Germans use concert ticketing to organise vaccination

The state of Schleswig-Holstein is using the concert ticket software firm Eventim to allocate Covid vaccination appointments.

The device has replaced the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in running the vaccine lists.

Eventimis also offering its services in Austria and Switzerland.

Germany has so far managed to vaccinate just 2 percent of its citizens. The UK has done 10 percent.

That hurts.

Mass baptism vaccination at Salisbury Cathedral.

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • But the UK has not vaccinated 10% of its population – it’s given the first dose to 10%. We don’t yet know what the impact of this will be. I am interested to hear if Germany is providing both doses three weeks apart.

  • Sticking to facts for a moment: In Germany, the “Ständige Impfkommission” (Standing Vaccination Committee) that acts under the auspices of the Robert Koch Institut, itself the Federal Government’s central scientific institution in the field of biomedicine, has recommended approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine only to those aged under 65, citing “insufficient data” on its efficacy for older people. BBC report here: Final decision rests with the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In addition, the committee’s advice is to maintain conformity with all vaccine makers’ recommendations regarding time gap between first dose and second.

      • Article 2 of the “Grundgesetz“ (Fundamental Law as opposed to Constitution) states: “Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.“ Recently the “Infektionsschutzgesetz“ (Law on the Prevention and Control of Infections) was amended (17 changes) to bring the “Grundgesetz” in line with perceived government obligations to the populace during a pandemic. This created a default mechanism that ensures mandatory Government measures such as wearing masks on public transport and Federal State offers for voluntary vaccination do not conflict with the “Grundgesetz “.

        • So there never really was the right to life and physical integrity and “inviolability” if it can be violated by law. Rights are inherent and can’t be taken away by fiat declaration.
          That they are trying to do so also shows the unjustness of the government. I’m not even talking about their lack of proof to justify their actions.

          • The right to life, physical integrity and inviolability remain unaffected by any recently revised new laws due to the way the “Grundgesetz” bears on these. In order to understand what the changes to the “Infektionsgesetz” mean, it is necessary to look at Article 19 of the “Grundgesetz”, which reads:

            “1) Insofar as, under this Basic Law, a basic right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law, such law must apply generally and not merely to a single case. In addition, the law must specify the basic right affected and the Article in which it appears.

            (2) In no case may the essence of a basic right be affected.”

            Hope that helps. No torts.

          • “…must apply generally and not merely to a single case.” What therefore is the “essence” of a basic right if it can be restricted? My point still stands.

          • PS: Two points, 1. The “essence” of a basic right is best understood in English as the “substance” of such a right. The German is “Wesensgehalt” and a complex term in itself. 2. More helpful is Article 1 of the “Grundgesetz”, which states that “human dignity is inviolable”, and that “human rights are inviolable and inalienable”. It can therefore be concluded that any restriction (best understood in the present context as but a temporary limitation) to a right is made solely to protect the German people in order to ensure that human dignity remains inviolable, and that human rights remain inviolable and inalienable. But let me, with respect, bow out of this thread, before I wax too exegetic, and refer you to the original:


            which needs to be read in its entirety in order wholly to be understood.

          • We agree that rights are inviolable and inalienable. The problem is that shouldn’t the government prove its actions are to protect the German people? Lockdowns for instance. The government hasn’t proved anything. Tens of thousands of scientists and doctors disagree (with evidence) against the governments dictates on lockdowns (my opinion is panic and big pharma influence among politicians).
            Clearly they are violating the rights of people.
            Look at the US with governors, mayors, etc. issuing illegal edicts all over the place. What a world!

          • In short, the “Grundgesetz” is to be interpreted in an exegetic sense, and Paragraph (2) of Article 19 on the Restrictions of Basic Rights and Legal Remedies states “In no case may the essence of a basic right be affected.” The right to life, physical integrity, and inviolability are, hence, all protected.

          • Oh good. I misread it then. So the “essence” of the right to travel cannot be restricted (meaning no lockdowns without proof). The “essence” of the right to bodily integrity means no forced vaccinations also? What about proposed vaccination passports? Those would be illegal also?

          • I’m sorry again but I still don’t understand what is meant by the “essence” of a right. Why is the word even there? “In no case shall a basic right be affected.” wouldn’t that be a more succinct way of stating it?

    • The EMA website says upper limit 55 for the AZ vaccine, STIKO are saying not above 65. UK MHRA says its ok 65+. Who knows. I doubt all the efficacy figures. The trials were never designed to show they sav lives, improve outcomes, reduce admissions. If you follow BMJ and Lancet you would know this.

  • By the way, I just had my second dose of the Moderna vaccine on Saturday the 23rd. No side effects aside from a sore shoulder for a day (like a flu shot). Also, for work-related reasons I had to have a COVID test on Monday the 25th. It came back negative. (Probably too soon to give credit to that 2nd dose, but the first dose in late December may have helped.)

  • These mass vaccination centres are great places to ahem acquire Covid-19. Far better to have it done in a GP consulting room. Moreover if one has to drive or travel any distance to them it is not convenient or viable. Ipersonally would not risk driving after a jab. They normally ask you to wait 15-20 mins afterwards.

  • Are these vaccines safe I am often asked? Well so far we have Pfizer, Moderna, (mRNA vaccines), Astra Zeneca (Viral Vector vaccine), novavax (Recombinant subunit protein), Valneva (Inactivated spike protein), the latter are in development/trials.

    So far the regulators have approved the first three on a temporary 1 year approval, not full approval which takes longer. Ideally they should have done phase IV studies and pre market approval, after 15-20 years we might know then how effective they really are, how long immunity lasts, whether they can prevent viral transmission and their adverse reactions. MHRA is using AI software for obvious reasons.

    • Doc,
      So what they’re doing is doing the trials on the population now, right? Human guinea pigs…God, what will people in the future think about this period of time we live in?

      • Well effectively the vaccine roll out is like a phase IV/pre market approval. Most vaccines take at least 15 years to market. I have never had a 1 year temporary approval vaccine ever. If you follow BMJ rapid responses you will see my concerns. Personally I am just waiting and watching, I might have a jab in 5 years.

        • Excellent advice but I am afraid too many people aren’t in the least informed about this.
          Average vaccine trials I read is 5 to 7 years.
          It’s not just “build back better” Johnson rushing this but almost all developed countries. So sad.

          • Yes I see it as Bojo “Get Covid done”, cov-19 cannot be solved by vaccines alone.
            Yes trials can be longer, the full approval takes longer, with PMA/phase IV, already Pfizer had issues in Norway.

  • Those of you who have not yet had a covid-19 jab, might consider first getting a test to determine whether you have any natural immunity against Sars-cov-2 virus. If your antibody titre is high you may not need a jab at all. A paper in BMJ mentions an Australian case in which the individual had off scale immunity.

    One advantage of being already immune to Cov-19 is one can avoid any possible risks associated with adverse reactions to these novel vaccines which have only temporary approval for one year.

    Ask your GP/doctor for advice on having a test done.

  • >