Many people believe that any and all opposition to the Covid vaccine comes from "far-right" Republican conspiracy theorists in the flyover states. I guess the Swiss government will now be branded with those labels as their Federal Office of Public Health is now recommending that a Covid vaccination is not needed, even for people at especially high risk. They list pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems as an exception. They further state that those who wish to receive a Covid vaccine must pay for it out of their own pockets.
In principle, no COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for spring/summer 2023. Nearly everyone in Switzerland has been vaccinated and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19. Their immune system has therefore been exposed to the coronavirus. In spring/summer 2023, the virus will likely circulate less. The current virus variants also cause rather mild illness. For autumn 2023, the vaccination recommendation will be evaluated again and adjusted accordingly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by corey on Thursday April 13, @10:59PM (2 children)
But there in Australia the government is recommending boosters for over 30s, but for personal protection but to reduce transmission to those who are more immunocompromised. Read about it in the news ten minutes ago.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/covid-vaccine-booster/102217164 [abc.net.au]
Maybe the situation is different in Switzerland. They’re coming out of winter and we’re going into it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Coligny on Friday April 14, @02:53AM
Yea, the situation is so different in australia that they missed the Pfizer’s own report stating their vaccine do not affect transmission rate.
Gess they need to clear some space in fridges for the next viral scam.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Saturday April 15, @05:17AM
Also, the headline is Fox-grade misleading, what the Swiss government has said, and it's actually quoted in TFA, is "Nearly everyone in Switzerland has been vaccinated and/or contracted and recovered from Covid-19. Their immune system has therefore been exposed to the coronavirus. In spring/summer 2023, the virus will likely circulate less". So most people are already vaccinated and there's also a lot less of it circulating, therefore it's not being recommended any more although you can still get it. In other words it's like a flu shot. This is nothing like "Swiss government says all you need is natural immunity".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by krishnoid on Thursday April 13, @11:53PM (24 children)
Trust some random goverment's politician's say-so, or wait for medical researchers to put their reputation on the line by stating something based on an academic background and heritage of making falsifiable claims?
I'm waiting until we hit around that global-warming 97% scientific consensus. And keeping an eye on wastewater surveillance [cdc.gov], which it's kind of hard to keep from telling the ugly truth until you start actively suppressing the data.
(Score: 5, Informative) by dalek on Friday April 14, @02:10AM (23 children)
The title is disinformation and the summary contains political flamebait. The actual article is from the Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland, which probably has a similar role as the CDC does in the US. The article does not comment on the relative immune protection from being infected with COVID versus being vaccinated. Even if there are studies that say natural immunity might provide better protection, the Swiss government did not say that, which makes the title disinformation. The article says that Switzerland will not currently provide free vaccines without the recommendation of a doctor. This is based on high levels of immunity in the Swiss population due to the combination of vaccination and prior infections, and that currently circulating variants are generally mild, and that respiratory viruses generally do not circulate as much during the spring or summer.
I read the actual article. Some of their logic doesn't seem markedly different from past instances when the CDC didn't authorize COVID boosters for many Americans because immunity from prior vaccinations was holding up well new variants didn't warrant additional boosters. Even in the US, it's unlikely that new boosters would be recommended by the CDC prior to the fall. Once COVID vaccines that the US government has already purchased get used up, free COVID vaccines will end here as well. The actual story isn't especially remarkable or controversial. The summary posted here just has a particularly poor title and contains flamebait written by the submitter.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 5, Informative) by krishnoid on Friday April 14, @02:56AM (2 children)
Well in that case, here's Switzerland and Liechtenstein's wastewater surveillance dashboard [admin.ch].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @05:00PM (1 child)
What is that supposed to demonstrate?
Approximately 70% of the people there are vaccinated and 30% have been infected.
If you think infection provides the best protection, those numbers should go down.
If you think vaccination provides the best protection, those numbers should go down.
Well the numbers went down, what does that prove?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday April 14, @06:25PM
Just sharing that region's dashboard. The idea of wastewater surveillance is clear enough to STEM-types, but combines chemical engineering as applied to genetic material, infectious diseases/epidemiology, assaying, statistics, and multiple fields of computing (for data visualization and distribution).
Some of those are way more obvious depending on your background, but it opens with a universality [goodreads.com] that is hard to start a convincing argument against, conceptually and quantitatively. It's also inconsistently in place on a government-by-government basis [soylentnews.org] at various different levels, countries, and other organizations [ucsd.edu].
My hot take is that "supposed to" is more of a human interpretation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @06:27AM (19 children)
Which the article makes clear in the title.
An assumption - not an unreasonable one - but an assumption nonetheless.
So they are suggesting that a policy to immunise everybody is not justified. The vast majority of Swiss people already currently have sufficient natural (or residual if you prefer) resistance to the strains of COVID-19 currently active in Europe. Those who wish to be immunised can do so if a doctor supports it, and of course that is free and covered by the patient's own compulsory medical assurance which is commonplace throughout Europe. Don't equate this assurance with that required in the USA - it is a very reasonable cost and is provided free in cases of genuine financial hardship (this is certainly true here in France). Most payments are automatic but, in a small number of cases, would require a single page form to be filled in. I would hardly call that Flamebait.
The title is accurate. The submitter's contribution is clearly shown as being his, and he is entitled to gives his opinion although we would prefer that his comments remain neutral. His statement that they 'must pay for it out of their own pockets' is incorrect.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday April 14, @07:53AM (3 children)
Costs (FTFA):
- but also -
So it's a "it depends".
I didn't notice any mention about specific costs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @10:52AM (2 children)
There are no visible specific costs. The system is very different to that found in, say, the USA.
If the doctor approves the vaccination then the work is done and your assurance company is billed directly or, much less frequently, you have to fill in a form and submit that. It doesn't matter how much it costs. The person assured is not required to pay a certain amount - the entire cost is borne by the assurance company. The cost of the assurance policy obviously changes from company to company but it is not the exorbitant amounts we often see quoted here and elsewhere for treatment in the USA. An injection at home - which I do not pay - which is itemised on my monthly printout from my assurance company, is €3 euros. ($3.32 at today's exchange rate). The attending nurse is also paid for her time directly from my assurance - it is €8.50 approximately which is not bad for 10 minutes work, discounting her travelling time. Rates will vary from country to country but are usually in the same ballpark.
The nurses tend to work in their own local area so travelling time is not usually a huge cost but might be in very remote rural areas. This is Europe - not the mid-West.
My assurance policy covers the cost of injections for standard holiday destinations. Others may not do so, I simply do not know.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @04:29PM (1 child)
So your doctor decides if natural immunity is the best defense against COVID and NOT the Swiss health authorities?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @06:13PM
As I understand it, if the doctor believes that, despite having had a vaccination or having already had COVID-19, one is still at risk, then they can authorise a vaccination. Failing that one can always opt to have a vaccination even though it is not believed to be necessary but it will have to be funded by oneself because the assurance is unlikely to accept it as a justifiable medical treatment.
I live in France - not Switzerland - and my General Practitioner is always the first point of contact for any treatment other than emergencies. My assurance gives me quite a bit of freedom to choose additional treatments at their expense but the cost of my assurance will be higher than the basic package that they provide. Mine includes holiday travel etc. It is still significantly less than somebody in the USA would pay. Almost anything not covered by my assurance would involve emergency treatment which is provided free. That's social medicine for you...
I have not had to pay for any treatment for COVID-19 despite having had the initial vaccination and 4 subsequent boosters. The majority of the cost of COVID-19 treatment has been borne by the state. I can either walk 200 metres to the pharmacy and have my injection there or have a nurse visit me at home, the payments for which I have explained elsewhere in an earlier comment.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Friday April 14, @09:00AM (2 children)
I disagree, because it could lead to hard line antivaccinists claiming that they "were right all along". The title would have been correct if it had included "now", or "as of 2023", or "finally", or anything else that would prevent such a false claim.
Over the past few years I have seen so many false claims, dressed up as news stories and often covered in pseudo scientific sauce, to scare people away from being vaccinated. In my opinion it would be wise not to fuel those willingly.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @10:57AM (1 child)
If you take any part of a title on this site it might not be relevant in your particular country and/or under your specific circumstances. Switzerland probably doesn't give two hoots what somebody in the US might think.
Personally, I think that if you read the linked article it is quite clear what they are saying. They make no claims that the statement is true worldwide; it relies on the high level of immunisation that they have achieved and the residual immunity from those who have had Covid-19.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @05:09PM
I think they would prefer us to not believe statements that have been falsely attributed to them.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday April 14, @11:51AM (8 children)
Not wanting to make a big deal out of it, but the flaminess in TFS comes because TFS is equating the anti-vax nutjobs with the Swiss government. This validates the nutjobs. Unfortunately it is not justified by the content of the article.
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @12:24PM (7 children)
Neither SoylentNews, nor the editors. nor indeed the Swiss Health Authorities, are responsible for the actions or beliefs of "anti-vax nutjobs". They will believe whatever they wish to believe. We have, I hope, a far more intelligent community. Why would anything that the Swiss HA say validate something that somebody in the USA believes? The Swiss HA make no such assertion but state that it is based upon the conditions that exist in Switzerland.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @04:35PM (5 children)
But the editors ARE responsible for the claim that Swiss authorities say natural immunity is the best defense when they said no such thing.
They say that nearly everyone has been vaccinated OR infected already so there is no longer a need for immunization.
There is no claim that the infection is better than the vaccination in the article.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @05:54PM (4 children)
I.E. They now have a natural immunity BECAUSE they have been vacinated or have had COVID-19. The immunity wasn't there before, but now it is.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @06:59PM (3 children)
That is not what that means!
Natural immunity is from being infected by COVID and vaccine induced immunity is what you get from the vaccine. [hopkinsmedicine.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @07:04PM
(I think that explains some of the confusion, actually)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 15, @05:46AM
I am not confused. The Swiss population can be divided into 2 groups - those who have been vaccinated (V) and those who are theoretically unprotected (U). Group V have current vaccinations and there is nothing that the Swiss government need do to increase their protection. They can now be ignored for the remainder of this comment.
Group U has a very high proportion of people who have had COVID-19 and recovered. They now have a natural protection by virtue of this fact. The proportion is so high that the Swiss government believe that they can now rely upon this level of natural immunity to control the spread of any (unexpected) outbreaks of COVID-19 in Switzerland during the summer months.
In particular, the Swiss government is not saying:
The announcement does say that anybody in Group U that believes that they now need a vaccination because of changing circumstances (pregnancy, new or progressing medical conditions etc) they should contact their doctor. If he/she believes that the vaccination is now justified they can approve the request and it will be given in line with the existing funding that is provided by the government and/or private assurance policies.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 15, @05:51AM
I mis-phrased my response - it should read:
I.E. They now have an acceptable degree of protection BECAUSE they have been vaccinated OR they have developed natural immunity because they have had COVID-19. The immunity wasn't there before, but now it is.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday April 15, @01:13PM
Fair point. I was reacting to the first line of the summary which says
> Many people believe that any and all opposition to the Covid vaccine comes from "far-right" Republican conspiracy theorists
> in the flyover states. I guess the Swiss government will now be branded with those labels as their Federal Office of Public
> Health is now recommending that a Covid vaccination is not needed
which I read as "anti-vax nutjobs are now supported by the Swiss government" but it is probably just my bad interpretation of the words.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Woodherd on Saturday April 15, @01:18PM (2 children)
Not to criticize the submitter's wild alt-wrong anti-vax "opinions", but why in hell's bells did the Editors accept this flamebait dog-whistle for publication on the Front Page? Why? Oh, and Parler has shut down. Maybe that is why.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 15, @02:25PM (1 child)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Woodherd on Sunday April 16, @10:15AM
My history of posting is quite short, not sure what you mean. Are you accusing me of being someone else?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Friday April 14, @12:38AM (3 children)
Sure does sound plausible if you pretend like the right-wing opposition to the vaccines wasn't borne from dangerous contrarian sports-team nonsense. Remember when this all started and we wouldn't let a cruise ship dock because it'd bring the USA's infected numbers up?
Many right-wingers will believe this article means nobody should ever have gotten vaccinated because they didn't read all the way down to that magic line. Ordinarily I would have just pointed out that this change in approach was brought on by our current conditions... as in current vaxx rate, how weather affects the spread, and will be reevaluated for the next flu season. But, no, the real issue here is how stereotypes might play out. Thanks. It's not like we're playing with an infectious virus or anything.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @06:45AM (2 children)
Hug a Chinese Person
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @07:19AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @11:45PM
Hug a babushka then.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @01:23AM (4 children)
The difference between a right wing conspiracy theory and the truth is about six months.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Coligny on Friday April 14, @02:55AM
I think it’s down to 3 month and shrinking fast these days…
Just need to get the moron1c redditard to follow the news a little better and it could be even shorter.
I mean, pretty sure most of these mouth breather are sure there was WMD in Iraq and the others are focused on the best tint brand for blue hairs and fastest way to cut their d1ckd off to get a budlight partnership…
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @04:38PM (2 children)
Yep, it was crazy when they indicted Hillary Clinton in the Comet Pizza basement back in 2016!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @11:48PM (1 child)
Ah, but see it was proved. Part of the conspiracy theory was that the deep state would protect her from those charges; Lo and Behold! - they did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15, @03:48AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 14, @01:37AM (2 children)
Half the world, or at least the vocal portions of the world's population, has been in a tizzy since being told they might not live to be octogenarians.
FFS, the Swiss have things right. It's time to get on with life.
There are too damned many octogenarians anyway. We could do without the leading Democrat and the leading Republican in this country, couldn't we? Not to mention dozens of their cronies.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 14, @04:41PM (1 child)
Whelp, you're gonna get there before me. Are you volunteering?
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 14, @09:17PM
Well, I can most certainly tell you that I won't be using any congressional health care plan to extend my life a few miserable days when the time comes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @02:03AM (3 children)
I guess there are plenty of people whose reading and thinking capabilities are worse than ChatGPT.
Let me translated the following for you:
Additional vaccination is not need because nearly everyone has already been vaccinated and/or having got covid-19 already.
Analogy- there's no need to do more fireproofing to a bunch of houses if they've already got fireproofing and/or they've already been burnt down.
This is not saying fireproofing was never needed in the first place. Nor that the best way of fireproofing a bunch of houses is to let all the houses burn down.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Coligny on Friday April 14, @02:57AM (2 children)
And you misrepresent everything yourself by missing on the -scam- ehm… concept of booster shot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday April 14, @06:41AM
I would interpret it as if people still have sufficient resistance then there is no need for a booster. A booster is required when that resistance is decreasing. Switzerland did have a program of immunisation and boosters late last year to cover the Winter period, as did much of Europe where it was justified.
The 'scam' you refer to is your personal view. Most of Europe accepts that the treatment was necessary and that the precautionary changes that were implemented, although unwelcome, have been successful in significantly reducing the incidence of COVID-19 cases. I am sure that there are exceptions to this.
I am not aware of any requirement to wear masks or to avoid public transport still being in force (other than visits to doctor's surgeries, hospitals and health care facilities which is simply to protect those with weakened immune systems who frequently have to visit such places). The current risk assessment is not zero but it is low.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @08:00AM
Google says more than 68% of the Swiss population is vaccinated. I doubt that title properly represents the stance of the Swiss Health Authorities.
As for my country the covid-19 death rates after mass vaccination were about 2 magnitudes lower. So the vaccines did work and were a better option on average than no vaccines.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday April 14, @08:03AM (1 child)
then you still benefit from vaccination.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2801207 [jamanetwork.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Friday April 14, @08:54AM
Well, that's the kind of inconvenient fact that some people wish were not the case.
I just wish the researchers would hurry up with generating an mRNA vaccine that is more difficult for the virus to evolve away from. The spike protein is highly variable, and I've seen work on trying to generate a reproduction of the base of the spike, rather than further up, or even the viral encapsulation protein (e.g. Study discovers new target on SARS-CoV-2 spike for protective antibodies [news-medical.net],Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19 [nature.com], A conserved immunogenic and vulnerable site on the coronavirus spike protein delineated by cross-reactive monoclonal antibodies [nature.com] ), as they present more stable targets for the development of immune response. There's even been talk of a 'universal' influenza vaccine [pnas.org], which is sorely needed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by nrudaz on Friday April 14, @08:52AM
The recommendations of our Public Health Office followed the evolution of the pandemic.
English versions of the pages are unfortunately not available, but automatic translation of the introductory summaries are clear enough.
Fall 2020:
https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-81667.html [admin.ch]
Fall 2021:
https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-85583.html [admin.ch]
Fall 2022:
https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-90294.html [admin.ch]
(Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Friday April 14, @11:41AM (3 children)
Masks and vax are the tinfoil hats for leftists
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday April 14, @03:15PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @07:33PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @11:11PM
Why do they wear masks in the operating room anyway. Sure seems pretty sus to me.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @12:01PM
The Swiss are most certainly not saying that Covid vaccination was and is never needed, which the flamebait submitter appears to be attempting to slant things. It is not needed for the Swiss as far as spring/summer 2023 is concerned because nearly everyone in Switzerland has been vaccinated and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19, and the current variants cause mild illness, so further vaccination is not so crucial. Their recommendations may change if further surveys find that newer variants that could arise in the future are more dangerous and/or immunity in the general population appears to be waning. This does not support the kind of opposition to the COVID vaccines from "far-right" Republican conspiracy theorists in the flyover states. Quite the contrary. The Swiss are just saying that they've already done enough for now, just about everyone's already as protected as they need to be from the viruses that are in circulation these days, but they will wait and see what happens in the coming months and update their recommendations accordingly.
It is, rather, a testament to how effectively the Swiss managed to use the vaccines during the critical times previously, so that now they no longer need them as much. Perhaps due to the lack of influence of right-wing conspiracy mongers who denigrate the vaccines as being useless and dangerous.
Someone really ought to edit the summary to remove all of that misleading and biased slant.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14, @05:50PM
Telling people they'll have to get sick in order to not get sick is "four lights or five" bullshit. Getting infected is not the standard way to avoid bad outcomes from an infectious disease.
And get sick they will, without rapid tracking of variants to update vaccines.
FOR FUCKS SAKE people, immunity to SARS-nCoV2 - via infection or immunization - wanes in months, and the virus both (a) mutates rapidly and (b) interferes with the immune system in a large fraction of cases.