PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[johnb]

While I understand your “OTOH point”, the rules were very clear, and Australia has not allowed proof of a recent infection to serve as an exemption. So he still expected an exception that violated the rules and was not available to anyone else. Not to mention the suspicions surrounding his very conveniently timed positive test. It seems to correlate with when his team might have realized that he wasn’t going to get a free pass. And there are apparent discrepancies with the test results.

Oh, I agree that it should be an easy decision (quick deportation).

At some point, though, we should probably allow for recently documented positive covid tests to count for something. Two problems come to mind:

1. Dj also tested positive after his superspreader tennis event in 2020, so obviously there’d have to be some window of presumed immunity (90 days sounds about right).

2. People who KNOW they’re in the moral right (like a subset of the anti-vaxxers) would see lying as a small ethical speed bump on the road to personal liberty. In that vein, I’d be willing to make my first pie bet that Dj lied about his December covid test.

For today’s Dj overview from The NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/s...lian-open.html

[Eternal Outlaw]

When everything stopped in March 2020 I was amazed at how much I didn't actually miss sports. I didn't watch nearly as much when it returned and still don't. And it served as if it becomes too stupid then it's easy to live without. I couldn't tell you the last time I didn't watch the Australian Open but whatever that streak is will end with this absurd saga. Honestly I wish the ATP would call the Australian Open an exhibition event and give someone else the title of fourth major. They won't of course but that's the benefit of 2020, learned I didn't need to watch a sport and tennis was no exception. * to the Australian Open winner, we all know Djokovic was leaping ahead of Nadal and Federer with #21.

Oh and I'm a Nadal fan so in theory should be happy his chances have improved slightly. Djokovic been playing for a year without being vaccinated. Vaccination didn't stop Nadal from getting covid last month.

[Tooold]

When everything stopped in March 2020 I was amazed at how much I didn't actually miss sports. I didn't watch nearly as much when it returned and still don't. And it served as if it becomes too stupid then it's easy to live without. I couldn't tell you the last time I didn't watch the Australian Open but whatever that streak is will end with this absurd saga. Honestly I wish the ATP would call the Australian Open an exhibition event and give someone else the title of fourth major. They won't of course but that's the benefit of 2020, learned I didn't need to watch a sport and tennis was no exception. * to the Australian Open winner, we all know Djokovic was leaping ahead of Nadal and Federer with #21.

Oh and I'm a Nadal fan so in theory should be happy his chances have improved slightly. Djokovic been playing for a year without being vaccinated. Vaccination didn't stop Nadal from getting covid last month.

I agree it makes the AO a little less interesting.

But having said that, I think there are 3 separate issues with the Djoker situation, and the bolded part conflates them somewhat.

1) Will the vaccines keep us from getting CoVid? You are correct that now we know that the vaccines don’t provide as much protection against getting CoVid (or at least getting the recent strains) as we hoped. But the vaccines DO protect against severe illness, and the data indicates that the people who are being hospitalized or dying are mostly unvaccinated, and so the strain on our hospitals is also due to the number of cases among the un-vaxxed.

2) Should countries or states mandate vaccines, and bar those who have not been vaxxed from entering? This is partly a political question, but certainly different countries have the right to set their own immigration rules. Australia has had very tough CoVid rules, and the Australian citizens have suffered over the last two years and obeyed these rules.

3) does an individual have the right to enter a country, in spite of not complying with the immigration rules, just because he disagrees with those rules, or because he is important? That answer is easy for me.

We can disagree with the rule, or believe that other factors should have been considered (i.e., his recent positive CoVid test…if that even really happened), but there is no question that the rules were clear, that Australia is trying to keep CoVid away, and everyone else complied.

My biggest issue with the events of the last few days is that the main reason for pulling his visa again should have been simply that he did not meet the vaccine requirement and that having had CoVid was not one of the reasons for which a medical exemption was allowed, under the Australian rules. There was no need to get into this murky rationale that his presence would excite anti-vaxx sentiment….

Oh, btw, apparently France is now requiring proof of vaccines plus booster in order to enter the country….if that condition stays in place, the French Open could also be interesting.

[YmoBeThere]

As it happened: Djokovic leaves Australia

• Novak Djokovic has been deported from Australia after losing visa battle in court
• Judges dismissed his bid to have a government decision to cancel

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-australia-60001871

FWIW, the court decision was unanimous.

[Furniture]

In the end after only missing two shots Djok was no match for Australia and the Novak scene is over. It was a highly strung situation that went to court in a flurry of exchanges but the authorities were too strong for him and the door was (grand) slammed in his face...Game over.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree it makes the AO a little less interesting.

But having said that, I think there are 3 separate issues with the Djoker situation, and the bolded part conflates them somewhat.

1) Will the vaccines keep us from getting CoVid? You are correct that now we know that the vaccines don’t provide as much protection against getting CoVid (or at least getting the recent strains) as we hoped. But the vaccines DO protect against severe illness, and the data indicates that the people who are being hospitalized or dying are mostly unvaccinated, and so the strain on our hospitals is also due to the number of cases among the un-vaxxed.

2) Should countries or states mandate vaccines, and bar those who have not been vaxxed from entering? This is partly a political question, but certainly different countries have the right to set their own immigration rules. Australia has had very tough CoVid rules, and the Australian citizens have suffered over the last two years and obeyed these rules.

3) does an individual have the right to enter a country, in spite of not complying with the immigration rules, just because he disagrees with those rules, or because he is important? That answer is easy for me.

We can disagree with the rule, or believe that other factors should have been considered (i.e., his recent positive CoVid test…if that even really happened), but there is no question that the rules were clear, that Australia is trying to keep CoVid away, and everyone else complied.

My biggest issue with the events of the last few days is that the main reason for pulling his visa again should have been simply that he did not meet the vaccine requirement and that having had CoVid was not one of the reasons for which a medical exemption was allowed, under the Australian rules. There was no need to get into this murky rationale that his presence would excite anti-vaxx sentiment….

Oh, btw, apparently France is now requiring proof of vaccines plus booster in order to enter the country….if that condition stays in place, the French Open could also be interesting.

This analysis is spot-on IMO and extremely well-stated.

[camion]

In the end after only missing two shots Djok was no match for Australia and the Novak scene is over. It was a highly strung situation that went to court in a flurry of exchanges but the authorities were too strong for him and the door was (grand) slammed in his face...Game over.

Government wins 2 sets to 1 with the last set at love.

[Furniture]

Government wins 2 sets to 1 with the last set at love.

Serbs him right for not getting vaccinated.

[bundabergdevil]

Serbs him right for not getting vaccinated.

Go. Get out of here right now. Yugo and think about what you did.

[Indoor66]

Go. Get out of here right now. Yugo and think about what you did.

Nobody puts a Yugo in the corner.

[camion]

Go. Get out of here right now. Yugo and think about what you did.

Aw, come on, you know Furniture was just Djoking.









Going into hiding now.

[OldPhiKap]

Bad things happen historically when Serbian nationalists get upset. Just sayin’.

[Rich]

I agree it makes the AO a little less interesting.

But having said that, I think there are 3 separate issues with the Djoker situation, and the bolded part conflates them somewhat.

1) Will the vaccines keep us from getting CoVid? You are correct that now we know that the vaccines don’t provide as much protection against getting CoVid (or at least getting the recent strains) as we hoped. But the vaccines DO protect against severe illness, and the data indicates that the people who are being hospitalized or dying are mostly unvaccinated, and so the strain on our hospitals is also due to the number of cases among the un-vaxxed.

2) Should countries or states mandate vaccines, and bar those who have not been vaxxed from entering? This is partly a political question, but certainly different countries have the right to set their own immigration rules. Australia has had very tough CoVid rules, and the Australian citizens have suffered over the last two years and obeyed these rules.

3) does an individual have the right to enter a country, in spite of not complying with the immigration rules, just because he disagrees with those rules, or because he is important? That answer is easy for me.

We can disagree with the rule, or believe that other factors should have been considered (i.e., his recent positive CoVid test…if that even really happened), but there is no question that the rules were clear, that Australia is trying to keep CoVid away, and everyone else complied.

My biggest issue with the events of the last few days is that the main reason for pulling his visa again should have been simply that he did not meet the vaccine requirement and that having had CoVid was not one of the reasons for which a medical exemption was allowed, under the Australian rules. There was no need to get into this murky rationale that his presence would excite anti-vaxx sentiment….

Oh, btw, apparently France is now requiring proof of vaccines plus booster in order to enter the country….if that condition stays in place, the French Open could also be interesting.

Not trying to be snarky, just curious. I've kept up with this thread and you consistently refer to the disease as CoVid (with a capital V). This does not seem to the proper naming/spelling convention (https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...hat-causes-it). It's usually spelled as COVID, Covid or coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2 if you want to be technical.

It would seem to take extra effort to type CoVid so I was wondering how you decided upon and why you consistently use this variation.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Nobody puts a Yugo in the corner.

Excellent reference!

[dudog84]

This made me chuckle. Angrily. Novak Djokovic, rules enforcer:

https://deadspin.com/remember-when-n...for-1848351913

[Green Wave Dukie]

Serbs him right for not getting vaccinated.

Hilarious.
I’m over here Rafa-ing. (Whoops, I mean laughing.)

[Tooold]

Not trying to be snarky, just curious. I've kept up with this thread and you consistently refer to the disease as CoVid (with a capital V). This does not seem to the proper naming/spelling convention (https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...hat-causes-it). It's usually spelled as COVID, Covid or coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2 if you want to be technical.

It would seem to take extra effort to type CoVid so I was wondering how you decided upon and why you consistently use this variation.

No snark taken. My iPad seems to think that is the correct way to write it. It has a mind of its own…maybe I typed it that way a couple years ago and it remembered. I have to fight with it on a lot of words…

[Bluedog]

How long after infection can one test positive on an antigen test? My 3-year old can technically go back tomorrow, but I am trying to be a good citizen and wanted to ensure that there was negative test first and surprisingly, after 9 days, at home antigen test still came back positive. Can there be a lingering effect or does a positive truly mean still infectious/active virus? I recognize can test positive with a PCR for quite some time, but I'm talking specifically antigen. Thanks for insights. They don't require a negative test to go back, simply 10 days, but again want to be a responsible person. No more symptoms. Hasn't had a fever for like 6-7 days. It's also quite an unpleasant struggle trying to get the sample with a 3 year old...so trying to minimize it as much as possible while also being accruate/responsible.

[YmoBeThere]

While perhaps more of a pre-text, breach of covid-19 protocols appear to have played a role in the resignation of the Chairman of Credit Suisse:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/credi...235002556.html

"In December, Reuters reported that a preliminary internal bank investigation had found that Horta-Osorio attended the Wimbledon tennis finals in London in July without following Britain's quarantine rules.

Horta-Osorio also broke Swiss COVID-19 rules in November by leaving the country during a 10-day quarantine period, the bank said last month."

[budwom]

Several neighborhood kids are home from college, have Covid, and are going out shopping like it doesn't matter.