The Novak Djokovic Debacle:

[iNow]

It’s frankly irrelevant, but you’re the one claiming Australia is trying “to exile him from all tennis tournaments” and subsequent exchanges responded to that. 

The country said: These are our requirements for entry. 

He did not meet those requirements, and thus was prevented from entering.

This isn’t exactly rocket surgery. 

[Alex_Krycek]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s frankly irrelevant, but you’re the one claiming Australia is trying “to exile him from all tennis tournaments” and subsequent exchanges responded to that. 

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.  

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

The country said: These are our requirements for entry. 

He did not meet those requirements, and thus was prevented from entering.

This isn’t exactly rocket surgery. 

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.     

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.  

The only thing being denied is an exemption to their clearly outlined and clearly defined policies for entry to the country. 

I’m genuinely surprised this requires such forceful and repeated clarification with you given your regular passion for things like constitutions. 

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.   

Yes, the lack of equity in granting an exemption caused the public to say this type of hypocrisy is not okay.

Are you a fan of and advocate for hypocrisy in general, or just on the topic of public health and vaccines?

So you believe all laws and policies should be selectively enforced, or only when a celebrity is involved?

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You're attempting to conveniently reframe away from Australia, the focus of our discussion, where 90% of the population is vaccinated,

No. I'm talking about Australia. EVERYONE in Australia is at risk. The people in Australia who do not have access to the vaccine, the people in Australia who cannot take the vaccine due to their health, the people in Australia who choose not to take the vaccine, and the people in Australia who are vaccinated. Not to mention the mental health of health workers, the financial health of the health system, the emotional health of family members who die...

I find it shocking that at this point in the pandemic, a member of this site is so woefully ignorant of the basics of the vaccine and the risks of the virus to the population.

36 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

They're determining his "tennis choices", not his health choices?  You used the term bullshit, not me.

 

Unless you are suggesting he came to Australia for any reason other than to play tennis, it is his tennis choices they impacted. As he did not take the vaccine at their urging I cannot imagine how they impacted his health choices.

[CharonY]

22 hours ago, MigL said:

Two years later, and over 5 Million deaths, and some are still questioning the measures to contain Coronavirus.

And 5 millions are basically only the lower estimate (i.e. confirmed cases). The overall burden is likely to be higher. Way higher by some estimates:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00104-8

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

A creative analogy, but too much of an exaggeration to apply to this discussion.

True, given that COVID-19 related deaths have vastly outpaced vehicular deaths. I really could not think of anything even coming close in recent times. Even the opioid crisis has been outpaced and we know how much regulations, laws and punishments have been implemented with regard to illicit drug use.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And 5 millions are basically only the lower estimate (i.e. confirmed cases). The overall burden is likely to be higher. Way higher by some estimates

From the Economist article cited within:

[MigL]

Seems simple enough to me ...
It is Australia's house, and they have the right to determine who they let in.
And yes, they even have the right to change their minds.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's funny to see the religious right marching for an individual's right to make their own health choices, when around the world they try to ban women from deciding for themselves whether to terminate a pregnancy or not. Giving birth is a bit more life changing than having a little prick in the arm. 

I do think that the Aussies made a mess of this though. I can't believe that the original visa application didn't "go upstairs", with the name Novak Djokovitch on it and a claimed exemption to vaccination. At what level was the visa application allowed? If the visa had been denied in the first place, nobody would have been that surprised. But to grant it, and let someone travel halfway round the world, before pissing about at the border doesn't really put the country in a good light. 

No sympathy for Djokovitch though. Anti-vaxxers are morons, who lack the will or ability to weigh evidence properly. And I didn't know about the lying on the application till later. I still don't know exactly what that was about. But I do have my doubts whether he ever actually ever had covid, as he claimed. It looks very suspiciously like that was a story to get round the vaccine requirement.

Well said, and exactly what happened. Particularly the highlighted (by me) paragraph. ScoMo of marketing and his government stuffed this up from the beginning, and were a total embarrassment along with Tennis Australia. We( the federal government), certainly came out of this with egg on their face. In fact since the beginning of this pandamic, Australia would be in a far worse position if it had not been for the individual state Premiers.

A copy of Mr Hunt’s letter references questions asked by chief executive Craig Tiley about unvaccinated people wanting to travel for the 2022 Australian Open.

https://thewest.com.au/news/novak-djokovic-greg-hunts-letter-to-tennis-australia-about-medical-exemptions-revealed-c-5205643

 

 

 

“The Australian Border Force has advised that people must be fully vaccinated, as defined by ATAGI (the national advisory body on vaccines) to gain quarantine-free entry into Australia,” Mr Hunt wrote.

“In relation to your specific questions, I can confirm that people who contracted COVID-19 within the past six months and seek to enter Australia from overseas, and have not received two doses of a Therapeutic Goods Administration-approved or recognised vaccine, are not considered fully vaccinated.”

The letter also states that it is up to the individual to ensure they meet the requirements for travel to Australia.

[Arete]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Except you said this: 

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you have access to vaccine, the unvaccinated are not doing you any harm.  Full stop. 

We we now seem to agree is patently false. Individual health decisions have population level consequences, especially when it comes to infectious disease and vaccines. 

We know that cohorts where all individuals have two doses of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccine display approximately half the R₀ of unvaccinated cohorts. Given the stratified risk of hospitalization and mortality, vaccination rate has a significant correlation with morbidity and mortality for even relatively small populations. The relative individual risk of adverse vaccine side effects, along with the overall public health burden of vaccine side effects is several orders of magnitude lower than that of Covid19. 

So you can't really argue from a logical or mathematical perspective that the the relative impact of Covid19 vaccination refusal is lower than the risk of the vast majority of other freedoms that are legislatively curtailed for the public good, nor that the individual burden of being vaccinated is unprecedentedly high. 
 

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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? 

Given the above relative risk model, I don't think Djokovic's right to be phenomenally bad at math trumps the right of others to travel internationally without unnecessary exposure to an unprecedentedly deadly infectious disease. Djokovic has right to not get vaccinated, but it comes with the consequence of restricted travel to foreign countries, and other curtailments on his full participation in society, because his decision does effect others. 

Also, I think over the last 250 years or so, most societies have determined that vaccination against infectious diseases falls within that realm of obligation should one wish to fully participate in said societies, which led to a subsequent doubling of average life expectancy in said societies. 

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, Arete said:

Except you said this: 

We we now seem to agree is patently false. Individual health decisions have population level consequences, especially when it comes to infectious disease and vaccines. 

We know that cohorts where all individuals have two doses of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccine display approximately half the R₀ of unvaccinated cohorts. Given the stratified risk of hospitalization and mortality, vaccination rate has a significant correlation with morbidity and mortality for even relatively small populations. The relative individual risk of adverse vaccine side effects, along with the overall public health burden of vaccine side effects is several orders of magnitude lower than that of Covid19. 

So you can't really argue from a logical or mathematical perspective that the the relative impact of Covid19 vaccination refusal is lower than the risk of the vast majority of other freedoms that are legislatively curtailed for the public good, nor that the individual burden of being vaccinated is unprecedentedly high. 
 

Given the above relative risk model, I don't think Djokovic's right to be phenomenally bad at math trumps the right of others to travel internationally without unnecessary exposure to an unprecedentedly deadly infectious disease. Djokovic has right to not get vaccinated, but it comes with the consequence of restricted travel to foreign countries, and other curtailments on his full participation in society, because his decision does effect others. 

Also, I think over the last 250 years or so, most societies have determined that vaccination against infectious diseases falls within that realm of obligation should one wish to fully participate in said societies, which led to a subsequent doubling of average life expectancy in said societies. 

Is it possible that if there was more a fly's eye view of people actually suffering (with necessary consents, of course), the effect on vaccine-sceptics would penetrate better? Is the news, as presented, perhaps too sterilized/censored for viewers not affected to really get a sense of the reality of the pandemic's effects at the individual level; instilling  more empathy towards those affected. The precedence for this possible approach is the graphic clinical images on smoking products packages in Europe.

Edited January 23, 2022 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is it possible that if there was more a fly's eye view of people actually suffering (with necessary consents, of course), the effect on vaccine-sceptics would penetrate better? Is the news, as presented, perhaps too sterilized/censored for viewers not affected to really get a sense of the reality of the pandemic's effects at the individual level; instilling  more empathy towards those affected. The precedence for this possible approach is the graphic clinical images on smoking products packages in Europe.

Don't mean to speak on Arete's behalf, but in a way these things have happened to some limited degree. In Indonesia there was a report that folks without masks were ordered to dig graves for COVID-19 victims https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/17/asia/indonesia-coronavirus-grave-diggers-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

And apparently there have been many heartfelt messages on social media as well in different news outlets with folks regretting not getting vaccinated. However, the issue here is at least two-fold. There is a big group (typically younger) who simply think that it does not apply to them. I.e. they might think that only old and overweight people will suffer (and die). Then there is a smaller, but somewhat crazier faction who simply don't believe that these deaths are real. Yet another group is simply misinformed, but believe in false information that make them believe that vaccinations carries a higher personal risk than getting sick (and often none of them really think or care too much about the risks for others, a pattern that we also see here).

There is a relatively large body research over the last decade that indicate that reaching out individually to people and especially by trusted people seems to be the most effective way to address vaccine hesitancy. But as we can see, it is difficult to implement.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is it possible that if there was more a fly's eye view of people actually suffering (with necessary consents, of course), the effect on vaccine-sceptics would penetrate better? Is the news, as presented, perhaps too sterilized/censored for viewers not affected to really get a sense of the reality of the pandemic's effects at the individual level; instilling  more empathy towards those affected.

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.“

[CharonY]

Just now, iNow said:

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.“

"Also it is only old people, so who cares? I want to live my life."

Which, btw. is an actual quote.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is it possible that if there was more a fly's eye view of people actually suffering (with necessary consents, of course), the effect on vaccine-sceptics would penetrate better?

I believe this to be true. Look at the vaccine skeptics who come down with COVID and how as soon as they are off the ventilator, they and their families are telling anyone who will listen that they should get the vaccine.

Edited January 24, 2022 by zapatos

[Alex_Krycek]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

And 5 millions are basically only the lower estimate (i.e. confirmed cases). The overall burden is likely to be higher. Way higher by some estimates:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00104-8

True, given that COVID-19 related deaths have vastly outpaced vehicular deaths. I really could not think of anything even coming close in recent times. Even the opioid crisis has been outpaced and we know how much regulations, laws and punishments have been implemented with regard to illicit drug use.

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

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, the lack of equity in granting an exemption caused the public to say this type of hypocrisy is not okay.

Are you a fan of and advocate for hypocrisy in general, or just on the topic of public health and vaccines?

So you believe all laws and policies should be selectively enforced, or only when a celebrity is involved?

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.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m genuinely surprised this requires such forceful and repeated clarification with you given your regular passion for things like constitutions. 

Please, spare me the self-aggrandizement.  Argue your position; don't patronize others.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

If you aren’t discussing Djokovic’s situation, you are off-topic for this thread

 

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

These lockdown restrictions mostly occurred in the early days, before anywhere near the present vaccination rates, and what kept us at reasonable sustainable levels as far as hospitalisations and deaths were concerned. 

 

The Djokovic saga and his arrogance, is now dead and buried and out of Australia's hands. Thankfully, other countries are looking at the facts that surrounds Djokovic and his actions, including lying on the application form, and his immediate tennis future is in limbo.

He also is reportedly going to sue Australia. 🤣 He will lose that to, and again be saddled with court costs.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I believe they are irrational in a country with such high vaccine rates, and infringe upon the liberty of the citizens there.

And that’s fine. You’re welcome to hold this position and advocate for change.

However, as it stands today, those restrictions do exist and are being actively enforced, much like laws and regulations against driving drunk.

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

The Djokovic saga and his arrogance

What behavior did you find arrogant?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 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.     

So far the only real angry mob (as you put it) are the ones that have taken part in some of the Qanon inspired marches, the nonsensical conspiracy signs they carried, the destruction of property, the assaults on Police and law enforcement officers, the descecration of war memorials, the spitting on reporters, the pissing on other reporters etc etc etc

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

What behavior did you find arrogant?

When in Spain and attending some photo shoot with school children, after being diagnosed, and without a mask, including travelling to Spain and thumbing his nose at isolation rules. I call that arrogance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/59939122

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/08/novak-djokovic-relied-on-december-covid-infection-for-vaccine-exemption-court-documents-reveal

Djokovic pictured maskless at public event one day after positive Covid test

 

Novak Djokovic faced fresh controversy over his attempt to enter Australia to take part in the Open tennis tournament after pictures emerged on social media of his appearances at public events after a positive Covid test was recorded in mid-December, which allowed him an exemption from the country’s strict Covid rules.

Djokovic has spoken against vaccine mandates but has always refused to say what his own vaccination status is.

He has been kept in a Melbourne hotel since Thursday after his visa was cancelled due to problems with the medical exemption from vaccination granted by the organisers of the Australian Open.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-serbian-tennis-star-reportedly-probed-by-spain-after-entering-country-without-permission-c-5289512

Novak Djokovic: Serbian tennis star reportedly probed by Spain after ‘entering country without permission’

 

The Spanish Government is investigating if Novak Djokovic entered the European country without a vaccination certificate or exemption in December and January.

Djokovic travelled from Serbia to Spain last month to train at the Soho Tennis Academy in Marbella, which uses the same court surface as the Australian Open, even though at that time it was unknown whether he would be allowed into Australia.

Spanish media is reporting the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have asked police and immigration authorities to look into the matter, The Australian reported.

 

It is being reported that Mr Djokovic did not seek special permission from the Spanish Embassy in Belgrade all the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to go into Spain without the documents.

Tennis reporter Gaspar Ribeiro Lanca tweeted: “COPE reports that the Spanish government is now investigating whether unvaccinated Novak Djokovic entered the country illegally.”

He noted that since September 20, citizens from Serbia needed a vaccine certificate or a special exemption to enter Spanish territory.

“So far the authorities say they did not receive any request from Djokovic,” he said.

 

https://thewest.com.au/sport/novak-djokovic/australian-open-novak-djokovic-admits-attending-event-while-covid-positive-mistake-in-travel-declaration-c-5275629

“The next day, on 18 December, I was at my tennis centre in Belgrade to fulfil a long-standing commitment for a (French newspaper) L’Equire interview and photoshoot. I cancelled all other events except for the L’Equipe interview.

“I felt obligated to go ahead and conduct the L’Equipe interview as I didn’t want to let the journalist down, but did ensure I socially distance and wore a mask except when my photograph was being taken.

“While I went home after the interview to isolate for the required period, on reflection, this was an error of judgement and I accept that I should have rescheduled this commitment.”

[beecee]

[CharonY]

20 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.  

Could you point to the info release that shows that (also, is it for a given time period, total estimate...)?

[mistermack]

Djokovitch did lie about having covid. And the Serbian government appears to have helped. 

The BBC did an investigation into the serial numbers on the test certs that he provided, and it's clear that the record was fiddled. 

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59999541   

[beecee]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

Djokovitch did lie about having covid. And the Serbian government appears to have helped. 

The BBC did an investigation into the serial numbers on the test certs that he provided, and it's clear that the record was fiddled. 

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59999541   

Of course he lied and then tried to wiggle his way out of it!

And in the meant time, the Australian Open proceeds as it should, with the women's final tonight between Australian Ashleigh Barty, world number 1 and American Danielle Collins.

The men's final is on Sunday night between Rafael Nadal and fiery Russian Danil Medvedev.

So far been great tennis.

[beecee]

On 1/29/2022 at 7:02 AM, beecee said:

Of course he lied and then tried to wiggle his way out of it!

And in the meant time, the Australian Open proceeds as it should, with the women's final tonight between Australian Ashleigh Barty, world number 1 and American Danielle Collins.

The men's final is on Sunday night between Rafael Nadal and fiery Russian Danil Medvedev.

So far been great tennis.

Well Ashe Barty has another grand slam title, after a great effort by the American Danielle Collins, which sees her in the top 10 ranking for the first time in her life. And best of all, in the long drawn out official speeches and acceptance speeches, not one bloody mention of the Djokovic!

Nadal and the Rusky tonight will see the conclusion of two weeks of incredible tennis  and sportsmanship from the players, both winners and losers!!!