Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73

Thread: Djokovic Visa Revoked Again -- Thoughts?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    No I wouldn't take their word for it. There should be documentation for the positive test. I'm given to understand that Djokovic has it, and that it was the PCR that came out positive after a rapid test was negative. If he doesn't, then some apprehension on the part of the Aussie govt is justified.
    This is correct. He had a negative rapid and a positive PCR. He was asymptomatic, but he took the test because others were positive at a bball game he attended. So, how long does one with a positive PCR but no symptoms have immunity against COVID? 5 days? 14 days? Longer? A COVID PCR can remain positive for months after an infection, so when was he actually infected? The answer to all of these questions is unknown, so this is a great anecdote that shows why using natural immunity does not work in this setting.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    If he had Covid last month, the case for him not playing because he isn't vaccinated is pretty weak. If you want to say vaccination plus natural immunity is better than natural immunity, then great. But his natural immunity, particularly if it is from last month, should be sufficient. It's on par with vaccination. I am amazed at how stubborn policy makers still are in not carving out exceptions for natural immunity. That doesn't mean that your natural immunity is good forever, but it should buy you a certain amount of time. Say 6 months worth?

    Him showing up at a public event supposedly with an active case doesn't look too good, but he wasn't doing that in Australia. I suspect that if you lived in Belgrade, you'd have a rather loose interpretation of Covid regs and norms. Serbia may as well be on Mars.

    The Aussies have been remarkably heavy handed during Covid. It is their country and they can do WTF they want, but this is a stupid decision on their part and it won't be the last one they make with regard to Covid.

    If we applied the same level of scrutiny to people entering the US, I suspect that would be fun for a lot of people who approve of this.
    The bolded is the only part of this post that matters.

  3. #43
    Glad is visa is revoked and I agree with the decision. You can't be strict on the entire country and let shit-head with an attitude bend the rules. On ESPN this evening they interviewed several tennis players at the tournament and they're tired of this drama too....

  4. #44
    I know his fee is too high now, but has Joker ever played in the Winston-Salem Open?
    Draxx them sklounst

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafi View Post
    There are many significant problems with using natural immunity as a replacement for vaccination. The main issue is that it is completely variable how much immunity it provides - how much COVID exposure is needed to cause natural immunity equal to vaccination? With COVID vaccines we know how much each person received and the dosing has been specifically studied and is based on age - for the Pfizer product (Comirnaty), for example, 0.3 ml is given intramuscularly to people age 16 and older, twice, separated by 21 days (with the potential for a booster.) In addition, if natural immunity were to be used, would that be based on symptoms, rapid testing, PCR, or a combination of these? How would false positive results be handled? One might argue to use antibody levels following infection, but that is unsettled science and doesn't take into consideration T cell and other immunity. Using natural immunity as a replacement for vaccination is not a feasible approach.
    Perfectly stated

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by myDeaconmyhand View Post
    I know his fee is too high now, but has Joker ever played in the Winston-Salem Open?
    He has not.

  7. #47
    Will be hilarious if the guy ends up not being the all time major winner because he wouldn't get a vax

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafi View Post
    This is correct. He had a negative rapid and a positive PCR. He was asymptomatic, but he took the test because others were positive at a bball game he attended. So, how long does one with a positive PCR but no symptoms have immunity against COVID? 5 days? 14 days? Longer? A COVID PCR can remain positive for months after an infection, so when was he actually infected? The answer to all of these questions is unknown, so this is a great anecdote that shows why using natural immunity does not work in this setting.
    Quote Originally Posted by BacktoBack View Post
    Perfectly stated
    Yep. This is a great example of why everyone doing their own research and forming their own opinions still needs to still listen to medical and public health experts. ELC makes very reasonable statements based on some fairly well-known facts. However, he doesn't have the full context of how to apply those to the real world. This is not meant to be an insult to him.
    My next comment is also not meant to be a reflection of ELC. I am amazed that so many people without any public health/medical/statistics training just assume that they can understand medical and public health issues as well as people who have dedicated their lives to these issues. I long ago lost count of the times people have given me their detailed assessment of the pandemic (mostly why it's no biggie) without ever asking a question of the physician in front of them. It takes an impressive level of arrogance to think you are going to lecture a physician on a pandemic and have nothing to learn in return. (again, this is not targeted at ELC. If I want to mock him, I'll talk about what a shithole OU is).
    Letís get this done!

  9. #49
    Takes a lot of guts to explain how dumb ELC is to his face and say thatís not what youíre saying and know heís dumb enough to believe you.

  10. #50
    Australia shows if you got too many white people in one place shit gets weird.

  11. #51
    The documentary crew that made Formula 1 Drive to Survive is filming a documentary for Netflix based on the 2022 tennis season. They started filming already - Novak is giving them a lot of drama to start the year.

  12. #52
    Djokovic is a douche. He deserves to be deported. Just follow the damn rules!!!

  13. #53
    No vak no play.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison2951 View Post
    No vak no play.
    Novax Djokovid

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobacco Road View Post
    Yep. This is a great example of why everyone doing their own research and forming their own opinions still needs to still listen to medical and public health experts. ELC makes very reasonable statements based on some fairly well-known facts. However, he doesn't have the full context of how to apply those to the real world. This is not meant to be an insult to him.
    My next comment is also not meant to be a reflection of ELC. I am amazed that so many people without any public health/medical/statistics training just assume that they can understand medical and public health issues as well as people who have dedicated their lives to these issues. I long ago lost count of the times people have given me their detailed assessment of the pandemic (mostly why it's no biggie) without ever asking a question of the physician in front of them. It takes an impressive level of arrogance to think you are going to lecture a physician on a pandemic and have nothing to learn in return. (again, this is not targeted at ELC. If I want to mock him, I'll talk about what a shithole OU is).
    No offense taken. I've had people tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm expressing an informed opinion on something I've done for 25+ years. Such is the nature of the internet.

    That having been said, I find Rafi is applying so many caveats that wouldn't otherwise be applied because it is in his nature to be cautious. Worrying about prolonged positive PCRs when the problem is really with false negatives. Stepping into the weeds about the extent of natural immunity when the extent of vaccination immunity also varies from person to person. Several studies show a solid amount of natural immunity following an infection, and as far as I know, those studies didn't harp on such things as the exact day in which you were actually infected. And if we're really talking about containing the spread, you also have the much bigger problem of asymptomatic infection.

    I think a big problem with Covid policy in general is that the medical and public health experts are given too much deference. That's not because they're wrong or uninformed, obviously, but because they should not be crafting public policy, only informing it. I don't hold stuff against Fauci because his advice fluctuates with the science and the studies. I hold stuff against him because he has no business wading into the public policy arena. I mean, why is he answering questions about whether airliners should require masks forever? Public policy is for the politicians to decide. The scientists by nature are always going to be "but this" and "what about that" because that's their job. But they politicians have to think about the jobs and well-being of their constituents, balancing out what the public health professionals say with what the public can handle. Even the CDC admitted that they changed their quarantine recommendation to 5 days based somewhat on what they thought the public could handle.

    So I listen and am not dismissive in the least. My concern is not that people don't listen to to public health officials, but that they'll be more inclined to dismiss them out of hand when politicians implement lockdowns and regulations that aren't usually needed. If, for example, Covid somehow morphs into something mirroring the contagiousness of Omicron combined with a 5% mortality rate, then certainly draconian measures would be needed, but since so many countries have been so heavy handed for two years already, people may not have the stomach for it. Their fuse is shorter, to say the least.

    And I reiterate that Australia can do whatever the hell it wants, but I happen to think they're wrong for this particular instance.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    No offense taken. I've had people tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm expressing an informed opinion on something I've done for 25+ years. Such is the nature of the internet.

    That having been said, I find Rafi is applying so many caveats that wouldn't otherwise be applied because it is in his nature to be cautious. Worrying about prolonged positive PCRs when the problem is really with false negatives. Stepping into the weeds about the extent of natural immunity when the extent of vaccination immunity also varies from person to person. Several studies show a solid amount of natural immunity following an infection, and as far as I know, those studies didn't harp on such things as the exact day in which you were actually infected. And if we're really talking about containing the spread, you also have the much bigger problem of asymptomatic infection.

    I think a big problem with Covid policy in general is that the medical and public health experts are given too much deference. That's not because they're wrong or uninformed, obviously, but because they should not be crafting public policy, only informing it. I don't hold stuff against Fauci because his advice fluctuates with the science and the studies. I hold stuff against him because he has no business wading into the public policy arena. I mean, why is he answering questions about whether airliners should require masks forever? Public policy is for the politicians to decide. The scientists by nature are always going to be "but this" and "what about that" because that's their job. But they politicians have to think about the jobs and well-being of their constituents, balancing out what the public health professionals say with what the public can handle. Even the CDC admitted that they changed their quarantine recommendation to 5 days based somewhat on what they thought the public could handle.

    So I listen and am not dismissive in the least. My concern is not that people don't listen to to public health officials, but that they'll be more inclined to dismiss them out of hand when politicians implement lockdowns and regulations that aren't usually needed. If, for example, Covid somehow morphs into something mirroring the contagiousness of Omicron combined with a 5% mortality rate, then certainly draconian measures would be needed, but since so many countries have been so heavy handed for two years already, people may not have the stomach for it. Their fuse is shorter, to say the least.

    And I reiterate that Australia can do whatever the hell it wants, but I happen to think they're wrong for this particular instance.
    Excellent point. We can all agree that its best to be vaxed and wear a mask, just like we can all agree that you're better off never to smoke pot or drink booze, or that our environment would be better served without any gas-fired combustion engines or non-composting plastics.. But to your point, science should be a guide in helping shape public policy, but not determining it.
    Last edited by DownEastDeac; 01-15-2022 at 07:28 PM.

  17. #57
    I still think he faked the positive test. Tennis Australia advised that players could enter if players got Covid since June 2021. Novak had to say he was entering the Australian open by Dec 10th. He "got Covid" Dec 16th. If he didn't get Covid was he not playing?

  18. #58
    What laws do people think Fauci enacted?
    Letís get this done!

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobacco Road View Post
    What laws do people think Fauci enacted?
    What do you mean? He's been plotting to take away our freedumbs for a long time. It was a 40+ year long con. We're finally seeing the fruits of his labor!!

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    No offense taken. I've had people tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm expressing an informed opinion on something I've done for 25+ years. Such is the nature of the internet.

    That having been said, I find Rafi is applying so many caveats that wouldn't otherwise be applied because it is in his nature to be cautious. Worrying about prolonged positive PCRs when the problem is really with false negatives. Stepping into the weeds about the extent of natural immunity when the extent of vaccination immunity also varies from person to person. Several studies show a solid amount of natural immunity following an infection, and as far as I know, those studies didn't harp on such things as the exact day in which you were actually infected. And if we're really talking about containing the spread, you also have the much bigger problem of asymptomatic infection.

    I think a big problem with Covid policy in general is that the medical and public health experts are given too much deference. That's not because they're wrong or uninformed, obviously, but because they should not be crafting public policy, only informing it. I don't hold stuff against Fauci because his advice fluctuates with the science and the studies. I hold stuff against him because he has no business wading into the public policy arena. I mean, why is he answering questions about whether airliners should require masks forever? Public policy is for the politicians to decide. The scientists by nature are always going to be "but this" and "what about that" because that's their job. But they politicians have to think about the jobs and well-being of their constituents, balancing out what the public health professionals say with what the public can handle. Even the CDC admitted that they changed their quarantine recommendation to 5 days based somewhat on what they thought the public could handle.

    So I listen and am not dismissive in the least. My concern is not that people don't listen to to public health officials, but that they'll be more inclined to dismiss them out of hand when politicians implement lockdowns and regulations that aren't usually needed. If, for example, Covid somehow morphs into something mirroring the contagiousness of Omicron combined with a 5% mortality rate, then certainly draconian measures would be needed, but since so many countries have been so heavy handed for two years already, people may not have the stomach for it. Their fuse is shorter, to say the least.

    And I reiterate that Australia can do whatever the hell it wants, but I happen to think they're wrong for this particular instance.
    ELC, this is a good post. You explain your position and thoughts well. I think you misrepresent my position somewhat. I'm not looking for caveats. If I was, they would be innumerable, and we could also talk about the vaccines - which brand/type, when they were given, how many were administered, if antibodies developed, etc. Rather, I am trying to be as pragmatic as possible. Either one was vaccinated or not - a very straightforward position without caveats. The problem with using "previous infection" as a surrogate for vaccination is that it is 1) vague and 2) we have very little idea of the protection it provides. We truly do not know if an asymptomatic infection provides 5 days or 5 months of protection, which is the crux of the problem.

    In regards to Djokovic, one of two things happened: 1) he lied about being infected on Dec 16, or 2) he was infected on Dec 16 and then did an interview and photoshoot without a mask the next day. Either way, the guy can't be trusted. Australia has taken the pandemic very seriously. In the US, we currently have 875,000 dead from COVID. If the US COVID death rate equaled that of Australia, we would have only 34,000 dead. The difference is obviously massive.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •