Novak Djokovic’s deportation has raised the issue of the right to remain unvaccinated

[Andre0720]

On 1/6/2022 at 3:01 PM, newnative said:

     Certainly he has the right to remain unvaccinated.  But, that can mean being barred in various places, events, etc.  He needs to accept that.  Glad Australia is, apparently, kicking him out.  He should not have been granted the exemption in the first place.  

Quite right.

And the ultimate question might be:

"If his choice of not getting vaccinated gets linked to the death of your son, or daughter, or mother, or father, would he be considered responsible for this death?"

If not, why not?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Now some people want to reverse this order....

[RJRS1301]

13 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Agree. It was not correct. But not Djoko's fault in the first place imo.

If the German report is correct, I would sue the organizer, if I were him.

 

Do Tennis players need a visa when travelling to an Australian tournament?

All entrants who are citizens of foreign countries require a valid visa, irrespective of their profession. the xecpetion being HMQ,however her offsprong require them, they are usually granted Special Purpose Visa, as are invited guests of the Australia Government, military personel etc

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/6/2022 at 2:49 PM, webfact said:

Also in December, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh called for punishing people who refuse to be vaccinated without valid reasons.

 

They are a communist dictatorship, but it alarms me when so called democratically elected "leaders" say the same <deleted> rubbish.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, Andre0720 said:

Quite right.

And the ultimate question might be:

"If his choice of not getting vaccinated gets linked to the death of your son, or daughter, or mother, or father, would he be considered responsible for this death?"

If not, why not?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Now some people want to reverse this order....

and just how would anyone prove who infected anyone else? IMO crazy talk.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Andre0720 said:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Now some people want to reverse this order....

The day "democratic" governments force people to have something injected into their body without consent is the day democracy died, IMO.

The US government is apparently giving people the choice of the jab or weekly testing ( for certain occupations ), which is as it should be.

 

The desire of some to force other people to do what THEY want other people to do, alarms me and makes me worry about our future. I can't imagine governments having got away with dictatorial regulations giving up that ability in the future. IMO we are going down a dangerous path, and it's going to end badly.

[phetphet]

Well he certainly has the right first name for someone who allegedly refuses vaccination: No vak  

[Andre0720]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and just how would anyone prove who infected anyone else? IMO crazy talk.

Well, just give it some more thought.

Not about proving who did what to whom...

Was more a question of philosophical or moral responsibility.

You would not need to prove anything to feel sorrow at the death of one of your family member, and to think that this person in your vicinity, who refused vaccination, was the cause of this death.

And then you can multiply this sorrow by the number of deaths, and then understand that;

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/6/2022 at 2:49 PM, webfact said:

The world number one was held in the city's airport for several hours before border forces announced he had not met entry rules and would be deported.

 

It came a day after he was granted an exemption from vaccination rules to play in the Australian Open.

Oz government is now a laughing stock, IMO.

I can't see how they could have made a bigger mess of the situation, given the inevitable uproar that has followed.

If they can't make the regulations clear BEFORE he was granted the exemption, they should have allowed him in and done so before the next high profile would be arrival applies for a visa.

 

I've read some threads on this forum about immigration in Thailand changing the regulations and resulting in refused entry for people that thought they had done everything needed. Those people were certainly exercised about such, and quite rightly so, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Andre0720 said:

Well, just give it some more thought.

Not about proving who did what to whom...

Was more a question of philosophical or moral responsibility.

You would not need to prove anything to feel sorrow at the death of one of your family member, and to think that this person in your vicinity, who refused vaccination, was the cause of this death.

And then you can multiply this sorrow by the number of deaths, and then understand that;

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

Hundreds of people die on the roads every year, but people don't take your philosophy about them.

 

People die, and yes, it's sad for those affected, but IMO we shouldn't be making knee jerk laws because of it. That's how very bad legislation gets passed, IMO.

Edited January 9, 2022 by thaibeachlovers

[Andre0720]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The day "democratic" governments force people to have something injected into their body without consent is the day democracy died, IMO.

The US government is apparently giving people the choice of the jab or weekly testing ( for certain occupations ), which is as it should be.

 

The desire of some to force other people to do what THEY want other people to do, alarms me and makes me worry about our future. I can't imagine governments having got away with dictatorial regulations giving up that ability in the future. IMO we are going down a dangerous path, and it's going to end badly.

The day "democratic" governments force people to have something injected into their body without consent is the day democracy died, IMO.

What about other types of medicine needed needed for survival, and rejected by parents for superstitious religious beliefs.

The day democratic governments fail to protect citizens is the day that more and more people will die uselessly.

And this does not mean that governments should be able to force people to get a vaccine.

But they do a good job at trying to convince people to do so, supported by information from the WHO and CDC

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Andre0720 said:

The day "democratic" governments force people to have something injected into their body without consent is the day democracy died, IMO.

What about other types of medicine needed needed for survival, and rejected by parents for superstitious religious beliefs.

The day democratic governments fail to protect citizens is the day that more and more people will die uselessly.

And this does not mean that governments should be able to force people to get a vaccine.

But they do a good job at trying to convince people to do so, supported by information from the WHO and CDC

Given that you are promoting education and encouragement, rather than force and punishment, I agree with you.

 

BTW, IMO people SHOULD have the right to refuse medicine even if it means their death, and if it comes to it, IMO people should have the right to die whenever they choose to do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:01 PM, newnative said:

     Certainly he has the right to remain unvaccinated.  But, that can mean being barred in various places, events, etc.  He needs to accept that.  Glad Australia is, apparently, kicking him out.  He should not have been granted the exemption in the first place.  

but he WAS granted the exemption, and acted on that OFFICIAL permission. He should sue the department that gave him the permission to enter Oz.

 

Australians in a certain country are now perhaps feeling nervous.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/6/2022 at 2:49 PM, webfact said:

However, when asked how many of their own staff had been vaccinated, Dr. Margaret Harris, a World Health Organization spokesperson said, “We won't have that because it's confidential," 

[VocalNeal]

For Djokovic tennis is a job, nothing more. If guys must be vaccinated to work on ships/oilrigs/et al. Then for him it is a simple choice. If he wants to work, get vaccinated. If he doesn't want to work then...

[sezze]

IMHO any choice got other sides . He chooses not to be vaccinated , which means he can't go to all places. Australia demands vaccinations , so unless valid reasons ( medical background) he should be vaccinated or not enter the country . That's it ... no further discussion .

A vaccinated can enter

B not vaccinated can't enter

C not vaccinated but valid reason ( immune disease , extreme allergic ...) .can enter .

IMHO and what i've read , he can't enter . I praise Australia to be as they should be , or you follow rules or you don't , idc who you are .

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but he WAS granted the exemption, and acted on that OFFICIAL permission. He should sue the department that gave him the permission to enter Oz.

 

Australians in a certain country are now perhaps feeling nervous.

It now appears that he was not given offical perission,

TA were given the guidlines required and he was advised by TA to apply for an exemption, however the documents to support his exemtion application are in dispute and will be tested in court. His alledged infection wit COVID is outside the dates required for exemption and the application  reveived by 10 Dec and he alledges infection on 16th Dec which has not been proven.

Very com[licated 

Mr. Djokovic’s limbo appears to be rooted in confusion over the exemption granted by Australian tennis officials and local authorities in Victoria, the state where the tournament is held. The exemption was believed to have been approved because of Mr. Djokovic’s previous coronavirus infections — grounds that federal officials had warned were invalid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/world/australia/why-novak-djokovic-was-blocked.html

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by RJRS1301

[dundas]

I think that Djokovic's possible deportation comes at a very convenient time for the Australian government. A month or so ago the Prime Minister and his libertarian mates basically said about Covid 'let 'er rip' and that's exactly what's happened. They banked on Omicron being less deadly, which it is, but the result has been an explosion in the number of infections and in hospital cases, to the point where any discretionary surgery all along the East Coast is no longer possible – that idea that management is the slag heap of unintended consequences was never truer than here. They gambled with lives and they lost their bet. There's an election coming and the Prime Minister is looking around for something to distract voters from his being held accountable for any of his failures for leadership. For this short period, the spotlight has been on Djokovic and not the Prime Minister and that must have come as a relief – to the Prime Minister. It's hard to know whether the decision to cancel Djokovic's visa is political, though, just that his visa issue couldn't have come at a more opportune time. 

 

[JustAnotherHun]

1 hour ago, Andre0720 said:

Well, just give it some more thought.

Not about proving who did what to whom...

Was more a question of philosophical or moral responsibility.

You would not need to prove anything to feel sorrow at the death of one of your family member, and to think that this person in your vicinity, who refused vaccination, was the cause of this death.

And then you can multiply this sorrow by the number of deaths, and then understand that;

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

Moral responsibility could be an argument, if the vaccinated were not infective to others too. But they are. How much less? Nobody knows. No reliable data about that.

Vaccination mainly protects yourself. More or less and for a relatively short period of time.

The endangered groups are known. If you worry about them, convince them to get vaccination. But even the vulnerable have the right to decide.

 

@thaibeachloivers is right. A mandatory vaccination for those with a very low or close to zero risk is the death of democrazy. It's driven by fanatism and hystery.

[Andre0720]

But let's not forget that in a democracy, every opinion counts,

But ti is the opinion of the majority that must prevails.

And 49% against a rule, means that their opinions were ignored.

And in many instances, when I am part of this 49% of ignored opinions, it feels to me like a worse societal outcome than a being forced to get a jab...

But forcing someone to get a jab appears to be way too much of an individual outcome...

(Forcing beer in my throat, well that sounds ok) ????

[FarFlungFalang]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hundreds of people die on the roads every year, but people don't take your philosophy about them.

 

People die, and yes, it's sad for those affected, but IMO we shouldn't be making knee jerk laws because of it. That's how very bad legislation gets passed, IMO.

Media and people in general from the richer nations don't seem to me to expressing much sympathy for the 26 million,6 million of which are children, who have died in the last 2 years of hunger and hunger related diseases, perhaps it's because richer more privileged people don't feel threatened or vulnerable to this problem and their sympathy only lies with their own vulnerable cohorts.I often hear how we must protect the vulnerable but I must have mistaken this to mean "all" vulnerable people but it seems we must only provide attention and energy to protecting those vulnerable to this virus and not to extend protection to those in poorer nations from dying from a lack of a share in the abundance of food we are not willing to share.It's such a basic fundamental necessity for life I'm appalled this gets such little attention compared to an unvaccinated person trying to play tennis.Why is it we no longer focus on issues of real importance?Is it because we are ruled by the screens we watch so much which provide us with seemingly unlimited amounts of unverifiable information?Have we so well and truly lost sight of what's really important as everybody getting enough food to eat?

Edited January 9, 2022 by FarFlungFalang

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Media and people in general from the richer nations don't seem to me to expressing much sympathy for the 26 million,6 million of which are children, who have died in the last 2 years of hunger and hunger related diseases, perhaps it's because richer more privileged people don't feel threatened or vulnerable to this problem and their sympathy only lies with their own vulnerable cohorts.I often hear how we must protect the vulnerable but I must have mistaken this to mean "all" vulnerable people but it seems we must only provide attention and energy to protecting those vulnerable to this virus and not to extend protection to those in poorer nations from dying from a lack of a share in the abundance of food we are not willing to share.It's such a basic fundamental necessity for life I'm appalled this get such little attention compared to an unvaccinated person trying to play tennis.Why is it we no longer focus on issues of real importance?Is it because we are ruled by the screens we watch so much which provide us with seemingly unlimited amounts of unverifiable information?Have we so well and truly lost sight of what's really important as everybody getting enough food to eat?

Waaaay back when corona first became a "thing", I posted that the only reason it's a big deal is that it affects people in western countries. I said that if it only affected people in poor countries it would be just another disease like Ebola that happens in far away places.

 

Perhaps we don't really think about such because in our hearts we don't really care about bad things that don't affect us personally.

I doubt that many of us in western countries go to bed thinking how awful it must be to live in a country where kids die because they can't drink unpolluted water.

 

Saw part of an Al Jazira doco about birth defects in the Congo apparently because of cobalt mining. How many western people would not drive an electric car because the cobalt used in the battery was poisoning poor people in Africa?

 

However, I gave up on humanity long ago, so nothing surprises me any more.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Andre0720 said:

But let's not forget that in a democracy, every opinion counts,

But ti is the opinion of the majority that must prevails.

And 49% against a rule, means that their opinions were ignored.

And in many instances, when I am part of this 49% of ignored opinions, it feels to me like a worse societal outcome than a being forced to get a jab...

But forcing someone to get a jab appears to be way too much of an individual outcome...

(Forcing beer in my throat, well that sounds ok) ????

Nobody I know has been asked for an opinion on vaccination, so how can you claim it's a majority opinion? Just because that's what the media is saying doesn't make it true.

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that you are promoting education and encouragement, rather than force and punishment, I agree with you.

 

BTW, IMO people SHOULD have the right to refuse medicine even if it means their death, and if it comes to it, IMO people should have the right to die whenever they choose to do so.

BTW, IMO people SHOULD NOT have the right to freely carry a higher risk of infecting others and possibly causing the death of others, and if it comes to it, IMO people should have the right to die whenever they choose to do so and NOT have that right abrogated by someone they don't even know.

[JustAnotherHun]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nobody I know has been asked for an opinion on vaccination, so how can you claim it's a majority opinion?

I fear after a nearly two years enduring propaganda overkill it is.

But democrazy is not just a 51/49 thing. Minority rights are an essential factor.

Edited January 9, 2022 by JustAnotherHun

[gearbox]

1 hour ago, dundas said:

I think that Djokovic's possible deportation comes at a very convenient time for the Australian government. A month or so ago the Prime Minister and his libertarian mates basically said about Covid 'let 'er rip' and that's exactly what's happened. They banked on Omicron being less deadly, which it is, but the result has been an explosion in the number of infections and in hospital cases, to the point where any discretionary surgery all along the East Coast is no longer possible – that idea that management is the slag heap of unintended consequences was never truer than here. They gambled with lives and they lost their bet. There's an election coming and the Prime Minister is looking around for something to distract voters from his being held accountable for any of his failures for leadership. For this short period, the spotlight has been on Djokovic and not the Prime Minister and that must have come as a relief – to the Prime Minister. It's hard to know whether the decision to cancel Djokovic's visa is political, though, just that his visa issue couldn't have come at a more opportune time. 

 

"Border protection wins elections"

 

It is obvious that with 115k known cases yesterday Djokovic presents no public health threat, but hey, it is election time.

Rio Tinto may kiss goodbye their projected multi billion lithium mine in Serbia, and there would be voices to move this grand slam somewhere else, and rightfully so. Nothing to win for Oz, but the election is everything that matters for these crooks.

[JTXR]

Nonsense.  He has the right to remain unvaccinated. 

 

He just doesn't have the right to ignore host country immigration rules if he chooses to exercise his right to remain unvaccinated.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Do Tennis players need a visa when travelling to an Australian tournament?

As his visa was revoked, that is what this is all about, I'd imagine they do!

[fjb 24]

One reporters discussion provides details into Novak Djokovic's exemption application, why it was rejected, where his case goes from here, and the political backdrop to all of this in Australia.

https://nochallengesremaining.podbean.com/e/episode-321-deciphering-details-of-djokovic-s-deportation-drama/

[Bangkok Barry]

My thoughts on Covid vaccinations: I'm okay with people having freedom of choice about whether they are vaccinated or not. I'm also okay with denying those who choose not to be vaccinated and therefore put themselves and others at risk to be refused any treatment if they contract Covid and then want to take up valuable medical resources I'm also okay with them being isolated so they can't continue to infect others they have cared nothing for by putting them at risk.

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

In Djokovic's case he has natural immunity, the B & T cells are the human body's protection as they can recognise the virus attack. These are not date-restricted. 

That's not necessarily true - for one thing, natural infection is highly variable. Some people get a very minor infection which confers little or no immunity, while others get robust immunity from a natural infection.

 

That's why vaccination is much more reliable - it delivers a precisely-measured dose of an immunity-causing agent with a predictable level of immunity generated in the vast majority of individuals.

 

Also, numerous studies show that naturally-acquired immunity fades (much as vaccine-induced immunity does) but at a more accelerated rate.

 

COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination

 

 

Quote

"Vaccine-induced immunity is more predictable than natural immunity," 

[...]

Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity

As to the protective effect of B & T cells, no correlates of protection have been established yet. It is to be hoped (and scientifically is quite likely) that cellular immunity will be protective but to what extent is not known.

Edited January 9, 2022 by GroveHillWanderer