Thousands in Vienna protest Austria’s looming lockdown

VIENNA (AP) — Thousands of protesters gathered in Vienna on Saturday after the Austrian government announced a nationwide lockdown beginning Monday to contain the country’s skyrocketing coronavirus infections.

The far-right opposition Freedom Party was among those who have called for the protest and vowed to combat the new restrictions.

Demonstrations against virus measures were also expected in other European countries including Switzerland, Croatia and Italy. On Friday night, Dutch police opened fire on protesters and seven people were injured in rioting that erupted in Rotterdam around a demonstration against COVID-19 restrictions.

The Austrian lockdown will start early Monday. Initially it will last for 10 days and then it be reevaluated. At most it will last for 20 days, officials said. Most stores will close and cultural events will be canceled. People will be able to leave their homes only for certain specific reasons, including buying groceries, going to the doctor or exercising.

The Austrian government also said starting Feb. 1, the Alpine nation will make vaccinations mandatory.

As the march kicked off on Vienna’s Heldenplatz, thousands of protesters gathered on the massive square. About 1,300 police officers were on duty. They used loudspeakers to tell protesters masks were required, but most didn’t wear them.

Chanting “Resistance!” and blowing whistles, protesters moved slowly down the city’s inner ring road. Many waved Austrian flags and carried signs mocking government leaders like Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg and Health Minister Wolfgang Mueckstein.

Netherlands, hard data 20 November 2021, from JHU and Worldometer.

( 19,344 deaths / 17,134,872 population of the Netherlands ) x 100 = circa 0.113 %.

Slightly more than one-tenth of one percent.

COVID is not a pandemic of death, but a pandemic of government, government-related media and the giant pharmaceuticals against we mere lab rats.

There is no justification for these European lockdowns, with the exception that medically-excused fascism is rising.

Austria’s numbers are pretty ugly. Vax is losing its protection as time passes. That is, infection protection and death protection. Their infection events are spiking upwards.

And, as always, the correct computation is not deaths divided by population. It is deaths divided by vulnerable population (65+) and to what extent that result exceeds a pre Covid year.

Don’t know or care what actions should or must be taken. Only care about accurate computation. Don’t divide by population. That is like including males in a computation of pregnancy rates. Divide by vulnerable population.

“Austria’s numbers are pretty ugly. Vax is losing its protection as time passes. That is, infection protection and death protection. Their infection events are spiking upwards.”

Given that a “vax” is losing its “protection” as quickly as these seem to be, asserting that it is “protection” is at best a moving goal post, criteria fluxing on a whim. Where is the proof of “protection” when protection wanes? What other vaccines have such short duration of protection?

“And, as always, the correct computation is not deaths divided by population. It is deaths divided by vulnerable population (65+) and to what extent that result exceeds a pre Covid year.”

A calculation like mine is merely a method for comparing information. The information from the JHU as from so many sources is difficult to believe, but it is what we are given. Here is a comparison: China has recorded less than 5,000 Covid deaths. Using any calculation you wish, this is inexplicable, though very “official.”

“Don’t know or care what actions should or must be taken. Only care about accurate computation. Don’t divide by population. That is like including males in a computation of pregnancy rates. Divide by vulnerable population.”

A fascinating critique, given that pregnancy is not a female occurence alone, but an “it takes two to tango” event. Last I checked, males are included in a pregnancy. Computations can be made, but it is the crietria by which they are chosen that matters. Using comparable data, a ratio can be established. Who establishes your definition of “a vulnerable population?” You? The CDC or WHO? Johns Hopkins University?

Here are two “vulnerable populations” — the USA and China, reportedly over 700 thousand deaths in a population of about 335 miliion verus about 5 thousand in a population of 1.4 billion. Do whatever math you wish according to whatever criteria you wish to choose, but the “pandemic” and its political responses, esepcially in Europe and some states in Australia, are inexplicable, and medically fascist.

Or perhaps China has fewer “vulnerable” than the United States?

A bonus question: Why are these particular “vaccines” losing their “protection” so quickly? Perhaps the criteria are not what the criteria are for others vaccines? Perhaps as vaccines, this current crop does not work?

Here’s the computation I find for the US versus China:

China through 23 months — ( 4,849 deaths since beginning of pandemic / 1,439,323,776 Chinese citizens ) x 100 = 0.0033 %

United States through 23 months — ( 763,092 deaths since beginning of pandemic / 331,002,651 ) x 100 = 0.23 %

Quite a difference, irrespective of one’s choice of criteria.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.