Militaarteemad minevikust kaasaega
https://www.militaar.net/phpBB2/
Kriku kirjutas:Frater Redox kirjutas:Kriku kirjutas:Kas Eesti on sellise suuruse ja autoriteediga riik, et võiks endale paar korda aastas karantiini lubada?
Meil ei ole seda muude riikidega võrreldes eriti olnudki.
Nõus - ma saan siis aru, et vastus on jaatav.
Sama SMS mulle ka täna... kuna eile spordiklubis jäi QR-koodi lehvitades silma et tõend kehtib järgmise aasta aprilli keskpaigani siis tõhustusdoosi saama ei rutta....elame näeme.Some kirjutas:Tuli ka täna sms, et tehke tõhustusdoos. Üsna hilja tegelikult, ma sain oma teise doosi Pfizeri juba märtsis. Läksin digilukku ja valisin vahelduseks Moderna. Esimene võimalus vaktsineerimiseks oleks kümne minuti pärast aga, et ei viitsi ennast hetkel kodust välja vedada siis lasen ennast alles homme torkida. Kui minult homme õhtul postitusi ei tule, siis teadke, et langesin kodumaa nimel - süstlanõel õlas ja 5G peas!
Aga jah, kuidagi lihtsalt käib see vaktsiini saamine tänapäeval. Paanika võiks ju ikka nii suur olla, et oleks natukenegi järjekorda...
Dr.Sci kirjutas:Sama SMS mulle ka täna... kuna eile spordiklubis jäi QR-koodi lehvitades silma et tõend kehtib järgmise aasta aprilli keskpaigani siis tõhustusdoosi saama ei rutta....elame näeme.Some kirjutas:Tuli ka täna sms, et tehke tõhustusdoos. Üsna hilja tegelikult, ma sain oma teise doosi Pfizeri juba märtsis. Läksin digilukku ja valisin vahelduseks Moderna. Esimene võimalus vaktsineerimiseks oleks kümne minuti pärast aga, et ei viitsi ennast hetkel kodust välja vedada siis lasen ennast alles homme torkida. Kui minult homme õhtul postitusi ei tule, siis teadke, et langesin kodumaa nimel - süstlanõel õlas ja 5G peas!
Aga jah, kuidagi lihtsalt käib see vaktsiini saamine tänapäeval. Paanika võiks ju ikka nii suur olla, et oleks natukenegi järjekorda...
Madis Reivik kirjutas:
Ennustan - tulevad lockdownid koos hüvitisega ainult vaktsineeritutele. Võimalik et kusagil juba on nii.
Prantsusmaal või Hispaanias ei tohtinud vahepeal eelnevalt formulari täimata kodust välja minna ning politsei väänas selle eest kaunis soolase trahvi. Meil on ka kindlasti sama võimekus olemas, kuigi pole vaja läinud.Frater Redox kirjutas:Täiskarantiini ka mitte, isegi kui kehtestada - inimesed ei pea sellest kinni.
Ja kuna sa midagi asemele ka ei paku, ongi suur osa sinu postitustest mõttetu hala.hjl85 kirjutas:Olen kohustulikud/sund vaitsineerimise vastu ning ka lockdownide vastu.
hjl85 kirjutas:Akf Kriku: Hispaania ylemkohus kuulutas selle korralduse põhiseadusega vastuolus olevaks. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57838615.amp
P.S see on sinu loogika. Olen kohustulikud/sund vaitsineerimise vastu ning ka lockdownide vastu.
-An interference will be considered “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of a legitimate aim if it answers a “pressing social need” and, in particular, if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are “relevant and sufficient” and if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
-The Convention system has a fundamentally subsidiary role. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation in so far as the protection of human rights is concerned and, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions.
-It is therefore primarily the responsibility of the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to where the fair balance lies in assessing the need for an interference in the public interest with individuals’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, in adopting legislation intended to strike a balance between competing interests, States must in principle be allowed to determine the means which they consider to be best suited to achieving the aim of reconciling those interests.
-That assessment by the national authorities remains subject to review by the Court, which makes the final evaluation as to whether an interference in a particular case is “necessary”, as that term is to be understood within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
-The Court has held that matters of healthcare policy are in principle within the margin of appreciation of the domestic authorities, who are best placed to assess priorities, use of resources and social needs
-On the existence of a consensus, the Court discerns two aspects. Firstly, there is a general consensus among the Contracting Parties, strongly supported by the specialised international bodies, that vaccination is one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions and that each State should aim to achieve the highest possible level of vaccination among its population
-Secondly, when it comes to the best means of protecting the interest at stake, the Court notes that there is no consensus over a single model. Rather, there exists, among the Contracting Parties to the Convention, a spectrum of policies on the vaccination of children, ranging from one based wholly on recommendation, through those that make one or more vaccinations compulsory, to those that make it a matter of legal duty to ensure the complete vaccination of children. The Czech Republic has positioned itself at the more prescriptive end of that spectrum
- While childhood vaccination, being a fundamental aspect of contemporary public health policy, does not in itself raise sensitive moral or ethical issues, the Court accepts that making vaccination a matter of legal duty can be regarded as so doing, as attested by the examples of constitutional case‑law set out above .The Court considers, however, that this acknowledged sensitivity is not limited to the perspective of those disagreeing with the vaccination duty. As submitted by the respondent Government, it should also be seen as encompassing the value of social solidarity, the purpose of the duty being to protect the health of all members of society, particularly those who are especially vulnerable with respect to certain diseases and on whose behalf the remainder of the population is asked to assume a minimum risk in the form of vaccination
-As reiterated above , the Court has previously held that healthcare policy matters come within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities. Having regard to the above considerations and applying its well‑established case-law principles, the Court takes the view that in the present case, which specifically concerns the compulsory nature of child vaccination, that margin should be a wide one.
Pressing social need
-Having recognised the importance, generally, of childhood vaccination as a key measure of public health policy, it must next be considered whether the choice of the Czech legislature to make the vaccination of children compulsory can be said to answer to a pressing social need. ...
... it can be said that in the Czech Republic the vaccination duty represents the answer of the domestic authorities to the pressing social need to protect individual and public health against the diseases in question and to guard against any downward trend in the rate of vaccination among children.
Relevant and sufficient reasons
-As regards the reasons put forward for the mandatory nature of vaccination in the Czech Republic, the Court has already acknowledged the weighty public health rationale underlying this policy choice, notably in terms of the efficacy and safety of childhood vaccination. ...Court considers that the Government have clearly set out the reasons behind this choice. While a system of compulsory vaccinations is not the only, or the most widespread, model adopted by European States, the Court reiterates that, in matters of health-care policy, it is the domestic authorities who are best placed to assess priorities, the use of resources and social needs.
-It is well established in the Court’s case-law that in all decisions concerning children their best interests are of paramount importance
-It follows that there is an obligation on States to place the best interests of the child, and also those of children as a group, at the centre of all decisions affecting their health and development. When it comes to immunisation, the objective should be that every child is protected against serious diseases....Thus, where the view is taken that a policy of voluntary vaccination is not sufficient to achieve and maintain herd immunity, or herd immunity is not relevant due to the nature of the disease (e.g. tetanus), domestic authorities may reasonably introduce a compulsory vaccination policy in order to achieve an appropriate level of protection against serious diseases. The Court understands the health policy of the respondent State to be based on such considerations, in the light of which it can be said to be consistent with the best interests of the children who are its focus.
Proportionality
-While vaccination is a legal duty in the respondent State, the Court reiterates that compliance with it cannot be directly imposed, in the sense that there is no provision allowing for vaccination to be forcibly administered. In common with the arrangements made in the intervening States, the duty is enforced indirectly through the application of sanctions. In the Czech Republic, the sanction can be regarded as relatively moderate, consisting of an administrative fine that may only be imposed once.
-Regarding the child applicants, the Court has viewed their non‑admission to preschool as an “interference”
-Regarding the first applicant, the Court has already found that the administrative fine imposed on him was not excessive in the circumstances. The Court notes that there were no repercussions for the education of this applicant’s children, who were already teenagers .
- With respect to the remaining applicants, their enrolment in preschool was either denied or revoked for lack of the required vaccinations. While the applicants and some of the intervening associations complained about the impact of this on the organisation of family life, notably in financial and career terms, the Court reiterates that the personal scope of the case, examined under the private life head of Article 8, is limited to the applicants themselves and the repercussions for them of the contested measures
-Moreover, the effects on the child applicants were limited in time. Upon reaching the age of mandatory school attendance, their admission to primary school was not affected by their vaccination status
-For these reasons, the Court considers that the measures complained of by the applicants, assessed in the context of the domestic system, stand in a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the legitimate aims pursued by the respondent State through the vaccination duty.
Conclusion
-The Court would clarify that, ultimately, the issue to be determined is not whether a different, less prescriptive policy might have been adopted, as has been done in some other European States. Rather, it is whether, in striking the particular balance that they did, the Czech authorities remained within their wide margin of appreciation in this area. It is the Court’s conclusion that they did not exceed their margin of appreciation and so the impugned measures can be regarded as being “necessary in a democratic society”
