The Novak Djokovic Debacle:

[MigL]

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

And I read comic books and science fiction as a youngster; not fantasy.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

First of all, no one held Novak down and injected a vaccine into him. That still remains his choice.

Secondly, health choices that can impact the health of others are very much in the purview of government. Your individual rights do not allow you to do me harm. That is what most laws are all about.

 

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

I am baffled that this seemingly obvious point keeps having to be made.  But I guess it does.  Governments for many centuries have restricted personal freedom where public health, especially contagions, is concerned.  And democratic ones have not strapped people down and forced them to receive shots - just made shots a requirement for entering certain public domains where transmission is likely. 

More organised "world wide rally"  for freedom protest marches in most Australian capital cities yesterday. The following photos are from the Sydney march....

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-antivax-protests-20211120-h1zwbc.html

What does this first photo remind you of?

The second one  is Craig Kelly, former government minister, who has now formed his own party.

Notice also the religious theme in some of the other photos.

 

 

🤮

It fair dinkum makes me want to vomit!! 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-20/morrison-on-back-foot-over-response-to-melbourne-protests/100633436

It's been 10 days since it was reported that a Victorian state crossbench MP, Andy Meddick, had been threatened with being shot and his children kidnapped because he had "consulted" with the Andrews Government on its controversial pandemic laws.

And it's a week since gallows and angry protesters, often spouting QAnon conspiracy theories, started turning up outside the Victorian Parliament.

At least two state premiers — Victoria's Dan Andrews and Western Australia's Mark McGowan — have received death threats.

On Thursday, Meddick's daughter was attacked on the street and hospitalised.

It's been 10 days since it was reported that a Victorian state crossbench MP, Andy Meddick, had been threatened with being shot and his children kidnapped because he had "consulted" with the Andrews Government on its controversial pandemic laws.

And it's a week since gallows and angry protesters, often spouting QAnon conspiracy theories, started turning up outside the Victorian Parliament.

At least two state premiers — Victoria's Dan Andrews and Western Australia's Mark McGowan — have received death threats.

On Thursday, Meddick's daughter was attacked on the street and hospitalised.

more at link...................

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Begone, heathen! It's not Tolkein's fault,

I think you may want to re-read the quote. Looks like maybe you missed the joke ✌️

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

What does this first photo remind you of?

Ah yes, the elk-man of Jan. 6!   AKA the Qanon Shaman.

Yes, "freedom" has become more a brand than a concept.  One bought with the same level of deep thought as Trump holding up a bible.   

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Ah yes, the elk-man of Jan. 6!   AKA the Qanon Shaman.

Yes, "freedom" has become more a brand than a concept.  One bought with the same level of deep thought as Trump holding up a bible.   

I would have guessed William Wallace (a.k.a. Mel Gibson).

[beecee]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ah yes, the elk-man of Jan. 6!   AKA the Qanon Shaman.   

Bingo!!!

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I would have guessed William Wallace (a.k.a. Mel Gibson).

But after viewing it a number of times Braveheart's William Wallace did come to mind.

Worth noting these Aussie rallies, were under a banner of "world wide rally"

[zapatos]

 

[iNow]

Except in this analogy Trump is Longshanks 

[et pet]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

  We both guilty of Selective Perception, zapatos?

Edited January 23, 2022 by et pet

[beecee]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yes, "freedom" has become more a brand than a concept.  One bought with the same level of deep thought as Trump holding up a bible.   

yeah the religious aspect of some of those photos made me want to spew.

Thankfully with the Eastern states of Australia, approaching 95% fully vaxxed rates, and many vaxxination mandates already in operation, these turkey's are literally pushing shit up hill. My concern is it being under the banner of "world wide rally" and that Qanon. 

[Alex_Krycek]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

Then how do you explain the fact that an elected official was able to unilaterally make that decision? If they "don't get to" then surely it either wouldn't have happened or will be overturned. Is a reversal in the works?

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.

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

First of all, no one held Novak down and injected a vaccine into him. That still remains his choice.

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." 

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

Secondly, health choices that can impact the health of others are very much in the purview of government. Your individual rights do not allow you to do me harm. That is what most laws are all about.

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.

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

Fear mongering and continuum fallacy. I choose not to go down this path with you.

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.  

Quote

 If they do work, then there is a rational basis for reducing the number of unvaccinated people in Australia.

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.  

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You keep repeating this illogical premise (above).  If you have access to vaccine, the unvaccinated are not doing you any harm.  Full stop. 

You seem to have the impression that vaccinated people cannot get infected and die. You do realize that’s false, don’t you?

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to have the impression that vaccinated people cannot get infected and die. You do realize that’s false, don’t you?

Or that maintaining a pool of infected increases the chance of new variants (I mean that has only been the driver of at least three waves...). Or increase the risk of folks for which vaccines won't  work, or that filling up hospitals and thereby restricting health care is bad for everyone etc, etc.

I keep being astonished that 2 years into a crisis of this magnitude folks are able to learn nothing.

[beecee]

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

No, Hawke did nothing of the sort. He simply followed the law/s of the lad and exercised his power, which because of the government mess up as described, was put aside by a court judge. Which after appeal to the high court was again upheld.

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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."   

Protecting one's work force and taking the advice of medical and health is not disingenuous. 

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 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.

Djokovic as I pointed out did most certainly pose a threat, and lied on his form to boot. Australia's very strict lockdowns also are responsible for relatively minor death rates and hospitalisation when compared to other countries. 

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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."  

That's bullshit. Australia is enforcing its own protective measures, and has nothing to do with France or any other country, deciding after Djokovic showed himself to be less then honest, to also apply their own strict versions to contain their covid infected numbers.

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It was a political decision, not one based on sound health policy.  

Yes, certainly a political decision. We have elections coming on this year, and the conservative government lead by Morrison, would probably have had let him play, except the overwhelming opinion of the rank and file, and most state governments, to boot Djokovic, would have seen them tossed out on their arse.

Djokovic got what he deserved and what was just.

Edited January 23, 2022 by beecee

[Alex_Krycek]

53 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, certainly a political decision. We have elections coming on this year, and the conservative government lead by Morrison, would probably have had let him play, except the overwhelming opinion of the rank and file, and most state governments, to boot Djokovic, would have seen them tossed out on their arse.

Djokovic got what he deserved and what was just.

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.    

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.    

And driven by the fact that he has openly snubbed his nose at lawful measures to contain covid in other coutries including Spain, by not wearing a mask and ignoring isolating rules, and of course lying on his immigration/entry form. His arrogance was his downfall.

The initial decision, far from being rational, was done in cahoots with tennis Australia and bending all the rules etc, to enable the number 1 drawcard to play. They were wrong. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And driven by the fact that he has openly snubbed his nose at lawful measures to contain covid in other coutries including Spain, by not wearing a mask and ignoring isolating rules, and of course lying on his immigration/entry form. His arrogance was his downfall.

The initial decision, far from being rational, was done in cahoots with tennis Australia and bending all the rules etc, to enable the number 1 drawcard to play. They were wrong. 

It would have been a circus if he'd played.

[mistermack]

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.

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Hawke basically resorted to a "nuclear option" to override the courts. 

So I take it you are now admitting it was legal?

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This is the disingenuous argument being promulgated.

Bullshit. YOU said "An individual's health choices are not something that should be determined by any administration." The government is not determining his HEALTH choices, it is determining his TENNIS choices, in THEIR country, by someone who is NOT a citizen.

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

Bullshit. People who are vaccinated can die from the virus. Not everyone has access to the vaccine. Not everyone is healthy enough to take the vaccine.

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So based on this, Djokovic posed no reasonable threat. 

See above.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Much like we do when requiring clothing in public spaces, proof of residence when voting, valid identification when purchasing firearms, taxes to own property, vaccines to attend school, age thresholds to purchase alcohol and tobacco, proof of minimum skill when operating motor vehicles, and on and on and on ad infinitum. 

Voting is your mechanism to amend these policies our representative legislatures have the authority to pursue, but you’re badly mistaken when suggesting that authority is absent. 

These kindergarten level caricatures of freedom in the face of a global threat that’s already killed millions and millions of people were tiresome long ago, and are even more so now. Got polio?

[Arete]

9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

That's not how vaccines work. 

Smallpox, rinderpest and polio were not eradicated with vaccination campaigns because the vaccines were 100% effective. They were eradicated because a high enough proportion of the population were inoculated in order to lower the transmission rate below the level of replacement.  If a large enough proportion of the population do not vaccinate, R₀ remains above 1 and the pathogen continues to spread.

As there is no such thing as vaccine that is 100% effective 100% of the time, this puts those who cannot mount an immune response to the vaccine (e.g. chemotherapy patients, organ donor recipients, autoimmune disorder patients, etc) at risk. The main reason for otherwise healthy individuals to get vaccinated against infectious diseases is to lower the risk of infection for vulnerable individuals in the population. 

Personal freedom is never absolute. You still need to pass a driver's test to operate a car. You can't poop in the street. You can't build a pillow fort in the middle of the freeway, and you can't send your kid to public school without being vaccinated against infectious diseases. 

[CharonY]

It is like saying that folks should be allowed to be drunk driving. Y'all got airbags after all. It makes no sense.

[Alex_Krycek]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is like saying that folks should be allowed to be drunk driving. Y'all got airbags after all. It makes no sense.

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

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So I take it you are now admitting it was legal?

Bullshit. YOU said "An individual's health choices are not something that should be determined by any administration." The government is not determining his HEALTH choices, it is determining his TENNIS choices, in THEIR country, by someone who is NOT a citizen.

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

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Bullshit. People who are vaccinated can die from the virus. Not everyone has access to the vaccine. Not everyone is healthy enough to take the vaccine.

See above.

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.  

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

No, they’re not. They’re determining / have determined he’s ineligible to enter the country as an unvaccinated foreign citizen.

Perhaps your position isn’t quite as strong as you believe since you must continue setting up strawman to knockdown. 

[Alex_Krycek]

45 minutes ago, Arete said:

As there is no such thing as vaccine that is 100% effective 100% of the time, this puts those who cannot mount an immune response to the vaccine (e.g. chemotherapy patients, organ donor recipients, autoimmune disorder patients, etc) at risk. The main reason for otherwise healthy individuals to get vaccinated against infectious diseases is to lower the risk of infection for vulnerable individuals in the population. 

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. 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No, they’re not. They’re determining / have determined he’s ineligible to enter the country as an unvaccinated foreign citizen.

Perhaps your position isn’t quite as strong as you believe since you must continue setting up strawman to knockdown. 

Zaptos used the phrase "Tennis Choices" as one of his premises.  I didn't.