Austrian government challenged to either prove COVID pandemic is real or end restrictions

02/02/2022 / By Ramon Tomey

The Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH) has challenged the country’s federal government to prove that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions are not based on lies. If they are based on falsehoods, the VfGH urged an immediate repeal of all COVID-19 restrictions.

The tribunal’s challenge came in the form of a list of questions sent to Health Minister Wolfgang Mueckstein on Jan. 26. The VfGH’s questions aimed to shed light on how the COVID-19 restrictions help alleviate an alleged “burden on the health system.” Mueckstein was given until Feb. 18 to answer the 10 questions.

One of the questions posed by the high court centered on the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, which it claims are highly inflated. It also challenged the government to provide a breakdown of these numbers by age. “Was COVID the cause of the hospitalizations? Had they unnecessarily hospitalized healthy people due to a positive test [result] exclusively?”

Face masks and COVID-19 vaccines were also tackled by the tribunal in their questions to Mueckstein. It asked: “By what factor does wearing an FFP2 mask indoors or outdoors reduce the risk of infection or transmission?” The VfGH’s query came amid Vienna mandating the masks for outdoor settings if the minimum distance between people cannot be maintained.

The tribunal also touched on how much the COVID-19 shots were able to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, in line with reports of fully vaccinated people still transmitting the pathogen. “What is the risk of transmission in a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 with a second vaccination three, six or eight months ago compared to an unvaccinated person whose PCR test was negative 24 hours ago?”

Furthermore, the VfGH asked for a comparison of post-illness and post-vaccination hospitalization risks broken down by age and number of doses injected. The tribunal sought to highlight the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines through this question. It also asked how much were the lockdowns for unvaccinated Austrians able to reduce the risk of them contracting COVID-19. (Related: Austria implements nationwide lockdown, makes COVID vaccination mandatory.)

VfGH questions seek to challenge Vienna’s draconian restrictions

The constitutional court’s questions to Mueckstein come amid the pandemic reaching its second year. The landlocked European nation has made headlines for its extreme measures to curb the spread of COVID-19. Vienna defended the measures as necessary to avoid an excessive burden on the health care system purportedly swamped with COVID-19 patients.

The draconian mandates came unopposed as dissenting voices and questions were simply dismissed as inappropriate and reprehensible objections. Any oppositions to the existing policies or discussions toward a more appropriate response were likewise censored.

Austria’s extreme COVID-19 measures specifically targeted unvaccinated citizens in the country. Back in November 2021, Vienna imposed a lockdown on citizens not yet injected with the COVID-19 shot. The Nov. 15 lockdown stipulated that unvaccinated Austrians are only allowed to leave their homes to work or study, shop for essential items and visit their doctors.

Two months later, Mueckstein defended the lockdown on the unvaccinated. He said on Jan. 15 that an “early relaxation for the unvaccinated … could quickly lead to an uncontrolled spread of the virus [and] an overload of medical care facilities.”

Furthermore, Mueckstein and other Austrian officials threatened to impose exorbitant fines on those continuing to decline the COVID-19 vaccine under a new mandate. Details of the new law were announced in December 2021. Unvaccinated citizens will face fines of up to €3,600 ($4,058) – which would only be dropped if they provide proof of vaccination or a valid exemption.

According to the health minister, people’s respective incomes and financial obligations would be factored in the calculation of the total fines. He added that officials can opt to impose a smaller €600 ($676) fine as an alternative.