[Jansen312]

Correct thing to do at this point is really to exclude Australian Open from future glam slam. Just drop entire Australia from it. I get that they have the right to deny anyone in but they making this entire scene due PURELY as political brownie points. Sports should stay neutral. They (entiee Australia) should be punished for dragging sports into this. Better yet deny entire Australia from any world tennis events for 3 years. Now, imagine, every country using their political clout to score their brownie points. The Aussie is really angry at their leaders incompetent handling of pandemic...Djokovic is just a trigger point of their accumulated disatisfaction.

[ghostDancer]

When a clothes code is required in a club and you don't wear they don't let you enter , Djokovic knew the rules but lied and tried to go over them. But as he is famous you want us to let him in. I think that all the people that want to kiss Djokovic ass are free to do it but not everybody wants.

[exodust]

Dress code is nothing like a vaccine requirement. Two completely different things.

The government admitted the reason his visa was cancelled was because they're worried about public perception. In a country with already 95% fully vaxxed, they're worried about "anti-vaxxers" drawing inspiration from tennis players! It doesn't add up unless you allow for an embarrassingly irrational government.

[ghostDancer]

His visa was cancelled because they found inconsistencies (lies). He outright lied filling the papers, any other person would have been kicked out without a doubt. He later blamed his assistants for it. In the same case you would be in jail but as is a famous person he gets an special treatment. He brought it on himself. He thought he could get away with it but it looks like it wasn't the right moment. The funny thing is all the people defending him like he's a freedom fighter when he's just a spoiled brat. and now let's see France and USA.

[hilbert42]

”Sports should stay neutral.”

Right, it should but that's not the issue.

Right again, Australian politicians have fucked up their response to COVID on multiple occasions but so have other many countries—name one that hasn’t! And I include Serbia in that lot, it having only 50% of its citizens vaccinated; currently, it has one of the worst vaccination records in all Europe.

Leaving Australia aside for the moment, there are principles at stake here that are beyond Djokovic's case. Firstly, Djokovic brought these troubles upon himself:

1. He was fully aware of Australia’s tight COVID vaccination requirements and visa requirements long before he arrived in Australia—as his visit was a point of discussion in the world’s press weeks beforehand, yet he chose not to be vaccinated well ahead of the time of his visit. The question is why.

2. The fact that he had COVID previously is a lame excuse for thinking that he could disobey or ignore Australia’s immigration rules (no one really believes that, as he and his team would have known them to an absolute tee). It is very clear that he arrogantly and blatantly violated immigration requirements and it's widely accepted among many that he really doesn't have a valid excuse. His excuse of making a mistake simply doesn't stand up.

3. He lied about his travel status prior to traveling to Australia. To blatantly lie on any county's immigration form and one is playing with fire, especially so when the lie is easily found out (as here). Even idiots know that this is the quickest way of being refused entry to a country. Why Djokovic chose to lie and risk everything is open to question, however my opinion is that it was sheer arrogance and the fact that he is so used to getting his own way that he thought he could wing it or bullshit his way into the country.

4. Irrespective of Serbia’s position upon vaccination, Djokovic is a person of substantial means and he could have easily had himself vaccinated well ahead of time yet he deliberately chose not to. Moreover, if he is an anti-vaxxer or conscientious objector then he should have told the whole world ages ago but he chose not to. The same goes for any medical exemptions he may have had.

5. As a person on the world stage, he would have known that being unvaccinated would bring strong controversy for the very reason that he was setting a very bad example—a bad example that if followed by many—would lead to increased deaths from the pandemic. There is no doubt that among his huge followers and fan base there would be some, perhaps even many, who would follow his example and not be as lucky with COVID infection as he was. Therefore, many, many others view his stance as being selfish, self-centered and ill considerate of the lives of others. There is also the fact that Djokovic has never bothered or taken the time to explain his position. To many, this implies that he has something to hide. Moreover, it is fanciful to believe that both he and his team would have been unaware of this and the potential damage to his reputation because of his stance. Frankly, it's hard to understand why he has been so silent on the matter, perhaps he thought that the controversy would bring even more attention to himself.

6. Australia's bad treatment of Djokovic upon entry and the fact that those involved in detaining him did not afford him procedural fairness has essentially nothing to with the revocation of his visa by the Minister; they are separate issues except for the notoriety that they've brought.

7. Djokovic and his team must have been fully aware of the heightened tensions in Australia over COVID, as they've been world news for months. It is even more relevant that his destination was Melbourne, which has been the world's most locked-down city for all of the time that COVID has been active. It just isn't possible to believe that he was unaware of the political implications of this, which are that Melbournians (and many other Australians) have been hit hard by COVID and that many citizens have been trapped overseas during the pandemic and unable to return—and that the Government making an exception for him and his bad behaviour was very likely out of the question due to political fallout. Frankly, it beggars belief why he has acted the way he has.

For the record I couldn't give damn if Australia/the Australian Open was excluded from future world tournaments. My interest in tennis is minimal, thus I've based these comments on what has actually happened, not how I feel about Djokovic per se.

It seems to me that all the noise and brouhaha over this matter would be helped if Djokovic and other tennis fans would take a moment to be objective and not lose sight of the fact that millions of people have already died of COVID and despite the Australian Government's many fuckups, that there is real reason for why these COVID rules are in place. Must I actually say it: they're in place to save lives!

Djokovic ought to have known this and complied accordingly.

[exodust]

> they're in place to save lives!

But not all lives. The whole population does not need to get vaccinated. Not everyone's life is under threat. Not even close.

Omicron spreads regardless, as is clearly observable. Australia has very high vaccination rate, but the virus is everywhere. Yet, they're still worried about unvaccinated sentiment?

It's important for vulnerable and elderly people to get vaccinated because their lives are the ones that can be saved.

Novak's life is not under threat from the virus. He chose not to be vaccinated for himself. Only a fool would get vaccinated for reasons of "perception".

The WHO chief warned countries recently that "you can't boost your way out of the pandemic". The AstraZenic scientist said recently the focus for vaccination should shift to elderly and vulnerable, as it's not feasible to vaccinate the whole world every few months.

"Hey man, even though you don't need it, can you please get vaccinated to encourage others to get the jab?".... Novak said no. And now the government believes the opposite is true - that Novak will influence perception in a direction that differs to the government's policy. See, the Australian government operates on what looks good or bad. Actual substance and practicality is down the list.

Now he's labelled an anti-vaxxer icon, a trouble-maker, and then booted out of the country. All he wanted to do was play some tennis. He's an ambassador for sport, fitness, and has done some great work over the years. To see him treated like this is a disgrace.

Everything else you said is irrelevant. End of the day, Novak was treated like crap because a politician wanted to look "tough on borders". Even though Omicron is everywhere down here, spreading among the vaccinated, there's an irrational and popular response that the 5% of unvaccinated people are somehow driving the pandemic.

[hilbert42]

"The whole population does not need to get vaccinated. Not everyone's life is under threat. Not even close."

That's a sweeping statement, so where's your evidence - as most of the world disagrees with you - so too does the science.

Presumably, you also disagree with the health experts at the WHO? When WHO experts say that "you can't boost your way out of the pandemic" they are NOT saying "you don't need to get vaccinated." They are quite separate issues altogether.

"Novak's life is not under threat from the virus. He chose not to be vaccinated for himself. Only a fool would get vaccinated for reasons of "perception."

What gives you special insight to say that if he got vaccinated then it would be only for a 'perceived' advantage? I cannot see how you would know this - even Djokovic's Dr wouldn't know that without extensive tests. If such tests were done then he has never offered them as evidence or for public examination.

Whether your assertion is correct or not is immaterial. The real issue is that Djokovic is a leading world figure in sport so he should have lead by example but he failed to do so (for many decades, as long as we've had mass media or even longer, it's been customary and even expected of athelets to set a good example to their followers).

...And the example he should have set would have been to get vaccinated whether he needed to do so or not - as that's what celebrities do! After all, the very vast majority of the world's population accepts vaccination as a normal medical procedure - one from which everyone benefits.

As a celebrity, Djokovic failed to live up to the time-honored conventions expected of him. The fact that he deliberately bucked the system and disobeyed convention has to be one of the worst PR exercises in the history of sport for many decades and he's now paying a very heavy penalty for doing so. It's damn shame his advisors hadn't been more politically astute otherwise it's likely that it wouldn't have ended up so badly for him.

(Really I don't particularly care if Djokovic gets vaccinated or not, I'm simlpy just stating what has actually happened to him.)

"Everything else you said is irrelevant"

I'm only an unknown HN poster so what I say hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. The fact is that much bigger players with real influence think very similarly to me and to millions of others - and in the end that's all that really matterd. They have real teeth with real biting power which I don't. What's more they've shown that they are capable of exercising that power and that they've actually done so.

I've a sneaking suspicion that Djokovic was gambling that they wouldn't given his celebrity status, unfortunately for him it's a gamble he's lost.

Blaming me for what has happened won't change anything.

[exodust]

> That's a sweeping statement, so where's your evidence - as most of the world disagrees with you - so too does the science.

The sweeping statement is yours: that "everyone" needs the vaccine. You're trying to shift the burden of sweeping statements to the person who disagrees with your original sweeping assertion.

Nowhere does "science say" that everyone needs the vaccine. You're confusing policy decisions which turn into "rules are rules", which turn into "what the science says".

Are you forgetting that last September, the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization recommended against vaccinating children? If that wasn't "science" what was it? This is merely one example of science-based objection to the "need" to vaccinate everything that crawls or walks.

> "their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The committee underlined that the vast majority of children had mild or no symptoms. It also pointed out the very low risk of heart inflammation with mRNA vaccines, noting that the long-term effects of this were unknown." https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-committee-healthy-kids-ag...

Sounds like science and reason formed their opinion. But they were overruled by the higher-up policy makers and politicians.

> "And the example he should have set would have been to get vaccinated whether he needed to do so or not - as that's what celebrities do!"

Wow. "That's what celebrities do". It amazes me how easily people slip into a fabricated signalling world, where mandating "solidarity vaccination" and towing party lines is normal behaviour, even expected and mandated because "keeping people safe"!

Novak had Covid, recovered, and does not want the vaccine for himself as his symptoms were obviously mild, which is the norm for his health profile. That's his business.

If you aren't defending the right of anyone to make their own choice on that basis, it's sad. Omicron spreads regardless. The Australian government acknowledged he was not an actual risk, but they were worried about "anti-vax" sentiment from his presence in the country. The sad irony is Novak wanted to keep his vaccination status private. He would have been happy not to discuss it at all, but the media did not allow it, and a tennis villain was forged in the outrage fires.

[hilbert42]

It's interesting that down-voters never seem to have the fortitude to explain themselves. That they have down-voted I take as a compliment, as it means that I have succeeded in getting my point across.

[furgooswft13]

Explanation: pretty sure almost nobody read that wall of text, just downvoted and moved on. How long did it take you to write that? Downvoting takes one second and can be done while rolling ones eyes.

[hilbert42]

Sorry, we live in different worlds - correction, universes.

FYI, I expected flack from disagreeing diehards so I watched the voting with interest. The split in voting being almost even with the earliest ones being upvotes. I know diehards won't agree or believe what I am saying but at least I know that many others do so and that they have actually read the post despite whatever you may think.

Moreover, you've only criticized, what you have failed to do is provide a contrary opinion or debate the issues exactly as I have noted above. Nor it seems have you actually read the many other posts that agree with my opinion. QED!