Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
View Poll Results: On which initiatives will you vote yes
Popular initiative “For clean drinking water and healthy food" 19 45.24%
Popular initiative “For a Switzerland without artificial pesticides” 18 42.86%
COVID-19 Act 21 50.00%
CO2 Act 16 38.10%
Federal Act on Police Measures to Combat Terrorism 13 30.95%
None of the above 11 26.19%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 18.05.2021, 22:51
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
No you can't. You vote in Solothurn.
Watch me on 13/06 ..
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 18.05.2021, 22:52
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: CH
Posts: 158
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 304 Times in 122 Posts
missenglish has a reputation beyond reputemissenglish has a reputation beyond reputemissenglish has a reputation beyond reputemissenglish has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Just because a scandal happens in one place does not necessarily mean that it categorically is happening in every country. That link is also from January 2019 and there was already a lot of spotlight on it at the time and has been since.

it is extremely unlikely that in CH, during a worldwide pandemic, doctors are being 'paid to give COVID vaccination exemptions' and instead it is far more likely they will not give them unless a patient fits the established criteria for it. The mount of money needed to make that kind of risk worthwhile would have to be very significant.
Alas, there have been well-documented examples of all kinds of medical misbehaviour in the pandemic. Most notorious example:

https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/zentr...cht-ld.2138582 Same guy (and the egregious behaviour that led to losing his license): https://www.solothurnerzeitung.ch/sc...eit-ld.2081894

And there are lists circulating of docs willing to write an exemption from masks without examining folks. https://www.20min.ch/story/schweizer...n-345617073702 Even if 99% do what is right, motivated Covid skeptics will end up finding one of the 1%.

I‘m an MD and generally not ashamed of it, and have repeatedly argued with those on this forum who insinuate we‘re all just after the money. Goodness knows there would be easier ways to fill one‘s pockets. However, there are colleagues I am not proud of.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank missenglish for this useful post:
  #143  
Old 18.05.2021, 22:54
komsomolez's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 3,155
Groaned at 268 Times in 183 Posts
Thanked 6,361 Times in 2,661 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Not on 31st of Dec ...
And then what? You move to SZ to vote for higher taxes?
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 18.05.2021, 22:57
MusicChick's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 17,488
Groaned at 414 Times in 275 Posts
Thanked 20,435 Times in 10,578 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
However, there are colleagues I am not proud of.
I believe you. Growing up with doctors left and right - once you open your eyes it is too hard to ignore malpractice, unethical or unprofessional behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 18.05.2021, 22:58
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
I‘m an MD and generally not ashamed of it, and have repeatedly argued with those on this forum who insinuate we‘re all just after the money. Goodness knows there would be easier ways to fill one‘s pockets. However, there are colleagues I am not proud of.
You would be in wrong country when you'd be all after money with MD degree - that would be US most likely.

CH is just bunch of docs that do their best and under high stress and load - most want to help other people and some reached already resignation where they just do-as-they-told .Certainly cheef-arzt makes some good $ but for years or learning and practice working in bank pays batter and you can gamble - MDs can't.

moral compass is not taught at Uni - it's something one takes away from home..
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #146  
Old 18.05.2021, 22:59
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
And then what? You move to SZ to vote for higher taxes?
Watch me on 13/06 ..
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 18.05.2021, 23:08
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 318
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 577 Times in 213 Posts
Tox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
From what I've seen this seems to be a typical referendum vote - complete fantasy and impossible to implement.

I agree CH should be cutting edge, and use less pesticides, but yeah of course lasers are the answer to all our problems
It's an interesting idea put together by 3 academics, but is not remotely ready for field-trials, let alone country-wide rollout. Put it this way, would you invest hundreds of thousands of your savings and an entire year's livelihood on a widget suggested by 3 PhDs in engineering with little practical experience in doing your job? I'm a gadget-prone academic with a PhD and I still wouldn't take that gamble.

Quote:
View Post
I also said I don't support the status quo, we probably should restrict pesticide use further.
As a toxicologist, I would be interested to know on which criteria or concerns you would be interested in further restricting pesticide use. I'm not trolling, I'm asking out of curiosity. I've seen so much poorly executed- and pseudo-science on the subject and there seems to be a large and growing disconnect between what I see from reviewing the data and reports coming out of systematic reviews of the high-quality scientific studies (e.g. by EFSA) and what the general public seem to perceive. I would love to work on a better public understanding of toxicology and the science of safety, but it is so hard to distill something that broad and complex down into an essence which is still consumer-friendly.

Quote:
View Post
Some of the subsidies are already tied to organic farming and not using pesticides.
It would already help if the electorate understood that organic farming does not mean pesticide free. Organic farmers use pesticides, they just don't use synthetic formulations. If they need to use an insecticide, for example, the organic farmer will choose a pyrethrin-rich extract of chrysanthemums, rather than the 'conventional' pyrethroid product. Pyrethrin is the parent compound in the family and the structural basis of all the synthetic pyrethroids that have been made since it was discovered.

I sometimes think that many people assume that organic farmers can somehow afford to let their crops fail at the first sign of adversity during a growing season.
Reply With Quote
The following 7 users would like to thank Tox_Rat for this useful post:
  #148  
Old 18.05.2021, 23:38
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: CH
Posts: 158
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 304 Times in 122 Posts
missenglish has a reputation beyond reputemissenglish has a reputation beyond reputemissenglish has a reputation beyond reputemissenglish has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
As a toxicologist, I would be interested to know on which criteria or concerns you would be interested in further restricting pesticide use. I'm not trolling, I'm asking out of curiosity. I've seen so much poorly executed- and pseudo-science on the subject and there seems to be a large and growing disconnect between what I see from reviewing the data and reports coming out of systematic reviews of the high-quality scientific studies (e.g. by EFSA) and what the general public seem to perceive. I would love to work on a better public understanding of toxicology and the science of safety, but it is so hard to distill something that broad and complex down into an essence which is still consumer-friendly.
I‘ve been wondering whether to read Count Down by Shanna Swan. Do you find her concerns reasonable?
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 19.05.2021, 00:16
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

I am not sure I understand how higher taxes actually help for the C02 reduction.

The success heavily depends on what exactly are the zero tax/low tax alternatives.

Plus many people seem to be happy to carry on as usual and simply pay the extra.

The research I have seen does not demonstrate a significant reduction in flights due to carbon taxes, excluding the virus impact the number of flights grew around 40% in the last ten years despite the tax.
In Switzerland around a third of the money goes to the Swiss energy-saving program EEREP (over CHF 300 million annually) and the rest is returned to us, which seems to be self-defeating.
It is difficult to find out how effective is EEREP; it is not like when you travel around Switzerland you see new solar panel farms being built with big signs saying "paid for by EEREP"?

Before voting for an increase in carbon tax I would like to see exactly what they will spend the money on; everything I have read so far reads like "trust me I am a doctor"
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #150  
Old 19.05.2021, 00:50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 318
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 577 Times in 213 Posts
Tox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
I‘ve been wondering whether to read Count Down by Shanna Swan. Do you find her concerns reasonable?
At the risk of putting too much identifying information out there, my field is actually endocrine disruptors, so it would be odd if I didn't find them at all of concern. I am just much more moderate and nuanced in what specifically I find concerning.

Regarding Countdown, I actually find the science really, really poor. The studies discussed are often of poor quality and cherry picked to meet a pre-arranged political point. High-quality data which at times contradict her thesis are ignored. I work for industry and if I ever did that at my job it would a) be discovered quickly, b)I would be fired and c) my employability would be ruined.

Tangent: It isn't a very popular sentiment at the moment, but I'm starting to realize that as a scientist, advocacy is somewhat dangerous. You can advocate for the data, but once you start advocating for the issue, hypothesis or position, you lose your studied objectivity that allows you to apply the term science to the work that you are engaged in and the word scientific to your findings. The world needs both advocates and scientists, but those who practice advocacy should not term what they do science, nor should scientists try to advocate beyond the level of here-are-the-data-and-they-are-of-sufficient-quality-to-suggest-certain-conclusions.

A quality scientific review would systematically pull studies from the literature based on predefined search terms, cull the studies by removing those of low quality regardless of outcome, and then assessing those that remain holistically using a weight of evidence approach. But then again, this kind of review wouldn't make the bestseller lists. It would also be more measured in its conclusions. This approach is, however, how expert groups make regulatory decisions, which is often why what e.g. EFSA says is often markedly different from what you read in the pages of the Guardian. If you want to read Coundown, by all means, do so, but have a skeptical frame of mind and understand that she has framed everything that she has written for maximum shock value and a political agenda.

If you really are interested in learning some simple tricks to be able to think about and interpret data, I highly recommend Hans Rosling's Factfulness which is as entertaining a read as it is informative. It isn't about toxicological data per se, but the guidelines he proposes can just as easily be applied to those kind of data as well.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank Tox_Rat for this useful post:
  #151  
Old 19.05.2021, 09:16
newtoswitz's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rapperswil
Posts: 3,754
Groaned at 75 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 4,537 Times in 2,076 Posts
newtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
As a toxicologist, I would be interested to know on which criteria or concerns you would be interested in further restricting pesticide use. I'm not trolling, I'm asking out of curiosity. I've seen so much poorly executed- and pseudo-science on the subject and there seems to be a large and growing disconnect between what I see from reviewing the data and reports coming out of systematic reviews of the high-quality scientific studies (e.g. by EFSA) and what the general public seem to perceive. I would love to work on a better public understanding of toxicology and the science of safety, but it is so hard to distill something that broad and complex down into an essence which is still consumer-friendly.
I'm not sure, but the current approach seems to be too focused on short-term human toxicity, to a lesser degree on short-term environmental toxicity, and not enough on long-term systemic toxicity in real natural environments.

Once an approval is granted it seems to take a very long time to withdraw it in the case of new adverse evidence, even if the potential impact is high.

Neonicitinoid toxicity in bees is a good example - still afaik not a problem for direct human health, but potentially catastrophic for a big part of the environment. Evidence took time to gather and was low quality to start with, but was consistently pointing towards a bigger and bigger problem. Standard risk management tells us that relatively low confidence x massive impact = high risk, and usage should have at least been paused much earlier.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank newtoswitz for this useful post:
  #152  
Old 19.05.2021, 09:29
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
I'm not sure, but the current approach seems to be too focused on short-term human toxicity, to a lesser degree on short-term environmental toxicity, and not enough on long-term systemic toxicity in real natural environments.

Once an approval is granted it seems to take a very long time to withdraw it in the case of new adverse evidence, even if the potential impact is high.

Neonicitinoid toxicity in bees is a good example - still afaik not a problem for direct human health, but potentially catastrophic for a big part of the environment. Evidence took time to gather and was low quality to start with, but was consistently pointing towards a bigger and bigger problem. Standard risk management tells us that relatively low confidence x massive impact = high risk, and usage should have at least been paused much earlier.
The use of neonicotinoids has been restricted in Switzerland and the EU since 2018.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #153  
Old 19.05.2021, 09:39
newtoswitz's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rapperswil
Posts: 3,754
Groaned at 75 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 4,537 Times in 2,076 Posts
newtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
The use of neonicotinoids has been restricted in Switzerland and the EU since 2018.
Yes, but that's really late considering significant hive loss started in the mid-2000s.

Actually the EU took some action in 2013, but IMO the evidence of toxicity was clear at that time and the study the EU produced should have been enough evidence to take much stronger action, not waiting another five years.

Germany had already introduced a partial ban in 2008...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank newtoswitz for this useful post:
  #154  
Old 19.05.2021, 10:02
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Yes, but that's really late considering significant hive loss started in the mid-2000s.

Actually the EU took some action in 2013, but IMO the evidence of toxicity was clear at that time and the study the EU produced should have been enough evidence to take much stronger action, not waiting another five years.

Germany had already introduced a partial ban in 2008...
Sure, but you agree neonicotinoids are not relevant to this topic of "Vote June 13th 2021".
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 19.05.2021, 10:08
newtoswitz's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rapperswil
Posts: 3,754
Groaned at 75 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 4,537 Times in 2,076 Posts
newtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Sure, but you agree neonicotinoids are not relevant to this topic of "Vote June 13th 2021".
Huh?

Since one of the votes is about banning pesticides and neonicotinoids are clear evidence that the current regime doesn't work, how can it not be relevant?

It's just a shame that the proposal is too far reaching and unrealistic - if it was about needing more independent evidence for approval and less for a precautionary ban then I would vote for it (if I could).
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank newtoswitz for this useful post:
  #156  
Old 19.05.2021, 10:17
curley's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: canton ZH
Posts: 13,131
Groaned at 218 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 15,264 Times in 7,847 Posts
curley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Huh?

Since one of the votes is about banning pesticides and neonicotinoids are clear evidence that the current regime doesn't work, how can it not be relevant?

It's just a shame that the proposal is too far reaching and unrealistic - if it was about needing more independent evidence for approval and less for a precautionary ban then I would vote for it (if I could).
That is usually the reason good initiatives fail here. They pack more and more on top of a good idea and/or formulate the demanded new law in a tight manner that it is either no good anymore or legally impossible to implement.
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users would like to thank curley for this useful post:
  #157  
Old 19.05.2021, 10:59
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 5,054
Groaned at 274 Times in 213 Posts
Thanked 8,283 Times in 3,652 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
That is usually the reason good initiatives fail here. They pack more and more on top of a good idea and/or formulate the demanded new law in a tight manner that it is either no good anymore or legally impossible to implement.
So your called good initiatives fail because the people backing them were unable to make their case to the voters. They never enjoyed sufficient support in the first place to go it alone and the only way to get it to a vote was to drag in a whole lot of other crap to try and make it popular.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 19.05.2021, 11:10
curley's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: canton ZH
Posts: 13,131
Groaned at 218 Times in 182 Posts
Thanked 15,264 Times in 7,847 Posts
curley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond reputecurley has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
So your called good initiatives fail because the people backing them were unable to make their case to the voters. They never enjoyed sufficient support in the first place to go it alone and the only way to get it to a vote was to drag in a whole lot of other crap to try and make it popular.
Nonsense.

It's the "while we're at it" attitude of initiators who have the support for their initial idea, which (over the decades, so they're not learning) ruined it. It's often simply not possible to vote yes anymore, because of the "side-effects". Worst cases there are things in the text, which have barely anything left to do with the subject.
Sometimes - yet not often - the government's "Gegenvorschlag" saves part of the subject.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank curley for this useful post:
  #159  
Old 19.05.2021, 13:09
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Huh?

Since one of the votes is about banning pesticides and neonicotinoids are clear evidence that the current regime doesn't work, how can it not be relevant?

It's just a shame that the proposal is too far reaching and unrealistic - if it was about needing more independent evidence for approval and less for a precautionary ban then I would vote for it (if I could).
But neonicotinoids are already not allowed here.
Or is your argument that because neonicotinoids had a bad side effect then this is a reason for banning the other 500 pesticides regardless of how important they are to agriculture?

I agree the current proposal is too far-reaching and unrealistic.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #160  
Old 19.05.2021, 13:46
Elu Elu is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Olten
Posts: 602
Groaned at 22 Times in 21 Posts
Thanked 1,160 Times in 489 Posts
Elu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond reputeElu has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Can the Swiss citizens here please start an initiative that all EF members shall be granted the right to vote irrespective of passport? Thank you
That depends. Is omtatsat still lurking around?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Elu for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3.5 Zimmer Apartment available in Zug (Riedmatt) from 1st June 2021 akk Property offered 2 15.07.2021 14:18
Vote 7th March 2021 Sean Connery Swiss politics/news 457 13.03.2021 22:28
Vote today 5th June marton Swiss politics/news 19 06.06.2016 11:42
Day Trip to Konstanz, Germany on June 13th The Real Stig Travel/day trips/free time 7 22.06.2011 08:29
World wide knit in public day June 13th MusicChick Daily life 2 09.06.2009 12:41


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0