3 ms·

Why does Australia even have a loophole that allows PCR tests instead of vaccination, without also requiring that the person can't be vaccinated? You'd wish th

Why does Australia even have a loophole that allows PCR tests instead of vaccination, without also requiring that the person can't be vaccinated? You'd wish the tournament could have been clearer here and just said that all athletes should be fully vaccinated, regardless of what any authorities say. It's PR after all, and the PR of an antivaxer playing is much much worse than the PR of Novak missing the tournament.

hugh-avherald 5y ago
It's not testing positive per se that is the exemption, it's if you have a medical contraindication to the vaccine. The argument is that recent infection is a medical contraindication, which the tournament organizer accepted but the feds have not.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  I mean the sensible position would be that a contraindication (allergy against vaccine) and recent infection should be the alternative to vaccination. And obviously an athlete would need to fulfill the requirement of both entry to to country and to the tournament.
  - hugh-avherald 5y ago
    That doesn't make much sense to me: it seems to require a person who has an allergy to the vaccine to also get infected. At any rate, the sensible course of action would have been to allow only permanent, approved medical contraindications to be grounds for exemption. Temporary contraindications (like recent vaccination/infection) would simply invoke an apology and a wish they get better soon.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Fair point. But even so I’m concerned that even trusting “note from random doctor” is far too relaxed. Requiring a medical exemption issued in Australia or by a doctor approved by Australian authorites seems much more secure.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      That's what it is. Look at it yourself. Previous infection is only a 6-month temporary deferral in the case of major acute medical illness. https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/11/atagi-expanded-guidance-on-temporary-medical-exemptions-for-covid-19-vaccines.pdf https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021... https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/who-is-actually-eligible-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-ex https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/who-is-actually-el... These are the ATAGI guidelines though, the border can do what they want and they do not recognize previous infection as an exemption, apparently except in very special cases where the person is a millionaire with a world-class backhand. It'd be really interesting to know why he was given an exemption even while he hadn't tested positive in the past 6 months.
      - hugh-avherald 5y ago
        Note that the first link is published by a Commonwealth Government entity and the second is not the government. His exemption was granted by Tennis Australia, not the Commonwealth.
zo1 5y ago
I honestly don't want to live in such a world. And I seriously don't understand how these types of rules aren't chilling everyone to their core.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  I’m no proponent of vaccine mandates or even overly broad vaccine “passports”. Not because it isn’t effective but because it’s eroding trust in authorities. That said, international travel is one of the places that should be strict, and high profile international competition could and should make an example. Taking part isn’t a right. Organizers have an opportunity to set an example here.
Handytinge 5y ago
It doesn't, hence the whole kerfuffle.

hugh-avherald 5y ago

It's not testing positive per se that is the exemption, it's if you have a medical contraindication to the vaccine. The argument is that recent infection is a medical contraindication, which the tournament organizer accepted but the feds have not.

alkonaut 5y ago
I mean the sensible position would be that a contraindication (allergy against vaccine) and recent infection should be the alternative to vaccination. And obviously an athlete would need to fulfill the requirement of both entry to to country and to the tournament.
- hugh-avherald 5y ago
  That doesn't make much sense to me: it seems to require a person who has an allergy to the vaccine to also get infected. At any rate, the sensible course of action would have been to allow only permanent, approved medical contraindications to be grounds for exemption. Temporary contraindications (like recent vaccination/infection) would simply invoke an apology and a wish they get better soon.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Fair point. But even so I’m concerned that even trusting “note from random doctor” is far too relaxed. Requiring a medical exemption issued in Australia or by a doctor approved by Australian authorites seems much more secure.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    That's what it is. Look at it yourself. Previous infection is only a 6-month temporary deferral in the case of major acute medical illness. https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/11/atagi-expanded-guidance-on-temporary-medical-exemptions-for-covid-19-vaccines.pdf https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021... https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/who-is-actually-eligible-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-ex https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/who-is-actually-el... These are the ATAGI guidelines though, the border can do what they want and they do not recognize previous infection as an exemption, apparently except in very special cases where the person is a millionaire with a world-class backhand. It'd be really interesting to know why he was given an exemption even while he hadn't tested positive in the past 6 months.
    - hugh-avherald 5y ago
      Note that the first link is published by a Commonwealth Government entity and the second is not the government. His exemption was granted by Tennis Australia, not the Commonwealth.

zo1 5y ago

I honestly don't want to live in such a world. And I seriously don't understand how these types of rules aren't chilling everyone to their core.

alkonaut 5y ago
I’m no proponent of vaccine mandates or even overly broad vaccine “passports”. Not because it isn’t effective but because it’s eroding trust in authorities. That said, international travel is one of the places that should be strict, and high profile international competition could and should make an example. Taking part isn’t a right. Organizers have an opportunity to set an example here.

Handytinge 5y ago

It doesn't, hence the whole kerfuffle.