Alex_Krycek

The issue at hand is not whether the ideal goal is that every worker should be vaccinated, but whether such a mandate can be justifiably imposed (considering the subsequent loss of 80,000 NHS staff). Even those who support vaccine mandates in the NHS now seem to feel it would be too great a burden to the system.

NHS staff, officials, and government ministers are currently debating the logic and efficacy of a proposed vaccine mandate for NHS staff. Up to 80,000 NHS staff have said they will not comply with the mandatory vaccination policy for Covid -19. Their main reason for rejecting the mandate seems to be a lack of long term safety data (as opposed to other vaccines, such as for Hep B, which has 30+ years of safety data) and also natural immunity being built up by repeated exposure to the virus. The most serious consequence of implementing the policy would be the loss of so many critical care staff when the NHS is already under strain. Even those who support the mandate think it would now be a Pyrrhic Victory, due to the loss of staff and also the recent removal of restrictions for the general public, which they argue would make the NHS mandate practically irrelevant. A summary of the points and counterpoints in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/23/mandatory-covid-jabs-policy-divides-nhs-leaders-in-england-as-deadline-nears?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other This was a also a good debate about the topic on Good Morning Britain:

The actual attributable number of deaths to Covid is still under debate. Recent data released from the Office of National Statistics shows it may be far lower than once suspected. See Dr. John Campbell's recent analysis from January 23rd here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw No, I do not agree with Australia's draconian lockdown restrictions in general. I believe they are irrational in a country with such high vaccine rates, and infringe upon the liberty of the citizens there. Please, spare me the self-aggrandizement. Argue your position; don't patronize others.

Yes, they're attempting to influence his decisions about his own health by denying him the opportunity to compete. Tennis is his career, livelihood, and main raison d'etre. All that is being denied because he won't comply with their policy. Well, as I pointed out, Hawke and the Australian government wanted to make an example of Djokovic because he might encourage more anti-vax protests and speech they didn't like. Hawke explicitly said this in his own official statement to the court. So no, it wasn't just "he didn't meet those requirements, so he was prevented from entering". He was first given permission to enter, in my view based on sound scientific judgement as to the level of risk he actually posed, and only after the ensuing public furor did the politicians involved bow to the angry mob.

This gets to the crux of the personal liberty vs. public safety issue: there will always be some level of risk to some element of the public. To what extent is it the responsibility of the at risk individual to protect themself vs. the obligation of others to comply with policies they might be fervently opposed to? There is a limit to that obligation. Zaptos used the phrase "Tennis Choices" as one of his premises. I didn't.

A creative analogy, but too much of an exaggeration to apply to this discussion. They're determining his "tennis choices", not his health choices? You used the term bullshit, not me. You're attempting to conveniently reframe away from Australia, the focus of our discussion, where 90% of the population is vaccinated, to some unspecified, more high risk area with lower vaccination rates.

Quite an obvious mob mentality, in my view, driven by emotional thinking to pillory Djokovic as retribution for the stringent measures Australians faced. Morrison and his government respond politically and the initial (rational) decision to allow Djokovic to play goes out the window. There was a class warfare undertone as well, which I found misplaced, since Djokovic was just there to compete as an athlete.

Hawke basically resorted to a "nuclear option" to override the courts. You seem to be in favor of politicians ruling by unilateral mandate, which I don't agree with. This is the disingenuous argument being promulgated. "We're not going to force people to get the vaccine, we'll just limit what they can do in society to such an extent so as to effectively remove them from the populace. We're not going to force Djokovic to get the vaccine, we're just going to ban him from the country for 3 years and work to exile him from all tennis tournaments." You keep repeating this illogical premise (above). If you have access to vaccine, the unvaccinated are not doing you any harm. Full stop. They are perhaps putting themselves in more jeopardy, but in a free society that is their choice. Your purported pretext for dictating the health choices of others based on your perceived risk is grossly miscalibrated. Actually the Republicans are already working to implement that example I gave, so neither. Reinforce the argument that the government can mandate your health choices and don't be shocked when an administration ideologically opposed to you tries to do the same. Vaccines do work. That point is not at issue. As Beecee pointed out, "Australia has in excess of 90% vaccination rates, NSW and Victoria are approaching 95% rates." So based on this, Djokovic posed no reasonable threat. As Beecee also pointed out, Australians endured very strict and draconian lockdown restrictions, so the public fury regarding Djokovic was extreme. Additionally, the explicit reason stated by Hawke in his submission to the courts for unilaterally revoking Djokovic's visa was he might inspire more anti-vax sentiment and protest. See below. Excerpt: In a 10-page report, Hawke said he was concerned that Djokovic, whom he regarded as a "high-profile unvaccinated individual," would foster "anti-vaccination sentiment." Djokovic's lawyer called the claim "illogical, irrational or unreasonable. https://www.newsweek.com/fear-novak-djokovic-would-stoke-anti-vaccination-sentiment-led-deportation-judge-1671229 It was a political decision, not one based on sound health policy.

You seem to have conveniently overlooked the courts and judicial system. In a constitutional, multi-cameral, multi-party Republic, elected officials don't get to dictate policy unilaterally, especially when a judge already ruled on the matter. I'm confident you already knew that though. If the argument is self evident, which you agree it is, there is no need to elaborate further. Granting the government the power to mandate an individual's public health decisions sets a dangerous precedent. An individual's health choices are not something that should be determined by any administration. A Republican administration might determine that "it's a woman's own good to not get an abortion", or Big Pharma might effectively lobby to get a medication forcibly administered to high schoolers based on some dubious, self funded research. There are too many opportunities for politicians to abuse such a power for their own ends. Don't create a straw man. I never said that vaccines don't reduce deaths, and I clearly stated why I am against universal mandates.

The numbers could always be higher, depending on who you ask. Who gets to make that determination? The fact is the vaccine is readily available to those who want it. Mandating that everyone get the vaccine in the name of public safety is a slippery slope, in my view. Those who want it can get it. This is how things are supposed to work in a free society. Simply put: because there was no rational or legal basis for their actions, other than to deter others from abstaining from the vaccine, which was entirely political. If you can link to conclusive studies concerning this point, please do so.

I agree that the public benefits if a higher percentage of people are vaccinated, but that is already the case in Aus, is it not? The minority who choose to remain unvaccinated are not stopping others from getting the vaccine. The vaccine is readily available to those who want it. Forcing every single person to get vaccinated is not something I agree with. TMK Australia does not have vaccine mandates in place for their own citizens, so requiring all foreign visitors to be vaccinated strikes me as incongruent. Further, those who are vaccinated can still spread the virus, so there isn't any argument for keeping the unvaccinated out, not in a country that respects individual liberty, that is.

I find the Australian government's position entirely illogical, to be honest. Coronavirus can still be spread even if a person is vaccinated. Those who are vaccinated face drastically reduced chance of hospitalization or serious illness. Further, Djokovic had previously been infected with coronavirus, so there is the natural immunity factor to consider. Ultimately, what is the logical reason to demand that Djokovic (or any other traveller, for that matter), be vaccinated? He's only putting himself at risk, which is already substantially low anyway. To me the move by Alex Hawke to use his "Godlike Powers" and overrule the court's decision was purely political, and not based on science. Additionally, the explicit reason Hawke gave to support his unilateral banning of Djokovic was that Djokovic could somehow rally anti-vaccine sentiment in Australia and people might protest more, should he be allowed to compete. So to summarize, you have a politician overruling a judge out of fear of more protest and speech the current administration doesn't like, with the aforementioned lack of scientific justification. That should trouble anyone who supports constitutional government.

Distrust and skepticism are the only things separating science from dogmatic religion. Science is not an unimpeachable monolith; it's a community of fallible human beings whose results should never be trusted, but rather constantly vetted and cross examined.

Excellent review by George Monbiot from the Guardian. Hits the nail on the head. Watching Don’t Look Up made me see my whole life of campaigning flash before me George Monbiot Excerpt: No wonder journalists have slated it. They’ve produced a hundred excuses not to watch the climate breakdown satire Don’t Look Up: it’s “blunt”, it’s “shrill”, it’s “smug”. But they will not name the real problem: it’s about them. The movie is, in my view, a powerful demolition of the grotesque failures of public life. And the sector whose failures are most brutally exposed is the media. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/04/dont-look-up-life-of-campaigning?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Neat app from NASA/JPL. It allows you to simulate the parameters of a NEO (Near Earth Object) and a hypothetical intercept (vehicle, number of launches, time before impact, etc). https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/nda/nda.html What, real scientists don't have salacious affairs with talk show hosts? I think McKay (and probably Lawrence and DiCaprio) were trying to "get through" to as many people as possible with this film. Hence the lack of subtlety and simple plot.

Perhaps watch the film for yourself, instead of letting others make conclusions for you.

I watched this over the weekend. Overall I thought it was a humorous, provocative, and scarily accurate depiction of what happens when human beings are confronted with a dire threat (in this case an extinction level event arising from a direct hit by a 5-10 km wide comet). Meryl Streep's character, President Orlean, was very well written. She's basically the female Trump, governing an administration infested with nepotism, corruption, and private donors. Interestingly this film was panned by critics - perhaps because it's message about the superficiality of the media hit a little too close to home. Synopsis from IMDB: "Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence), an astronomy grad student, and her professor Dr. Randall Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio) make an astounding discovery of a comet orbiting within the solar system. The problem - it's on a direct collision course with Earth. The other problem? No one really seems to care. Turns out warning mankind about a planet-killer the size of Mount Everest is an inconvenient fact to navigate. With the help of Dr. Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan), Kate and Randall embark on a media tour that takes them from the office of an indifferent President Orlean (Meryl Streep) and her sycophantic son and Chief of Staff, Jason (Jonah Hill), to the airwaves of The Daily Rip, an upbeat morning show hosted by Brie (Cate Blanchett) and Jack (Tyler Perry). With only six months until the comet makes impact, managing the 24-hour news cycle and gaining the attention of the social media obsessed public before it's too late proves shockingly comical - what will it take to get the world to just look up?" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11286314/

Interesting video by Dr. John Campbell on the current state of affairs with Covid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL8QnUM81Wo

I think it's understandable in this context when considering this particular demographic. If parents are faced with a choice: vaccinate your child (which puts the child more at risk for myocarditis than actually becoming ill with Covid according to this study) versus leaving them unvaccinated for the time being and letting them make their own decision when they turn 18, I think it would be very reasonable if they choose the latter option (especially considering that vaccinated adults can still pass on the virus, even though they themselves are at a very low risk of hospitalization).

That's called confirmation bias. It also includes not considering / dismissing new information that may diverge from or challenge one's established way of thinking.

Here's the direct link to the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

Recent study on Pfizer side effects in males aged 12-15: Boys more at risk from Pfizer jab side-effect than Covid, suggests study US researchers say teenagers are more likely to get vaccine-related myocarditis than end up in hospital with Covid "Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim. Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period. Most children who experienced the rare side-effect had symptoms within days of the second shot of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, though a similar side-effect is seen with the Moderna jab. About 86% of the boys affected required some hospital care, the authors said." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Just pointing out that there's more noise than signal these days, and supposedly reputable outlets aren't immune from the fray. It's easy to get caught up in the tribalism and name calling. If they're presented with information that refutes the veracity of the story, they should retract the story, not leave it up as a clickbait headline. You can't have an entire article portraying the situation in a particular light, based on facts that are then completely undermined with an update appended at the end of the article. Disingenuous. I wrote to The Guardian this morning to request a retraction. As a paid subscriber I expect better of them. I'm interested in any information about the efficacy of Ivermectin, for treatment of prophylaxis. I doubt it, but not many people have access to remdesivir, or the other treatments currently available or in the pipeline. If people who need a treatment option now can use Ivermectin safely and effectively, why not? All reasonable options should be on the table.

Here's an example of some recent misinformation about Ivermectin in the media. Rolling Stone, CNN, The Guardian, Fox News, and several other media outlets ran a story about an Oklahoma ER at the NHS Sequoyah hospital. The source was Dr. Jason McElyea, supposedly an ER doctor at the facility. Mr. McElyea's statements and portrayal of the situation were refuted by the hospital on their website. Here's the headlines that The Guardian and Rolling Stone went with: It turns out that Dr. Jason McElyea hasn't worked at NHS Sequoyah in months, and the hospital issued a formal correction on their website, to counter the false headlines: Sources: https://nhssequoyah.com/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/

Interesting article about Covid progress in Australia. They're using a new drug called Sotrovimab, which is a type of monoclonal antibody treatment. “Sotrovimab is an antibody treatment, and one that’s been shown in good clinical trials to have a dramatic impact in reducing people’s probability of progressing to severe disease,” Griffin said. “If there’s someone who’s high risk at developing severe symptoms, it can be given to them. It does need to be given early, before people are very unwell, but in those people it stops very significant progression through to severe disease.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/covid-treatment-improving-as-doctors-learn-to-fight-the-disease-and-access-new-drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotrovimab