4 ms·

He knew the rules. If he was serious about competing in the Australian open he would have gotten vaccinated.

by jpgvm 5y ago

verdverm 5y ago
He knew they made an exception, and now they have gone back on that once he was there. If they were clear from the start, he wouldn't have gone
- jpgvm 5y ago
  They didn't. The state made it clear they wouldn't sponsor his visa if he arrived unvaccinated unless he had at the time of arrival documentation of his case for exemption. Clearly he failed to furnish either vaccination or appropriate exemption documentation at entry. As I said if he was serious about competing he wouldn't take the chance and would have gotten vaccinated just like everyone else that wants to come to Australia for any other purpose. He already gets special treatment and entry when others aren't able to travel here, the least he can do is follow the rules.
  - ciupicri 5y ago
    He gets special treatment and entry because Australia decided to host an _international_ sporting event during a pandemic. If health is so important to the government, they should have just canceled the event, or make it only national.
    - thrill 5y ago
      They hardly need to cancel since the risk of hosting vaccinated players is deemed acceptable.
      - mewpmewp2 5y ago
        Why wouldn't PCR test and isolation be enough? Besides with Omicron spread risk is not really reduced. Seems irrational decisionmaking to me and more of a power move.
        jpgvm 5y ago
        Because the rules are the same for everyone. You are either double vaccinated at least 14 days before arrival or you have a qualifying medical exemption. You are free to disagree with the rules (and not come to Australia) but you can't just ignore them.
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      Yes he gets a chance at entry when all other non-citizens are denied even the chance. That doesn't mean he gets to ignore all the rules, if anything because he has been offered such a privilege he should go above and beyond to follow the rules. It's like being invited to someones home that has a shoes off policy and refusing to take your shoes off because it "violates your freedoms". Then them offering an exemption if you show a medical reason for needing to keep your shoes on followed by you telling them to go shove it when you actually arrive. Is it surprising when they decline to let you into their home?
thriftwy 5y ago
The rules are no longer compatible with hosting any sporting events other than the said COVID-ball. Maybe we should not be doing sports tournaments at all given the epidemics.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  No. The rules are incompatible with people that refuse vaccination being entered into international sporting events on Australian soil. This doesn't appear to be a big loss or problem as the ITF has fully supported the Australian Open. If players wish to remain unvaccinated they are self-excluding themselves from international events - that is their choice. No one is forcing them to attend just as no one is forcing them to be vaccinated.
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    If he had a confirmed case of COVID recently, I can't see why he would need to vaccinate on top of that. The common sense is that he doesn't. You are advocating self-medication.
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      No. I'm advocating for following the border policy: https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc-6 https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc... Australia only allows unvaccinated travelers that -can't- be vaccinated for medical reasons. Not wanting to be vaccinated or not "needing" to be vaccinated are not the same thing as -can't-. No proof that vaccine will be harmful to your health == vaccine required for entry. Very simple.
      - thriftwy 5y ago
        The problem here is the conflict of interest. World No. 1 tennis player does not consider entry to Australia a privilege, worthy of taking a medical procedure which he does not have to perform otherwise. Australia does not want to take many people in, and many people do not desire to enter Australia. But that ruins the idea of tournament. Which is based on assumption of admission on liberal terms.

He knew the rules. If he was serious about competing in the Australian open he would have gotten vaccinated.

by jpgvm 5y ago

He knew the rules. If he was serious about competing in the Australian open he would have gotten vaccinated.

He knew they made an exception, and now they have gone back on that once he was there. If they were clear from the start, he wouldn't have gone

jpgvm 5y ago
They didn't. The state made it clear they wouldn't sponsor his visa if he arrived unvaccinated unless he had at the time of arrival documentation of his case for exemption. Clearly he failed to furnish either vaccination or appropriate exemption documentation at entry. As I said if he was serious about competing he wouldn't take the chance and would have gotten vaccinated just like everyone else that wants to come to Australia for any other purpose. He already gets special treatment and entry when others aren't able to travel here, the least he can do is follow the rules.
- ciupicri 5y ago
  He gets special treatment and entry because Australia decided to host an _international_ sporting event during a pandemic. If health is so important to the government, they should have just canceled the event, or make it only national.
  - thrill 5y ago
    They hardly need to cancel since the risk of hosting vaccinated players is deemed acceptable.
    - mewpmewp2 5y ago
      Why wouldn't PCR test and isolation be enough? Besides with Omicron spread risk is not really reduced. Seems irrational decisionmaking to me and more of a power move.
      - jpgvm 5y ago
        Because the rules are the same for everyone. You are either double vaccinated at least 14 days before arrival or you have a qualifying medical exemption. You are free to disagree with the rules (and not come to Australia) but you can't just ignore them.
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    Yes he gets a chance at entry when all other non-citizens are denied even the chance. That doesn't mean he gets to ignore all the rules, if anything because he has been offered such a privilege he should go above and beyond to follow the rules. It's like being invited to someones home that has a shoes off policy and refusing to take your shoes off because it "violates your freedoms". Then them offering an exemption if you show a medical reason for needing to keep your shoes on followed by you telling them to go shove it when you actually arrive. Is it surprising when they decline to let you into their home?

thriftwy 5y ago

The rules are no longer compatible with hosting any sporting events other than the said COVID-ball. Maybe we should not be doing sports tournaments at all given the epidemics.

jpgvm 5y ago
No. The rules are incompatible with people that refuse vaccination being entered into international sporting events on Australian soil. This doesn't appear to be a big loss or problem as the ITF has fully supported the Australian Open. If players wish to remain unvaccinated they are self-excluding themselves from international events - that is their choice. No one is forcing them to attend just as no one is forcing them to be vaccinated.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  If he had a confirmed case of COVID recently, I can't see why he would need to vaccinate on top of that. The common sense is that he doesn't. You are advocating self-medication.
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    No. I'm advocating for following the border policy: https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc-6 https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc... Australia only allows unvaccinated travelers that -can't- be vaccinated for medical reasons. Not wanting to be vaccinated or not "needing" to be vaccinated are not the same thing as -can't-. No proof that vaccine will be harmful to your health == vaccine required for entry. Very simple.
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      The problem here is the conflict of interest. World No. 1 tennis player does not consider entry to Australia a privilege, worthy of taking a medical procedure which he does not have to perform otherwise. Australia does not want to take many people in, and many people do not desire to enter Australia. But that ruins the idea of tournament. Which is based on assumption of admission on liberal terms.