Jump to content

The Novak Djokovic Debacle:


beecee
 Share

Recommended Posts

You would think a tennis player could grasp the social contract concept of "your freedom to swing your arms stops at my nose."

Then again, my country produced John McEnroe so I'm aware of the ease with which tennis stars turn into brats.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TheVat said:

You would think a tennis player could grasp the social contract concept of "your freedom to swing your arms stops at my nose."

Then again, my country produced John McEnroe so I'm aware of the ease with which tennis stars turn into brats.

We have our own thanks...Bernard Tomic, and to a somewhat lesser (well reformed sense) Nick Kyrgios. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I also thought my so called assertions were pretty well supported by the photos I linked to, and I don't believe I said anything about it being exclusively all of them...some are just misguided.

And really, I do not have that much sympathy for people, (for whatever reason) that chose to ignore the science and medical advice, in favour of something they heard Trump say, or what silly unsubstantiated rumour they heard on facebook from some friend, or any number of the other crazy, looney, Qanon type societies infesting democracies today. Not much sympathy at all.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

You would think a tennis player could grasp the social contract concept of "your freedom to swing your arms stops at my nose."

Then again, my country produced John McEnroe so I'm aware of the ease with which tennis stars turn into brats.

 

 

You cannot be serious! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2022 at 8:25 PM, beecee said:

And really, I do not have that much sympathy for people, (for whatever reason) that chose to ignore the science and medical advice, in favour of something they heard Trump say, or what silly unsubstantiated rumour they heard on facebook from some friend, or any number of the other crazy, looney, Qanon type societies infesting democracies today. Not much sympathy at all.

This is perhaps one of the weirder experiences I had related to the pandemic. We had several discussions with students and members of the public who had concerns about vaccines. We were somewhat prepared to have some crazies and there were indeed questions that were borne out of conspiracy theories (e.g. 5g, vaccines are lethal made with aborted fetuses etc.). Yet, surprisingly we found that engaging with them and explaining it why that was silly did help to assuage their fears. I.e. it seems that some folks are not on the level of a true "believer" but they are utterly confused by the existing information and they apparently have no ability to distinguish between the nonsense in social media and actual facts (and it seems to go though all age categories).

It does seem to me that there is a fundamental erosion of trust in public messaging and  that individual connections might be believed more. The issue there of course is that everyone can go to youtube, call themselves Dr. so-and-so and create inane narratives that then spread like wildfire. Many of the ideas are so far out that you would assume that one has to be a conspiracy nut to believe them. 

The positive way to think about it is that even if folks believe crazy things, they might be amenable to education. The negative way to think about it is that apparently not only crazies are susceptible to this internet nonsense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yet, surprisingly we found that engaging with them and explaining it why that was silly did help to assuage their fears. I.e. it seems that some folks are not on the level of a true "believer" but they are utterly confused by the existing information and they apparently have no ability to distinguish between the nonsense in social media and actual facts (and it seems to go though all age categories).

It does seem to me that there is a fundamental erosion of trust in public messaging and  that individual connections might be believed more.

While that is certainly true for some, the historical facts are that vaccinations have been with us for quite a while now, and we all received them as infants and when growing up.eg: Whooping cough, Diptheria, Polio....The only notable differences between those times and now, is social media, Trump, and the rise of Qanon and conspiracy nonsense.

What brought about this errosion of trust?

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yet surprisingly we found that engaging with them and explaining it why that was silly did help to assuage their fears. I.e. it seems that some folks are not on the level of a true "believer" but they are utterly confused by the existing information and they apparently have no ability to distinguish between the nonsense in social media and actual facts (and

That is very encouraging.

Actually  I notice this tendency  on myself where  I look for authoritative  sources to confirm my existing  wishes.

 

I cannot verify all my beliefs/stances personally  and so I sketch out a path forward  and  look for abler minds to confirm me in my path

 

So I don't go down the social media rabbit hole where  voices are indistinguishable  either side or another of any argument  but  make my own way along hoping not to fall into potholes  along the way.

 

I know from experience that apparently mentally sane people  can have  farcical beliefs.A good friend of the family who used to visit us  confided in us (aged 5 and 10) that she was the Q of England (she was off her medication).

 

And another ,my neighbour  in the flat  persuaded  me to post a letter for her to the Justice Minister  because  she was "being tracked by foreign spies."

 

The police duly turned up a few weeks later to seriously investigate  her very well written story(she ,meanwhile had been taken by her family back to the mental institution)

There are more stories 

I am sure most of us could tell a few.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, beecee said:

While that is certainly true for some, the historical facts are that vaccinations have been with us for quite a while now, and we all received them as infants and when growing up.eg: Whooping cough, Diptheria, Polio....The only notable differences between those times and now, is social media, Trump, and the rise of Qanon and conspiracy nonsense.

What brought about this errosion of trust?

I mean, anti-vaccination has a history basically as long as vaccinations and many of the original arguments still echo today. E.g. safety of vaccines, which in the 19th century were certainly much more valid than today. The internet definitely has allowed the spread of stupid things much more easily for sure, though and I think it is drowning out the information.

See if you tell folks something like only 1 in 1 million will have issues, that is a good message. But if you start being more precise like the studies have shown something like 1 in 100k with milder issues, or that some subgroup may have a higher frequency of non-serious complications etc to contextualize the data, you start confusing folks. Thus, science being precise is seen by many folks as science being uncertain. It is something that the medical officers are also facing. Either make simple declarative statements, but then it is an issue if you need to revise them due to new situations. Or you make more complicated, but more precise statements, which leaves many folks confused and hence less trusting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

CuPSc8tWYAAUa3D?format=jpg&name=small

While many certainly have a confirmation bias, the sad thing is that in that climate there are many that appear to be genuinely unclear about what is fact or fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2022 at 4:25 PM, beecee said:

No player is bigger then the game. No player is bigger then his chosen sport.

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.  

Edited by Alex_Krycek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here again the argument revolves around personal liberty vs public safety. It’s safe to say that far fewer millions of people would’ve died from this virus if only more of their neighbors were less selfish and ideological. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ultimately, what is the logical reason to demand that Djokovic (or any other traveller, for that matter), be vaccinated? 

The public good of course. Do you disagree the public benefits if a higher percentage of people are vaccinated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The public good of course. Do you disagree the public benefits if a higher percentage of people are vaccinated?

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.

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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? 

Higher than it was six months ago but not higher than it could be. My point is that the percentage could be higher than it is now, and that would be better for the public.

21 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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. 

Of course. What is your point with making that observation though?

21 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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. 

Yes, that's inconsistent. I've never seen any country that treated its citizens in exactly the same way as they treat their visitors. Why do you think they should?

21 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Those who are vaccinated spread the virus less than those who are not vaccinated. You make it sound like they don't.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Higher than it was six months ago but not higher than it could be. My point is that the percentage could be higher than it is now, and that would be better for the public.

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.   

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course. What is your point with making that observation though?

Those who want it can get it.  This is how things are supposed to work in a free society.

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, that's inconsistent. I've never seen any country that treated its citizens in exactly the same way as they treat their visitors. Why do you think they should?

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.

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Those who are vaccinated spread the virus less than those who are not vaccinated. You make it sound like they don't.

If you can link to conclusive studies concerning this point, please do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you can link to conclusive studies concerning this point, please do so.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/vaccinated-workers-shed-less-covid-virus
 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/amp/
 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-but-its-still-more-likely-if-youre-unvaccinated
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/nba-vaccinated-people-less-likely-to-spread-covid-to-others-2021-11?amp
 

There are others, likely better ones too, and I could go on, but at the end of the day you either accept the validity of this rather self-evident premise (that unvaccinated people are more likely to spread virus and infect others than vaccinated people) or you don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The numbers could always be higher, depending on who you ask.  Who gets to make that determination? 

The elected officials and their representatives. I'm confident you already knew that though.

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Mandating that everyone get the vaccine in the name of public safety is a slippery slope, in my view.   

Like mandating clean water may lead to mandating clean air? Or mandating food safety measures may lead to mandating drug safety measures? Just saying "slippery slope" does not automatically mean you've proven something bad will happen.

15 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Those who want it can get it.  This is how things are supposed to work in a free society.

I agree. I thought you were trying to support your argument in some way. You are doing nothing more than stating the obvious which doesn't in any way support your argument.

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

because there was no rational or legal basis for their actions

If you are going to claim that vaccinations don't reduce deaths and expenses, or that it is illegal to mandate them for visitors, then I see no reason to carry on this conversation.

 

11 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you can link to conclusive studies concerning this point, please do so.

Quote

Cases of Covid-19 were less common among household members of vaccinated health care workers during the period beginning 14 days after the first dose than during the unvaccinated period before the first dose (event rate per 100 person-years, 9.40 before the first dose and 5.93 beginning 14 days after the first dose). After the health care worker’s second dose, the rate in household members was lower still (2.98 cases per 100 person-years). These differences persisted after fitting extended Cox models that were adjusted for calendar time, geographic region, age, sex, occupational and socioeconomic factors, and underlying conditions. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2106757

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

The elected officials and their representatives. I'm confident you already knew that though.

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.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I agree. I thought you were trying to support your argument in some way. You are doing nothing more than stating the obvious which doesn't in any way support your argument.

If the argument is self evident, which you agree it is, there is no need to elaborate further.

Quote

 

Just saying "slippery slope" does not automatically mean you've proven something bad will happen.


 

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.  

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to claim that vaccinations don't reduce deaths and expenses, or that it is illegal to mandate them for visitors, then I see no reason to carry on this conversation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2106757

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I find the Australian government's position entirely illogical, to be honest. 

The federal government's position in this debacle was less then fair dinkum, as was Tennis Australia's postion for selfish reasons. He should never have been given a visa from the get go, and should never have got arrived in Australia, where they then caused the uncertainty and saw the error of their ways and finally had the balls to revoke it at the airport in Melbourne. The judges decision in granting Djokovic a reprieve was based on that confusing and late decision.The government then rightly appealed to the high court and the unanimous decision by the three judges to stand by the Ministers decision were upheld. He was then rightly booted out of the country.

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 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.

Australia has in excess of 90% vaccination rates, NSW and Victoria are approaching 95% rates. The everyday Australian citizen, particularly Melbournites underwent many lockdowns and curtailing of accepted freedoms to contain this virus, which we were reasonably successful in doing. 

Vaccination mandates in Australia also exist in many areas including aged care, and health and all sport. eg: the NRL, the Cricket association.

Djokovic was a known anti vaxxer, and made no secret about that fact. he also ignored health orders in his own country, and Spain after testing positive and refused to wear a mask. Australians cannot travel interstate if they test positive and in some cases, full vaccination rates must also be shown, although this has relaxed somewhat. Djokovic as agreed by some of his tennis fraternity, was wrong. He literally lied on the immigration form, besides his well know anti vaxx stance and the thumbing of his nose at authorities. And you say he was hard done by?

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Political it may have been, but ultimately correct also. remember we have a federal government who is  conservative and right wing, and ultimately has literally been forced into this postion by some of the Labor states. Western Australia by the way, is still isolated from the rest of the country with strict limits on any overseas arrivals and has by far the lowest infection rates.

Hawke made a decision which should have been made before Djokovic landed...that decision was over ruled by a judge on appeal from Djokovic and his minders...The governemnt then appealed to the high court which upheld his original decision.

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.  

Wrong! you have a minister of the federal government making an error of judgement in granting Djokovic permission to come to Australia, (in cahoots with Tennis Australia) then realising their error, refused the visa on landing. Djokovic was then released after the judge revoked the ministers decison, and Djokovic commenced practise on Rod Laver arena, having fun and thumbing their noses at media drones overhead. The minister and federal government appealed and that was upheld.

Worth noting since all of this smart arse tactics by Djokovic has started, he will now be lucky to play in any other grand slam titles, particularly the French.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

See if you tell folks something like only 1 in 1 million will have issues, that is a good message. But if you start being more precise like the studies have shown something like 1 in 100k with milder issues, or that some subgroup may have a higher frequency of non-serious complications etc to contextualize the data, you start confusing folks. Thus, science being precise is seen by many folks as science being uncertain. It is something that the medical officers are also facing. Either make simple declarative statements, but then it is an issue if you need to revise them due to new situations. Or you make more complicated, but more precise statements, which leaves many folks confused and hence less trusting.

Getting caught between a rock and a hard place comes to mind.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

elected officials don't get to dictate policy unilaterally

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?

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

An individual's health choices are not something that should be determined by any administration.

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.

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Big Pharma might effectively lobby to get a medication forcibly administered to high schoolers

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

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Don't create a straw man.

Hardly a straw man. YOU claimed there was no legal basis for the decision. YOU claimed there was no rational basis for keeping unvaccinated people out of the country. The former requires a law against it (please provide support since you are claiming what was done was illegal). The latter is only true if vaccines don't work. If they do work, then there is a rational basis for reducing the number of unvaccinated people in Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes 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.

 

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.  Same conditional approach as requiring shoes be worn into buildings in the American South, where hookworms were prevalent.  Or polio vaccines for school attendance.  Or requiring a blood alcohol level below a certain percent to legally drive.

All freedoms are relative to a social contract.  You can eat a box of candy bars - it's you who gets sick.  You don't walk in to the room, breathe sugary fumes on me, and give me diabetes.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I am baffled that this seemingly obvious point keeps having to be made.  But I guess it does.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Begone, heathen! It's not Tolkein's fault, it's the readers. I found the books mentally and emotionally expansive as a youngster. His experience and execution with the English language, and the idea of language is probably peerless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.