The Kyrie situation is slowly drawing in the Duke program

[1991 duke law]

At the risk of being pilloried by his admirers and sanctioned by the moderators, I'm going to weigh in here with a few observations and opinions from my perspective.

1. Kyrie Irving is a remarkably talented basketball player. No fan cheered louder for him when he played at Duke. No fan was more disappointed for him and the team when he suffered an injury that kept him on the bench for nearly the entire season. And no fan was more grateful for his enthusiasm in touting "The Brotherhood' as a means of promoting the Duke basketball program after he left. But over the years since he reached the NBA, it appears to me that Kyrie's hunger for attention has led him to exploit his celebrity by making outlandish statements and adopting controversial positions that, in my opinion, have caused him to become an embarrassment to Duke.

2. I understand the concept of "standing by your friend," and I appreciate the underlying sentiment that motivates one to maintain steadfast loyalty when it comes to "supporting" a friend who is taking flak for a "personal decision." But the appropriate form and degree of such "support" should depend on the extent to which that friend's decision is truly "personal" in scope -- that is, whether the potentially negative consequences would be confined to the person making the choice, or could result in harm to other people. In this case, Kyrie Irving's choice not to be vaccinated, and his participation in generating widespread publicity about that choice, renders this much more than a purely "personal" matter. In fact, his decision could have multiple adverse impacts on others -- not only recklessly endangering those with whom he directly or indirectly interacts, but influencing some segment of his massive fanbase to believe that refusing the vaccine is just fine.

3. Under these circumstances, I believe that those who express "support" for Kyrie's "personal decision," either affirmatively or tacitly, have gone too far, because they are effectively endorsing a dangerous stance. This is not some silly game of innocuous foolishness, like proclaiming that the Earth is flat. Kyrie's behavior is sowing distrust and fueling resistance to the only remedy we have with proven reliability. Discouraging COVID vaccinations, whether actively or only by example, perpetuates the spread of the virus, and thereby facilitates continued unnecessary suffering -- physical, psychological, social, and economic. "Standing by your guy" is fine when it doesn't adversely affect anyone else; but in my opinion it cannot it be justified as a mere affirmation of friendship when it promotes a position that results in people suffering and dying. For that reason, I would really like to see Nolan walk back his statement to make clear that he does not support vaccine resistance for people who are eligible.

Beautifully articulated.

I anticipate that Coach K is very intentionally silent on this. And I very much doubt that he has any interest or desire to weigh in on any of it.

I am largely indifferent to Stephen a Smith. But I give him credit, he and Kendrick Perkins have made it clear that they have no time for Kyrie Irving in connection with this whole debacle. While I love Jason Williams, I am starting to wonder whether he feels that he can get more political mileage with NBA players by supporting Kyrie rather than attacking him. I have little doubt that some people are making calculated decisions on who they will support and who they will attack - using the impact on them professionally as a barometer.

The only thing that is undeniable - Kyrie Irving is taking the press away from Ben Simmons!!

[Dukehk]

I don't understand what the big deal is?

If Kyrie doesn't want to get the vaccine, and he can't play, then he doesn't get paid.

Its as simple as that isn't it?

Eventually it will come to a head. Either he gets the vaccine and plays, or he just doesn't make any money from his contract.

Its his choice! He is free to do whatever he wants.

There is no wrong or right.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't understand what the big deal is?

If Kyrie doesn't want to get the vaccine, and he can't play, then he doesn't get paid.

Its as simple as that isn't it?

Eventually it will come to a head. Either he gets the vaccine and plays, or he just doesn't make any money from his contract.

Its his choice! He is free to do whatever he wants.

There is no wrong or right.

Well, other than letting his whole team down and such.

[Acymetric]

Well, other than letting his whole team down and such.

Also he'll still get roughly half his money.

[Steven43]

I don't understand what the big deal is?

If Kyrie doesn't want to get the vaccine, and he can't play, then he doesn't get paid.

Its as simple as that isn't it?

Eventually it will come to a head. Either he gets the vaccine and plays, or he just doesn't make any money from his contract.

Its his choice! He is free to do whatever he wants.

There is no wrong or right.

“Simple as that” you say? Are you even a fan of sports?? I can’t imagine a fan being perfectly fine with a player — particularly one of the best on his team and the entire league — choosing not to play simply because he doesn’t want to get a freaking vaccine like 97% of the rest of the players in the NBA.

And if I were specifically a fan of the Brooklyn Nets I would be downright furious. This team has been assembled to win a championship and Irving is putting the likelihood of that in major jeopardy with his selfishness. I don’t see how a sports fan could view this any other way.

[Stray Gator]

I don't understand what the big deal is?

If Kyrie doesn't want to get the vaccine, and he can't play, then he doesn't get paid.

Its as simple as that isn't it?

Eventually it will come to a head. Either he gets the vaccine and plays, or he just doesn't make any money from his contract.

Its his choice! He is free to do whatever he wants.

There is no wrong or right.

I believe that Kyrie's behavior is wrong. What makes it wrong has nothing to do with whether he plays basketball or gets less money. What makes it wrong is that he knows he is regarded by many of his fans as a role model; and as a role model, he is setting a bad example by refusing to get vaccinated, because -- as I've said before -- "[d]iscouraging COVID vaccinations, whether actively or only by example, perpetuates the spread of the virus, and thereby facilitates continued unnecessary suffering -- physical, psychological, social, and economic."

As the CDC reports: "Studies so far show that vaccinated people are 8 times less likely to be infected and 25 times less likely to experience hospitalization or death." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ugh-cases.html And there is no credible evidence that the vaccine contains anything unsafe or causes any significant adverse reactions except in extremely rare cases. What that means is that every fan who follows Kyrie's example and refuses to get vaccinated not only magnifies the risk of serious disease or death to themselves -- and in turn everyone with whom they interact -- but potentially increases the strain on our health care resources, thereby reducing its capacity to treat others with severe medical conditions. In addition, so long as unvaccinated people provide easy targets for spread of COVID, they increase the likelihood that the virus will morph into new and more dangerous variants.

For those reasons, "his choice" has potentially harmful consequences for others. In my opinion, that makes it wrong.

[Papa John]

“Simple as that” you say? Are you even a fan of sports?? I can’t imagine a fan being perfectly fine with a player — particularly one of the best on his team and the entire league — choosing not to play simply because he doesn’t want to get a freaking vaccine like 97% of the rest of the players in the NBA.

And if I were specifically a fan of the Brooklyn Nets I would be downright furious. This team has been assembled to win a championship and Irving is putting the likelihood of that in major jeopardy with his selfishness. I don’t see how a sports fan could view this any other way.

Perhaps Dukehk is merely suggesting that there are more important things in life to worry about than the (arguably) poorly-informed, selfish, unwise decisions of overpaid professional athletes? I'm a fan of sports, and I tend to agree with Dukehk. Of course, I tend not to get furious anymore about any decisions made by athletes, actors, influencers, etc., but perhaps that's because I'm too darn old now, and lack the passion of my youth about these types of things.

I believe that Kyrie's behavior is wrong. What makes it wrong has nothing to do with whether he plays basketball or gets less money. What makes it wrong is that he knows he is regarded by many of his fans as a role model; and as a role model, he is setting a bad example by refusing to get vaccinated, because -- as I've said before -- "[d]iscouraging COVID vaccinations, whether actively or only by example, perpetuates the spread of the virus, and thereby facilitates continued unnecessary suffering -- physical, psychological, social, and economic."

As the CDC reports: "Studies so far show that vaccinated people are 8 times less likely to be infected and 25 times less likely to experience hospitalization or death." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ugh-cases.html And there is no credible evidence that the vaccine contains anything unsafe or causes any significant adverse reactions except in extremely rare cases. What that means is that every fan who follows Kyrie's example and refuses to get vaccinated not only magnifies the risk of serious disease or death to themselves -- and in turn everyone with whom they interact -- but potentially increases the strain on our health care resources, thereby reducing its capacity to treat others with severe medical conditions. In addition, so long as unvaccinated people provide easy targets for spread of COVID, they increase the likelihood that the virus will morph into new and more dangerous variants.

For those reasons, "his choice" has potentially harmful consequences for others. In my opinion, that makes it wrong.

I certainly agree that Kyrie's behavior is wrong, both for not getting the vaccine and flushing all that money down the toilet and for the reason you cite of his being a 'role model' and thus serving as a bad influence on others. That said, I also would argue that the folks who consider him a 'role model' are exhibiting wrong behavior by not exercising more autonomy and doing their own simple research to come to the obvious conclusion that you cite in the final paragraph of your post. They don't need Kyrie to tell them to get the vaccine—that should be pretty obvious to folks by now.

[Dukehk]

Perhaps Dukehk is merely suggesting that there are more important things in life to worry about than the (arguably) poorly-informed, selfish, unwise decisions of overpaid professional athletes? I'm a fan of sports, and I tend to agree with Dukehk. Of course, I tend not to get furious anymore about any decisions made by athletes, actors, influencers, etc., but perhaps that's because I'm too darn old now, and lack the passion of my youth about these types of things.

Thanks as this was exactly what I was alluding to.

Bigger things than basketball or letting your team/fans down.

Kyrie knows the consequences to his decision. He made this very clear in his instagram live rant.

There is no "wrong" or "right" in this situation.

If the man doesn't want to get the vaccine, that prevents him from doing his job, then he has to pay the consequences for doing so. If that means losing his job or money, then he is no different from the rest of us "normal" people.

I don't think he should be vilified or commended. Life goes on.

Too much media attention on one mans choice.

[Papa John]

Too much media attention on one mans choice.

This feels like a description of the past six years... [ducking for cover]

[brlftz]

So those of you who think that there are more important things to worry about are free to go worry about them instead. The rest of us that think this is literally the most important issue on the planet (because we can only discuss one thing at a time) can stay here and discuss.

[CDu]

Thanks as this was exactly what I was alluding to.

Bigger things than basketball or letting your team/fans down.

Kyrie knows the consequences to his decision. He made this very clear in his instagram live rant.

There is no "wrong" or "right" in this situation.

If the man doesn't want to get the vaccine, that prevents him from doing his job, then he has to pay the consequences for doing so. If that means losing his job or money, then he is no different from the rest of us "normal" people.

I don't think he should be vilified or commended. Life goes on.

Too much media attention on one mans choice.

Those aren’t the most important consequences of Irving’s decision. And his live rant illustrates that he doesn’t really understand the consequences of his decision.

[OldPhiKap]

There is no "wrong" or "right" in this situation.

I could not disagree more strongly.

[Eternal Outlaw]

“Simple as that” you say? Are you even a fan of sports?? I can’t imagine a fan being perfectly fine with a player — particularly one of the best on his team and the entire league — choosing not to play simply because he doesn’t want to get a freaking vaccine like 97% of the rest of the players in the NBA.

And if I were specifically a fan of the Brooklyn Nets I would be downright furious. This team has been assembled to win a championship and Irving is putting the likelihood of that in major jeopardy with his selfishness. I don’t see how a sports fan could view this any other way.

Some sports fans believe these guys have the right to make their decisions like any other person in any other field. Plenty of other people are facing the choice of an employer/government entity saying vax or no work. Having fans doesn't mean he loses that choice, having fans doesn't mean he lives by their group think.

Why should the anger be at Kyrie over New York? If his team wasn't in New York, SF, and soon to be LA, this wouldn't be an issue. 25 teams in the NBA aren't going through this with their unvaxxed.

It's interesting that Kyrie being willing to sit out is more than the number of guys that seem to be willing to sit out because unvaxxed players are allowed to play in games in most arenas. But maybe I haven't heard that story but if it is 0 players, lets pretend for a second that a Phoenix Suns player, an impactful player on their attempt to get back to the finals said he refuses to play on any court where an unvaxxed player is allowed. Would you in that circumstance be pissed at him for holding back their title hopes? Would you be more sympathetic to a choice by a pro everyone be vaxxed player?

I have the feeling that if there was such a player and people respected his decision you wouldn't be asking them if they are even sports fans. If Kyrie was sitting out because the league wasn't 100% vaxxed and he didn't feel comfortable stepping on the court with an unvaxxed then he'd be held up high on this forum as a hero.

You don't like his decision which is fine and dandy. Acting like every sports fan has to think the same way is pretty ridiculous. It comes off as an effort to shame those who disagree with you. Clearly you're the real sports fan and those who disagree are posers.

[Steven43]

Some sports fans believe these guys have the right to make their decisions like any other person in any other field. Plenty of other people are facing the choice of an employer/government entity saying vax or no work. Having fans doesn't mean he loses that choice, having fans doesn't mean he lives by their group think.

Why should the anger be at Kyrie over New York? If his team wasn't in New York, SF, and soon to be LA, this wouldn't be an issue. 25 teams in the NBA aren't going through this with their unvaxxed.

It's interesting that Kyrie being willing to sit out is more than the number of guys that seem to be willing to sit out because unvaxxed players are allowed to play in games in most arenas. But maybe I haven't heard that story but if it is 0 players, lets pretend for a second that a Phoenix Suns player, an impactful player on their attempt to get back to the finals said he refuses to play on any court where an unvaxxed player is allowed. Would you in that circumstance be pissed at him for holding back their title hopes? Would you be more sympathetic to a choice by a pro everyone be vaxxed player?

I have the feeling that if there was such a player and people respected his decision you wouldn't be asking them if they are even sports fans. If Kyrie was sitting out because the league wasn't 100% vaxxed and he didn't feel comfortable stepping on the court with an unvaxxed then he'd be held up high on this forum as a hero.

You don't like his decision which is fine and dandy. Acting like every sports fan has to think the same way is pretty ridiculous. It comes off as an effort to shame those who disagree with you. Clearly you're the real sports fan and those who disagree are posers.

I didn’t say Irving having fans means he has to live by the way the fans think. You’re putting words into my mouth that I never said. I’m simply saying that how could any sports fan be in favor of a guy quitting on his team simply because he doesn’t want to get a vaccine? That’s a ridiculous reason for not playing.

And you’re asking why should the anger be directed at Irving because he happens to play in New York? Well, that’s exactly the point. HE PLAYS IN NEW YORK, and that city has determined that every member of the Brooklyn Nets has to be vaccinated to play in NYC. He knows the rules and yet he’s still choosing to make the incorrect and selfish decision to quit on his team and not play.

As far as your question about a vaccinated Phoenix player sitting out because he doesn’t want to play against an unvaccinated player and how would I feel about that if I were a fan of Phoenix….I’m not going to entertain your hypothetical scenario. I’m interested in discussing the reality of what we’re actually seeing playing out in front of us right now. And in my opinion your hypothetical scenario should never be allowed to arise because every single player in the NBA should be REQUIRED to be vaccinated if they want to play in the NBA. Period.

The NBA has a rule that any NBA team or arena personnel, including workers whose role involves interactions with players, is required to be fully vaccinated. This includes coaches, front-office members, referees medical/performance staff, PR, social media and team/arena security, among others. I would love for someone to explain the logic from a public health perspective for why the players are not also under this same mandate.

And no, I’m not trying to claim that I am more of a “real” sports fan than anybody else. I’m simply saying, again, that I don’t understand how anybody who is a fan of the NBA, and particularly a fan of the Brooklyn Nets, would be perfectly fine with a great player choosing not to play simply because he foolishly refuses to get a vaccine.

And yes, refusing to get vaccinated is foolish. If you consider that to be shaming you, so be it.

[duke96]

Imagine for a moment that in a couple years we learned that the vaccine actually had major adverse long term health effects on everyone who took it. Effects that weren’t known or knowable right now because the vaccine (and/or some of the new technologies behind several of the vaccines) is so new. How would some of the comments in this thread appear in retrospect? Some very smart people would look like utter fools. Is there really a ZERO percent chance of that?

To be clear, I took the vaccine as soon as I could, as did my family. I did all the research and watched all my smartest doctor friends do the same and then put their money where their mouth was and take it themselves. I have and will get my kids vaccinated as soon as I can based on their ages.

You can put me in the camp of those often deeply disappointed in Kyrie’s nonsense over the years. And I am enraged by the spreading of absurd reasons not to take the vaccine, like it has a tracking chip. I wish everyone would just take it because the probabilities are vastly in favor of this benefiting them, and society.

But is it really SO truly impossible that there’s more we don’t know about this to merit excoriating anyone who’s not ready to take it yet? There are lots of reasons to be disappointed with how Kyrie has handled this situation, but some of these posts suggest that the simple fact be hasn’t taken the vaccine is enough to torch him. To me that feels like some people feel like they know more than is truly knowable right now.

[sagegrouse]

Imagine for a moment that in a couple years we learned that the vaccine actually had major adverse long term health effects on everyone who took it. Effects that weren’t known or knowable right now because the vaccine (and/or some of the new technologies behind several of the vaccines) is so new. How would some of the comments in this thread appear in retrospect? Some very smart people would look like utter fools. Is there really a ZERO percent chance of that?

To be clear, I took the vaccine as soon as I could, as did my family. I did all the research and watched all my smartest doctor friends do the same and then put their money where their mouth was and take it themselves. I have and will get my kids vaccinated as soon as I can based on their ages.

You can put me in the camp of those often deeply disappointed in Kyrie’s nonsense over the years. And I am enraged by the spreading of absurd reasons not to take the vaccine, like it has a tracking chip. I wish everyone would just take it because the probabilities are vastly in favor of this benefiting them, and society.

But is it really SO truly impossible that there’s more we don’t know about this to merit excoriating anyone who’s not ready to take it yet? There are lots of reasons to be disappointed with how Kyrie has handled this situation, but some of these posts suggest that the simple fact be hasn’t taken the vaccine is enough to torch him. To me that feels like some people feel like they know more than is truly knowable right now.

The new technology uses only a tiny segment of the mRNA and, therefore, is incapable of replicating itself in any way. This technology will be the basis for many future vaccines. I understand, from casual reading, that problems with any vaccines show up in the first couple of months. We have had a billion doses or so around the world and no evident problems. Moreover, the calculated effectiveness appears to be astounding, esp. in preventing serious injury and death.

The reason for mandates and pressing individuals to take the vaccine is the protection of not only oneself but also other people in the community.

Our friend Kyrie, as a public figure with a wide reach in social media, deserves everything he is getting.

[duke96]

The new technology uses only a tiny segment of the mRNA and, therefore, is incapable of replicating itself in any way. This technology will be the basis for many future vaccines. I understand, from casual reading, that problems with any vaccines show up in the first couple of months. We have had a billion doses or so around the world and no evident problems. Moreover, the calculated effectiveness appears to be astounding, esp. in preventing serious injury and death.

The reason for mandates and pressing individuals to take the vaccine is the protection of not only oneself but also other people in the community..

I agree with every word quoted above. And none of it is in factual conflict with anything i said. And I’ve read many of your posts over the years (and those of many others who seem to agree with you) and deeply respect you.

But at the end of the day all any of us are dealing with here are probabilities not absolute certainties. I agree with your conclusion that those probabilities argue very heavily in favor of taking the vaccine, and am very glad that the vast majority of the world feels that way. But I can’t agree that simply because somome is a public figure they are not entitled to draw a different conclusion. I certainly don’t agree with anyone who is applauding Kyrie’s choice. But the fact is you don’t, and you can’t, know with complete certainty that his choice is wrong.

[Stray Gator]

Imagine for a moment that in a couple years we learned that the vaccine actually had major adverse long term health effects on everyone who took it. Effects that weren’t known or knowable right now because the vaccine (and/or some of the new technologies behind several of the vaccines) is so new. How would some of the comments in this thread appear in retrospect? Some very smart people would look like utter fools. Is there really a ZERO percent chance of that?

To be clear, I took the vaccine as soon as I could, as did my family. I did all the research and watched all my smartest doctor friends do the same and then put their money where their mouth was and take it themselves. I have and will get my kids vaccinated as soon as I can based on their ages.

You can put me in the camp of those often deeply disappointed in Kyrie’s nonsense over the years. And I am enraged by the spreading of absurd reasons not to take the vaccine, like it has a tracking chip. I wish everyone would just take it because the probabilities are vastly in favor of this benefiting them, and society.

But is it really SO truly impossible that there’s more we don’t know about this to merit excoriating anyone who’s not ready to take it yet? There are lots of reasons to be disappointed with how Kyrie has handled this situation, but some of these posts suggest that the simple fact be hasn’t taken the vaccine is enough to torch him. To me that feels like some people feel like they know more than is truly knowable right now.

If that happens, I'll be the first to apologize for my criticism of those who are refusing to get vaccinated, and my "excoriation" of those who are actively discouraging others from getting vaccinated. But only if what we learn is that the presently unknown adverse effects of the vaccines are more severe and more widespread than the presently known adverse effects of contracting the COVID virus. In that event, I will at least be able to take comfort in the fact that I'll have plenty of company in my contrition.

On the other hand, if it turns out that the vaccines really are safe, do you think that those who refused to get vaccinated and those who actually promoted vaccine resistance will acknowledge their responsibility for perpetuating the spread of COVID and thereby increasing the number of people who suffer and die as a result?

[duke96]

If that happens, I'll be the first to apologize for my criticism of those who are refusing to get vaccinated, and my "excoriation" of those who are actively discouraging others from getting vaccinated. But only if what we learn is that the presently unknown adverse effects of the vaccines are more severe and more widespread than the presently known adverse effects of contracting the COVID virus. In that event, I will at least be able to take comfort in the fact that I'll have plenty of company in my contrition.

On the other hand, if it turns out that the vaccines really are safe, do you think that those who refused to get vaccinated and those who actually promoted vaccine resistance will acknowledge their responsibility for perpetuating the spread of COVID and thereby increasing the number of people who suffer and die as a result?

"Presently known" is obviously the operative word there.

Listen I, like you, am infuriated by those who promote vaccine resistance, and I'm not sure that can ever be forgiven -- even in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vaccines turn out not to have been as safe as "presently known" data would suggest. But promoting vaccine resistance and making a personal choice not to take the vaccine (as much as you and I may disagree with that decision) are very different things. My post was intended to focus simply on the fury levied upon Kyrie simply for making that choice.

[75Crazie]

Imagine for a moment that in a couple years we learned that the vaccine actually had major adverse long term health effects on everyone who took it. Effects that weren’t known or knowable right now because the vaccine (and/or some of the new technologies behind several of the vaccines) is so new. How would some of the comments in this thread appear in retrospect? Some very smart people would look like utter fools. Is there really a ZERO percent chance of that?

I disagree very strongly with the assertion that people would "look like utter fools" if future advances in knowledge lead to the situation you describe. We are making the best determinations we can with the information at hand, particularly given the initial pernicious effects of this virus. Science does not lead to monotonically increasing levels of knowledge; theories are posed, proofs are attempted, some of those proofs succeed and some fail, sometimes with a reset and a search for new theories. Some of the proponents of such theories base their positions on questionable Science and in retrospect can look rather foolish (cold fusion?); for the most part, though, history is kinder to those whose theories fail when additional knowledge becomes available. Does Copernicus look like a fool now because his theory of a Sun-centric universe was eventually spectacularly disproved?

At this present time, Science has led us to strongly believe that vaccines are the best means to combat the virus; some of that belief is based on our knowledge of the efficacy of prior virus vaccines, which gives us some level of comfort that overrides the unknown factor of long-term effects of Covid vaccines. Those who argue against vaccines are for the most part not using scientific rationale in their arguments. It is well and good in many areas to say we should wait to study long-term effects before employing means in the short term; when the short-term effects of not employing those means show signs of becoming catastrophic to society as a whole, then we should be excused for recommending and using palliation that current research shows stands a good chance of succeeding. Nobody could make a convincing case in the future that such a decision was a foolish one; it was the best decision based on the information at hand. And those who argue against a delay in employing those means should be entitled to make such arguments.