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

[mtls2005]

Rules are for fools.

 

They'll figure out a way to wedge him, still plenty of time.

 

And didn't he test positive in December, and "recover" (for at least the second time), or was that theatre to allow him to utilize the exemption?

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

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.

 

Djokovic appeared in public, at an event, maskless one day after testing positive in December. 

 

 

 

 

[JustAnotherHun]

12 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 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

1. Vaccinated put themselves and others at risk too. 

2. So you'd be fine if smokers were excluded from any treatment if the health problem is related to smoking. And people who drink alcohol have to be refused for a liver treatment?  Don't forget the fat ones. Why should they have the right to be treated. Everybody knows about the dangers of Adipositas.

And before I forget: In countries with mandatory health insurance (most of Europe), all those antivaxxers, smokers, drinkers pay for themselves and others.

[novo58]

You may be right but exemption was provided so that he was able to board plane and land in Australia. That is Australia's failure who gave him permission to board and land 

 

 

 

He arrived on PRIVATE JET from Dubai....so who checks his visa /documents BEFORE he departs ???

[RichardColeman]

[novo58]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:25 AM, gearbox said:

I find this hard to believe. The airlines would refuse to board people without a valid visa and a negative PCR test,  as anyone who came back to Thailand experienced it. I'm not aware of anyone being able to fly with "letter of support". I'm flying back to Sydney in a few weeks and don't think I can turn up at the airport without a negative PCR test and expect to board.

He arrived on a PRIVATE JET ........who checks documents etc for a private jet ?????

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, novo58 said:

You may be right but exemption was provided so that he was able to board plane and land in Australia. That is Australia's failure who gave him permission to board and land 

 

 

 

He arrived on PRIVATE JET from Dubai....so who checks his visa /documents BEFORE he departs ???

The exemption was from Tennis Australia, and the Govt of Victoria, not from the Federal Immigration, which controls entry and exit of Australia 

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, novo58 said:

He arrived on a PRIVATE JET ........who checks documents etc for a private jet ?????

No he arrived on Emirates flight EK408 .

Private flight arrivals are also subject to same immigrations and customs checks, just completed in different parts of airport.

Similar when one sails in, Immigration and customs board befor docking, check the vessell and all your documentation 

Edited January 9, 2022 by RJRS1301

[novo58]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

The exemption was from Tennis Australia, and the Govt of Victoria, not from the Federal Immigration, which controls entry and exit of Australia 

My post attached the wrong quote ....I was replying to that quote shown ...my response was .......He arrived on a PRIVATE JET ........and then ...exactly what you have stated...........He was given an EXEMPTION TO COMPETE in the tournament ....NOT an exemption to enter Australia.

[ramrod711]

On 1/6/2022 at 1:00 PM, OJAS said:

I trust that the relevant French, British and American authorities are sitting up and taking note with the aim of ensuring that Djokovic is denied visas to enable him to participate in any of the remaining 3 Grand Slam tournaments this year (French Open, Wimbledon & American Open), without any prior faffing-about similar to that which their Aussie counterparts have indulged in.

 

I'm pretty sure he won't be playing in the U S open, it's played in New York and they don't allow unvaccinated athletes to participate there.

[ramrod711]

49 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

1. Vaccinated put themselves and others at risk too. 

2. So you'd be fine if smokers were excluded from any treatment if the health problem is related to smoking. And people who drink alcohol have to be refused for a liver treatment?  Don't forget the fat ones. Why should they have the right to be treated. Everybody knows about the dangers of Adipositas.

And before I forget: In countries with mandatory health insurance (most of Europe), all those antivaxxers, smokers, drinkers pay for themselves and others.

Personally, I think that any unvaccinated people that find themselves in an emergency ward should pay for their own healthcare, AND be sued by any vaccinated people that can't get a bed in an emergency ward. 

[JustAnotherHun]

6 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

Personally, I think that any unvaccinated people that find themselves in an emergency ward should pay for their own healthcare, AND be sued by any vaccinated people that can't get a bed in an emergency ward. 

Personally I think no one should have to work to make his living, anybody should have a Tesla S and pigs should be able to fly.

[scorecard]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:14 AM, mtls2005 said:

How recent?

 

I think he's (Djokovic) had COVID and recovered, but that may have been in 2019 or 2020?

 

AFAIK, Nadal is vaccinated - he's said he is - and he has just recovered from COVID (December, Abu Dhabi event), and he's been in Melbourne for a week+.

 

 

The reports say he tested positive on either 16 or 17 December 2021 (2021).

[scorecard]

On 1/6/2022 at 6:31 PM, humqdpf said:

Even if he has had Covid, does not matter. I know folks who have had it twice.

 

There are rights. For instance, I have the right to walk around naked. But only in private. If I insist on walking around in public areas naked, I will be arrested.

 

I have the right to refuse the vaccine. But in doing so, I will have to restrict myself in certain ways. For instance, I would have to stay away from people who are old or have underlying conditions (this would preclude me working with them, for instance). It would also preclude my being able to cross certain borders as long as the pandemic exists.

 

Some countries may operate a medical opt-out. And that is up to them. Just as in certain countries it is ok to smoke marijuana, in others that would get you a jail sentence.

 

As regards a certain tennis player, I think that he should be treated like everyone else. Being a tennis player is not a medical condition. If he does not have a medical condition that allows him to opt-out, then he should be excluded like everyone else. I mean, I personally would not take up Australian citizenship because they even excluded their own citizens during certain periods of the pandemic but that is their business, their rules. And if you want to become an Aussie citizen or play professional tennis there, you should be treated just like any other person.

They didn't 'exclude' their own citizens, they did require (at one point in time) citizens returning home to do 2 week isolation on arrival in Australia.

 

That's not 'exclude'.

[JustAnotherHun]

3 minutes ago, scorecard said:

They didn't 'exclude' their own citizens, they did require (at one point in time) citizens returning home to do 2 week isolation on arrival in Australia.

 

That's not 'exclude'.

It was a mandatory and costly hotel-quarantaine. So their own citizens were excluded, if they could not afford such a stay.

[RJRS1301]

54 minutes ago, scorecard said:

They didn't 'exclude' their own citizens, they did require (at one point in time) citizens returning home to do 2 week isolation on arrival in Australia.

 

That's not 'exclude'.

Their were several weeks during which International flights into and out of Australia were suspended, and refusal of Australian citizens and PR from some high incident countries did occur, and they limited beds in quarantine hotels to 2,000 arrivals per week.

[scorecard]

50 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

It was a mandatory and costly hotel-quarantaine. So their own citizens were excluded, if they could not afford such a stay.

Yes the quarantine on arrival was mandatory and costly, but perhaps you're unaware that many folks were offered long-term payment plans.

 

On the other hand perhaps the Australian gov't., could have said 'Aussies returning home don't need to do any quarantine at all', therefore quite possibly exposing the whole Aust. community to the Covid- 19 virus. 

[RJRS1301]

59 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

It was a mandatory and costly hotel-quarantaine. So their own citizens were excluded, if they could not afford such a stay.

The early part of the pandemic the Federal Governments funded the accommodations, and were billed by the states for services.

Still fighting over the costs as states had no budget allocations for it

The governments then offered indivduals the "payment plan" if required,  when they ceased fully funding them. 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by RJRS1301

[sallecc]

This good read (link bellow) sums up my opinion from the beggining: ALL of them are to blame for this trainwreck - Novak & his advisors, AU Gov., and especially TA & their "2 rigorous expert panels". All of them knew what they were doing... When I saw Novak's Twitter post before his flight, bragging about his 'medical exemption', first thing me and friends from Serbia though was "Oh dear, please tell me he didn't get the fake infection certificate from Serbian Doctor" (in ex-Yugoslavia we all grow up on 'Only Fools And Horses' show, so naturally that was the first thing on their mind). There's no innocents here: TA should not lie to players that recent infection is OK for exemption, Novak should not get his (probably) fake infection certificate, his advisors should check government's entry guidelines (not TA's, they don't run the country), and finally those "2 separated *rigorous* panels of experts" (one of them actually appointment by government!?) who issued that useless exemption, what to say about these guys? And then add Serbian president, AU government and even Serbian Church ridiculous comments... But they will all keep their jobs, their millions and their trophy's and get more ratings... This is 'Only Fools', 'Black Adder' and 'Monthy Python' combined... A black comedy and satire, while real people, in Australia, Serbia and elsewhere, are suffering.

 

Sorry for long read, I'll block the news and enjoy the beach, better for health.

 

https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/djokovic-drama-explained-huge-mistake-behind-novaks-visa-trainwreck/news-story/5342e818ffb3850cc8ec5f6ba81b69c5

[Bangkok Barry]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Rules are for fools.

 

They'll figure out a way to wedge him, still plenty of time.

 

And didn't he test positive in December, and "recover" (for at least the second time), or was that theatre to allow him to utilize the exemption?

 

 

 

 

Djokovic appeared in public, at an event, maskless one day after testing positive in December. 

 

 

 

 

He's someone I know well professionally, and to be polite let's just say that he has some out of the box ideas. It may well be that there is a political tussle going on between Federal and State officials, which documents his lawyers have produced suggest. But those same lawyers then have put him in further hot water with public opinion if he  indeed did test positive (which would make him okay for entry) and then the next day he mixed with kids. 

[ramrod711]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Personally I think no one should have to work to make his living, anybody should have a Tesla S and pigs should be able to fly.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how often or how passionately I disagree with you.

[Bangkok Barry]

3 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

1. Vaccinated put themselves and others at risk too. 

2. So you'd be fine if smokers were excluded from any treatment if the health problem is related to smoking. And people who drink alcohol have to be refused for a liver treatment?  Don't forget the fat ones. Why should they have the right to be treated. Everybody knows about the dangers of Adipositas.

And before I forget: In countries with mandatory health insurance (most of Europe), all those antivaxxers, smokers, drinkers pay for themselves and others.

1. I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion. Vaccinations prevent illness, not cause it.

2. Yes, I would question spending limited resources on self-inflicted health problems. Smokers are these days fully aware of the danger they put themselves in and there are several ways on the market to ease and combat their addiction. And those who require hospital treatment after a Saturday night out, leave them to it. Again, they are aware of the dangers of drinking too much, do it anyway and then expect others to sort things out for them. Long-term heavy drinkers also know the risk they take and there are support groups to help them. If they refuse that help, up to them. It's their choice and they are free to make it but, again, don't expect others to sort it out if and when it all goes wrong. I don't think you can put overweight people in the same category as heavy smokers or drinkers.

3 - I'm not aware of any mandatory health insurance in Europe. My only experience is in the UK with the NHS, where the cost to residents is covered by taxes or a form of. But whoever pays doesn't mean there isn't a drain on resources which have to be spent on those with self-inflicted problems.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

The early part of the pandemic the Federal Governments funded the accommodations, and were billed by the states for services.

Still fighting over the costs as states had no budget allocations for it

The governments then offered indivduals the "payment plan" if required,  when they ceased fully funding them. 

 

In regard to Aussies trying to get home, seems to me the Aust. gov't., should have temporarily opened up a lot more quarantine hotels in more Australian state capital cities and regional cities and also done a lot more to ensure they were Covid- 19 safe; to get a lot more people home.

 

Plus been much more proactive to develop many flight hubs (e.g. Singapore as a hub) with well planned daily / several flights per day to several Australian capital cities and bigger regional cities, plus Aust. being proactive to ensure many 'feeder' flights to the hubs. And again with some financial help/time to pay etc.  

 

In regard to cost, seems to me there should have been 2 things:

 

- After gov't stopped total funding of these hotels, they should have gone to say 50% funding.

- Been more generous in terms of time to pay, perhaps grandfathered for 1 or 2 years then monthly payments, and perhaps more alternatives; 1% extra tax for 4 years or something similar. 

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, scorecard said:

In regard to Aussies trying to get home, seems to me the Aust. gov't., should have temporarily opened up a lot more quarantine hotels in more Australian state capital cities and regional cities and also done a lot more to ensure they were Covid- 19 safe; to get a lot more people home.

 

Plus been much more proactive to develop many flight hubs (e.g. Singapore as a hub) with well planned daily / several flights per day to several Australian capital cities and bigger regional cities, plus Aust. being proactive to ensure many 'feeder' flights to the hubs. And again with some financial help/time to pay etc.  

 

In regard to cost, seems to me there should have been 2 things:

 

- After gov't stopped total funding of these hotels, they should have gone to say 50% funding.

- Been more generous in terms of time to pay, perhaps grandfathered for 1 or 2 years then monthly payments, and perhaps more alternatives; 1% extra tax for 4 years or something similar. 

However none of those things occurred, no matter how differently it may have been handled. It wasn't

 

[Albert Zweistein]

On 1/6/2022 at 2:57 AM, RandiRona said:

If you are in a country, you follow the law

Of that country, why there should be an exception? Like If you have a freedom of speech in states, doesnt mean you have it here in Thailand as well. Djokovic's has right to be not vaccinated. Australia has right to decide if they accept it or not. Only it should have been handled better, not give someone visa and later rescind due to public pressure.

No one gets a granted visa, it's always subject to approval and it's granted once the IO stamps your passport on arrival.

[JustAnotherHun]

27 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

1. I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion. Vaccinations prevent illness, not cause it.

This was not my conclusion, it might be your misunderstanding.

You said, unvaccinated are a thread to others. OK, true. But as everybody should know now, vaccinated can get infections (and they do by very high numbers). Who's infected can spread the virus, vaxxed or not.

to 2:

Why should overweight people, if not genetecly caused, be treated differently to smokers and others, that you want to exclude from "free" medical care? They too produce huge costs to insurances/societies.

And no matter if a country has a mandatory health insurance or a tax financed free health care: The unvaxxed, the smoker, the drinker and the fat fast food junkie, they all pay for the insurance or they pay tax to finance healthcare.

Edited January 9, 2022 by JustAnotherHun

[Virt]

4 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Rules are for fools.

 

They'll figure out a way to wedge him, still plenty of time.

 

I think he needs a pair of good earplugs, if he ends up playing later this month.

[ozimoron]

30 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

This was not my conclusion, it might be your misunderstanding.

You said, unvaccinated are a thread to others. OK, true. But as everybody should know now, vaccinated can get infections (and they do by very high numbers). Who's infected can spread the virus, vaxxed or not.

to 2:

Why should overweight people, if not genetecly caused, be treated differently to smokers and others, that you want to exclude from "free" medical care? They too produce huge costs to insurances/societies.

And no matter if a country has a mandatory health insurance or a tax financed free health care: The unvaxxed, the smoker, the drinker and the fat fast food junkie, they all pay for the insurance or they pay tax to finance healthcare.

Health officials have nevertheless warned that the sheer number of infections caused by Omicron was placing a strain on hospitals

 

Some doctors and nurses expressed frustration at the surge among unvaccinated patients, saying they could not understand why someone would ignore a doctor's advice to get vaccinated but then seek a medical professional's help once sick with COVID-19.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/omicron-pushes-us-covid-hospitalizations-toward-record-high-2022-01-07/

[JustAnotherHun]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Some doctors and nurses expressed frustration at the surge among unvaccinated patients, saying they could not understand why someone would ignore a doctor's advice to get vaccinated but then seek a medical professional's help once sick with COVID-19.

So what? Other doctors and nurses demonstrate since months in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere against a mandatory vaccination.

Wonder how you manage it again and again to reply to posts without a connection to what you've quoted.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

So what? Other doctors and nurses demonstrate since months in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere against a mandatory vaccination.

Wonder how you manage it again and again to reply to posts without a connection to what you've quoted.

The connection is clear. You are defending the right of unvaccinated people to seek medical care. I posted some push back against that concept by medical professionals themselves.

[James105]