or not happen". The fact is they didn't (or did, as the case may be), and history tells us what actually occurred. Anything else is conjecture. Even when you try to compare incomparable situations, you are showing that the outcome wasn't determinable beforehand.

I'm not intending to get involved in this game, but if you want to play then put yourself in the position of a country looking at somewhere like Italy where they are dropping like flies, completely overwhelmed, and figuring that if you do nothing then your city or country is probably two weeks away from being the same. You can use all the hindsight you've gained from Covid, so you already have a leg up.

As I say, if you have to keep warming this up then figuring out a workable response is surely better than the continuous arguments over unprovable make-believe.

[Zero999]

This is all very Y2K-ish hindsight.

I don't see any way some particular thing would or wouldn't've happened had we done or not done something - it is all pure conjecture. All we can really say is that we did so-and-so (or not) and such-and-such happened (or not). Anything else is a 'grass was greener over there' fiction based entirely on one's viewpoint.

Maybe we can move of from this sometime. If you need to keep dragging it up, perhaps give a thoughtful solution for handling the next killer pandemic better.

What makes you think that? I can't see any similarity with Y2k. China maintained lockdown for nearly 3 years, whilst Sweden didn't do it at all, yet in both cases everyone got it, regardless.

China and Sweden are completely different - population, location, vaccination effectiveness, infectiousness of it, etc. Why not compare Sweden with Italy, where it was pretty much a massacre at the start?

The point is that you can't say "if they'd done such-and-such this would happen, or not happen". The fact is they didn't (or did, as the case may be), and history tells us what actually occurred. Anything else is conjecture. Even when you try to compare incomparable situations, you are showing that the outcome wasn't determinable beforehand.

I'm not intending to get involved in this game, but if you want to play then put yourself in the position of a country looking at somewhere like Italy where they are dropping like flies, completely overwhelmed, and figuring that if you do nothing then your city or country is probably two weeks away from being the same. You can use all the hindsight you've gained from Covid, so you already have a leg up.

As I say, if you have to keep warming this up then figuring out a workable response is surely better than the continuous arguments over unprovable make-believe.

My point is the infection spread worldwide the same, irrespective of the actions of the authorities, or lack of thereof. The fact the extreme reaction of many governments had so many negative consequences, they should carry the burden of proof they were right, not those who question them.

[Nominal Animal]

Here in Finland, the penalty for publishing a video of 'youths' beating up other passengers in a bus is greater than beating up other passengers in a bus.  Ethnicity is a big factor in determining the penalties, though.

The purpose is to have laws that can be selectively applied.  The need for that is based on the picture of an utopian society the current 'elite' has, where there is no middle class: just Owners, and Consumers, with basically no way of a lowly Consumer to become an Owner.  The mandatory chat control is just one piece of that puzzle.

Feel free to laugh at me, and call me a conspiracy theorist.  There is no conspiracy, though; it's a natural consequence of how human societies have tended to evolve when the society size exceeds 2000-5000 humans.  It has happened in history for the last five thousand years at least, ever since the first known cities like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, and does not involve any kind of "evil" or "conspiracy" or even malicious intent.  It's just how human societies evolve, when certain negative aspects are not kept well enough in check.  When resource limits come up, things get downright Easter Islander or Aztec.  Only an idiot refuses to look at history, and draw parallels to modern era, when estimating the direction of current societies.

[SiliconWizard]

Couldn't agree more. And please let's just all stop talking about conspiracy theorists shit.
We're currently rushing towards an orwellian society, and as you just said, it's an unfortunately perfectly natural consequence.
It's a "simple" way of managing scarcity. Not a particularly nice one, but it has proven to work well enough repeatedly in the past to be reiterated.

[Nominal Animal]

And please let's just all stop talking about conspiracy theorists shit.

You're right.  It's just a very sore label for me.

To simplify a bit, the changes I see here in Finland have an obvious pattern of consequences, and I think I understand why it is happening.  (I could be wrong, of course, but note that I believe everyone involved truly believes they are doing Good.  Which also explains why the reaction to any criticism is so hostile: if the criticism is right, then it means people who are working hard for Good, are actually doing Harm, which is obviously unacceptable; therefore the criticism must be incorrect, and thus has to be quashed immediately.)

At the core, the issue is the rise of the middle class in the last hundred years or so.

Classists (communists and socialists and those who want a world with an untouchable elite) are threatened by the middle class, because it is the mechanism how "workers" become "elite", disproving the entire idea behind socialism, showing that it is individual effort, and not class struggle, that determines the fate of the individual.  This is the exact core of the entire situation.  The "elite", in turn, wants to remove the "middle class", because it is also the mechanism how "elite" can easily fall down to "worker" status; and there is nothing they fear more than that.

So-called leftists want to abolish the middle class, because they recognize that the existence of the middle class threatens their ideology: the idea of a person moving from the working class to middle class based on their own effort, is absolutely incompatible with the socialist-classist worldview.  They also don't want to fight a class war on two fronts -- against both the "elite" and the "middle class" ––, so abolishing the middle class is the natural approach.
(They also believe that without the middle class, it'll be easier to overthrow the "elite" and become the new "elite" themselves.)

The elite wants to solidify its position.  They fear nothing as much as loss of their "elite" status.  Abolishing the middle class is like digging a deep trench between yourself and the thing you fear most; and it also makes the distinction between the "elite" and "working class" much more prominent.

In this light, it is no surprise that the elite and the classist socialists have joined forces against the middle class, common sense, and the core values of Western societies in general.  It is quite logical.  Most of them truly believe they are doing it for the greater good, too; the "elite" because they truly believe they are better than others –– this being a perfectly natural human reaction; even if the position is based on pure chance, even in games, people who get on top or win, generally believe they did so because they did/played better than the others ––, and the socialists because they believe that societies will do better without a middle class.

Controlling speech is an obvious, crucial step here.  Even the way how individual voters in EU have no control over the EU commission, fits perfectly into this picture.

Thing is, historically, it looks like it is exactly the middle class that actually pushes progress and prosperity forwards.  The way people can shift between "classes" based on their individual actions seems to be a crucial mechanism for continued prosperity.  I would claim it is the reason why education seems to be the most effective way of lifting people out from poverty (ie. that the middle class is proof that personal efforts can make a difference for many people), but I don't have real proof of that.  Well, except for how these things have always correlated, both in recent and in ancient history.

[MadScientist]

Controlling speech is an obvious, crucial step here.  Even the way how individual voters in EU have no control over the EU commission, fits perfectly into this picture.

I’m not aware of any democratic country that elects  its civil service and that’s all the commission is.

Fundementally people need to understand thd EU institutions before taking pot shots at it.

[Nominal Animal]

Fundamentally people need to understand the EU institutions before taking pot shots at it.

Of course.  But, you do not "understand" by accepting their self-descriptions at face value, you observe their actual behaviour and interactions with others.

That is all I described above: my own observations, and the pattern or underlying reason that explains the behaviour, without any kind of conspiracies, or even any pre-defined "design"; it is just how things are evolving right now here, organically, with basically all political participants fully believing they are doing good work.  Even WEF fits in perfectly to that pattern, and does not require any kind of ill intent or nefarious designs.

Thus, I find the characterization "taking a pot shot at EU" invalid, here.  The pattern I'm describing is not a "pot shot", and it is not limited to EU, but can be observed in urban areas in USA and Canada as well.

[SiliconWizard]

Fundementally people need to understand thd EU institutions before taking pot shots at it.

Do you?

[magic]

Just a heads up: this is turning into a religious debate

When I was even more young and stupid than I am today, I spent many hours arguing with all that progressive-liberal-democratic-scientific woo-woo and all I got for my effort was realization of the absolute futility of it.
Ever since, I feel more productive isolating myself from material manifestations of the that could directly hurt me and watching true believers suffer pain trying to make it all work out.

[Nominal Animal]

Just a heads up: this is turning into a religious debate

Yeah.. that's why I normally avoid mentioning social neoteny, nihilism, relativism, and how it all relates to the death of God as used by Nietzsche, as a likely background for all this.  That almost always leads to someone yelling, even among people otherwise capable of logical and rational thought –– and all it is, is a pattern that fits, with no evil or nefarious people involved; just good intentions almost certainly leading to bad outcomes.

When I was even more young and stupid than I am today, I spent many hours arguing with all that progressive-liberal-democratic-scientific woo-woo and all I got for my effort was realization of the absolute futility of it.
Ever since, I feel more productive isolating myself from material manifestations of the that could directly hurt me and watching true believers suffer pain trying to make it all work out.

The downside is, all it takes for horrible errors to prevail is for sensible people to stay silent.

In a way, it is all really funny: it is the young people who have the energy and will to try and change things, but they lack the wisdom and experience to make truly good choices.  The few old people who have the wisdom, lack the energy and the will.  The people in between are just too busy living their lives to give a shift. 

[SiliconWizard]

Yeah, age-old conundrum. Sums up human condition, really.

[MadScientist]

I described people’s reactions as a pot shot largely because no credible situation exists where the proposal would become EU law. It’s simply not possible given the freedoms enshrined in the makeup of the EU and the role of the member states. The EU has no “ federal powers “

[magic]

I don't care how this bureaucracy works, but I know that I have to buy leaded solder from black market and disable JS to get rid of cookie banners as if disabling cookies weren't enough. And I know I wouldn't have those problems if not for Brussels.

If they could force cookies, they can force AI scanning your every uploaded image for CP. Of course, it's to guarantee your freedom from sexual abuse, which is your fundamental right enshrined in the makeup of the EU.

[MadScientist]

I don't care how this bureaucracy works, but I know that I have to buy leaded solder from black market and disable JS to get rid of cookie banners as if disabling cookies weren't enough. And I know I wouldn't have those problems if not for Brussels.

If they could force cookies, they can force AI scanning your every uploaded image for CP. Of course, it's to guarantee your freedom from sexual abuse, which is your fundamental right enshrined in the makeup of the EU.

This is just abject scaremongering   , and conflating different things. The danger of lead poisoning is long understood and has been proven. Hence stop mixing up entirely different issues

It’s right and proper amateurs are restricted buying lead based products that’s entirely different to the a “ ban” that isn’t law nor likely to be so being hyped by vested anti EU types proclaiming the Eu is bringing in restrictions it clearly has no power to actually do.

[GridWork]

And please let's just all stop talking about conspiracy theorists shit.

You're right.  It's just a very sore label for me.

To simplify a bit, the changes I see here in Finland have an obvious pattern of consequences, and I think I understand why it is happening.  (I could be wrong, of course, but note that I believe everyone involved truly believes they are doing Good.  Which also explains why the reaction to any criticism is so hostile: if the criticism is right, then it means people who are working hard for Good, are actually doing Harm, which is obviously unacceptable; therefore the criticism must be incorrect, and thus has to be quashed immediately.)

At the core, the issue is the rise of the middle class in the last hundred years or so.

Classists (communists and socialists and those who want a world with an untouchable elite) are threatened by the middle class, because it is the mechanism how "workers" become "elite", disproving the entire idea behind socialism, showing that it is individual effort, and not class struggle, that determines the fate of the individual.  This is the exact core of the entire situation.  The "elite", in turn, wants to remove the "middle class", because it is also the mechanism how "elite" can easily fall down to "worker" status; and there is nothing they fear more than that.

So-called leftists want to abolish the middle class, because they recognize that the existence of the middle class threatens their ideology: the idea of a person moving from the working class to middle class based on their own effort, is absolutely incompatible with the socialist-classist worldview.  They also don't want to fight a class war on two fronts -- against both the "elite" and the "middle class" ––, so abolishing the middle class is the natural approach.
(They also believe that without the middle class, it'll be easier to overthrow the "elite" and become the new "elite" themselves.)

The elite wants to solidify its position.  They fear nothing as much as loss of their "elite" status.  Abolishing the middle class is like digging a deep trench between yourself and the thing you fear most; and it also makes the distinction between the "elite" and "working class" much more prominent.

In this light, it is no surprise that the elite and the classist socialists have joined forces against the middle class, common sense, and the core values of Western societies in general.  It is quite logical.  Most of them truly believe they are doing it for the greater good, too; the "elite" because they truly believe they are better than others –– this being a perfectly natural human reaction; even if the position is based on pure chance, even in games, people who get on top or win, generally believe they did so because they did/played better than the others ––, and the socialists because they believe that societies will do better without a middle class.

Controlling speech is an obvious, crucial step here.  Even the way how individual voters in EU have no control over the EU commission, fits perfectly into this picture.

Thing is, historically, it looks like it is exactly the middle class that actually pushes progress and prosperity forwards.  The way people can shift between "classes" based on their individual actions seems to be a crucial mechanism for continued prosperity.  I would claim it is the reason why education seems to be the most effective way of lifting people out from poverty (ie. that the middle class is proof that personal efforts can make a difference for many people), but I don't have real proof of that.  Well, except for how these things have always correlated, both in recent and in ancient history.

Well said! By chance do you have a newsletter.

[Nominal Animal]

Well said! By chance do you have a newsletter.

(I can't read the subtext and tell whether you're mocking me or not!  Me fail English )

No, I have no newsletter, nor even any message, because I don't really know exactly what we should do to do better.

Like everyone else, I have ideas of what kind of world would be better than what we have now, but that's just an opinion.  Everyone has opinions and wishes, right?  What matters is what we do, how we go about changing things for the better.

I personally do not know what kind of actions would actually yield better results.  I know that if I had the power to implement my wishes, I would be one of the worst dictators ever in history, even in the off chance that future generations lauded me for the eventual results.  You see, the intent and the goal does not justify the means in politics and governance: it is the path – everyday living – that matters more than the intentions or goals.  Maybe one in fifty dictators has been actually somewhat benevolent, historically speaking, and they usually did just small things and had no Grand Plans for their people to perform, other than live and prosper.  I would not wager much on myself being in that 2%.

If anything, I advocate small local changes, observing the effects, and learning from the results.  Right now in most Western countries we're progressing emotions and ideologies first, based on beliefs (and at best, carefully filtered scientific advise), instead of logic and rational thought; with young activists advocating huge radical changes without much proof that those changes are likely to yield positive rather than negative results.
But I cannot change how people express themselves, and I cannot force people to think or learn from history.

So, no newsletter, no message, no sermons here.  Just observations and tiny tentative suggestions for individuals, as that is the best I can do, I think.

[pcprogrammer]

Even if you would succeed in making some huge change for the, what we think is, better, in the long run it gets destroyed by human nature again.

There will always be people that don't agree with the way things are or feel left behind or think they are entitled to more then they get, and start wrecking what otherwise could be a perfect system.

I too have ideas about this but would probably be an even worse dictator for some 

A thought experiment:
Would it be possible to set up a society where profit is not on the table, and things like inflation, deflation and economic growth are not a thing. A system where money is not a product but just a means. But still with some difference in status of and reward for the work you do. And when you want more it is possible with working for it. Like better yourself through education. And yes for some this would proof to be impossible, and for these their should be some basic support structure.

Utopia, I know, but think about it, and how it would collapse due to human nature.