Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

646k is for the first year: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29503

646k > 480k if I’m not mistaken.

But a more tangible insight into why you're wrong and why vaccines do work is to look at statistics for hospitalization in intensive care: these days, the vast majority of ICU cases of COVID are unvaccinated patients. Given that most people are vaccinated, it should be the other way around if there was no difference between vaccinated or unvaccinated. This is a much stronger argument than speculating what a growth graph should or should not look like with or without vaccines.

Well yes, vaccines don't stop the spread but it will reduce it (definitely with Delta, maybe less so with Omicron). And then you have other problems like mutations happening more among non vaccinated.

And even with omicron, a vaccine will prevent serious illness.

Even if it just makes a 1% difference, among the almost 8 billion people in the world that's still a huge number. So why not get vaccinated?

It seems to me people are either scared for irrational reasons or just want to be different and think they know it better than the medical establishment.

> Should we expand this to smokers and obese people

Yes, I definitely think you could make a case for that. If people could reduce their craving for McDonalds by receiving a yearly injection and they refuse then yeah, you'd be in the same situation. But things are more complicated, being related to addiction, socio economic status etc ...

> It's also exremly tiring to take away peoples basic human rights in the name of a disease that (with vaccines) kills less people than the flu (and who cares if someone doesn't get vaccinated, it's their problem).

Again, nobody is forced to be vaccinated and it's not just their problem if they don't. You may be refused entry to bars & restaurants but that's not a basic human right, afaik.

I'm done with this!

Politicians apparently are driven by the game theory and will do/say anything they believe will help them maximize their own power and safety (elections already mentioned) rather than sustainable wellbeing of the people.

Masses are driven by even more chthonic energies like unconscious xenophobia and value the chance to unite by any attribute to attack anybody they can (especially those enjoying a benefit they don't or trying to achieve a benefit they enjoy) above everything and will use any excuse they are given.

Simply saying politicians have already made a too many of suspiciously inefficient (and logically obviously futile even before proven such) decisions to trust them competent and benevolent and the mob will believe and shout any nonsense you tell them as long as this justifies them carrying torches and pitchforks.

Imagine president Trump, seeing himself loosing the elections and actually facing a real prison sentence risk, would have said nuking China is going to end the pandemics and we need to do so to make the whole world great again. I would bet the number of people supporting him would be way far from zero, all over the world.

"Take this vaccine against a strain that is not spreading anymore, that you also already had, while we cannot really prove efficacy against the current dominant strain and where you have a higher risk of side effects than others, or just give up your title. Your choice."

They are blackmailing him.

Not by official WHO definitions.

101 in a million is equivalent to 1.01/10,000. With 1/10,000 it falls into the bracket for the definition of "rare", not "very rare" or "extremely rare". I wish the media would use these official definitions.

https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_ef...

He surely has some immunity now, no?

Who are "they" and what exactly are "they" saying? I think there is a consensus that even if you had the disease, it's wise choice to get vaccinated. Protection from vaccination and recovery is better than protection from only one of them, as far as I understand it.

> Can someone explain the math to me?

What math?

> Also people said the regular flu does not exist anymore

Seasonal flu will of course continue to be a thing. But restrictions obviously meant that last years flu season was kept low in many places around the world. This however means that there could be a worse wave coming this year (and it has happened too in many places - we are in the flu season in the wintery part of the world now). In places with good mask adherence, no big public events and so on, obviously ALL respiratory diseases will have a harder time spreading. But these restrictions are - hopefully - temporary, The flu will be fine.

I don't think that makes sense. If you cannot see your family again without vaccination, that is a clear mandate to me. If it is not based on clear scientific evidence that shows that there was no better option, then the mandate is arbitrary. Arbitrary mandates are tyrannical.

If Djokovic only has the choice between getting vaccinated or to give up his title, and if that mandated choice was not justified on a scientific basis, then that mandate was arbitrary and hence tyrannical.

> Also, one shouldn’t let an antivaxer free from criticism just because he got the disease and no longer feels he needs the vaccine. He was against it to begin with.

I think what we are experiencing right now, goes way beyond criticism. Instead of demonizing people with a certain belief (and treating rational critics as collateral), people should try much harder to demonstrate the benefits of the vaccine in an intellectually honest way. And they should be brutally honest regarding side effects. This is almost not happening, as far as I can see.

“That was a paper from the Lancet.”

When I said ”damn lies and statistics taken out of context.” I meant it. In fact, here The Lancet article is almost the quintessential example of what I was talking about: someone cites a very reputable source to prove a point and then expects everyone to take its findings as gospel, or alternatively readers are bamboozled with science and then don't question any further—that being the deliberate intention. I've known The Lancet for years and have read articles from it in the past, and I'm well aware that it's an authoritative source of information. Moreover, I have no doubt that when the journal published the article the information therein was both authoritative and up to date—the trouble is that it was published on April 20, 2021—some nine months ago!

The information the article contains is now nigh on useless—it's nothing other than ancient history, thus it can no longer be relied upon as an accurate and authoritative source of information because the COVID situation has so vastly changed from the time of its publication. For starters, we've developed better methods of treating the disease, we’ve had time to evaluate booster shots and probably the most important factor of all, which is that we’ve seen the subsequent emergence of the most contagious strains—Delta and Omicron—and they have altered everything.

I’m far from the smartest person around but I’m certainly smart enough not to be conned this easily. When presented with a link like that or when reading scientific papers the first thing I check is the paper's submission date, I then check its publication date. Frankly, trying to trick both other HN readers and me in such an underhanded way I reckon is a pretty low act—and it's unbecoming of the usually high standard of HN posts.

However, what such behavior demonstrates is that in this highly polarized climate over COVID, people have very few qualms about twisting and distorting the truth: as the saying goes ‘if the facts don't agree with one's own worldview then alter them to suit’. Unfortunately, it's this widespread propensity to cheat and be deliberately loose with the facts that’s been one of the most significant and substantial reasons for why our response to the COVID pandemic has been—and still is—in so much of a schemozzle.

Re: hospitalization rate by vaccination status in Denmark, I have now read various docs and I’ve nothing further to add other than Denmark’s response to COVID, like almost every other country or different location across the globe, has had a very different response to the disease when compared to many other places. And that’s happened for any number of reasons, as its time of first lockdown, vaccinations rates, etc., etc., will be very different to other locations.

With respect to tolerating the risk, yes I do spend more time at home than previously. This makes sense for two reasons, the first is that it just makes sense to do so if it’s at all possible, and because of COVID I am able to do just that. The second reason is that I have yet to receive my booster (third) shot, so it’s prudent to be more careful than normal. Where I am I’ve not been able to get the booster shot because of damn stupid rules set by authorities who require that a certain time elapse between the initial shots and the booster, here that’s four months. And for similar bureaucratic reasons, the initial shots weren’t available earlier. Perhaps a maximum antibody response is achieved if the booster is given at four months duration or more but times are far from ideal with the arrival of Omicron.

Moreover, it’s not for the want of trying to get the booster now, on multiple occasions I've told both my doctor and pharmacist that if I couldn't get my booster very soon then I’d obtain it on the black market. I further suggested that they report me to authorities for making such a suggestion not to mention my 'harassment' of them. Of course, nothing happened, it was water off a duck's back.

Again, my experience here only further demonstrates the enormous variation between counties, states and even towns—as is the case with your comment about vaccine mandates being dead. Whether they’re dead or not clearly depends upon where one is. As you're well aware, Djokovic’s efforts to buck the system over vaccine mandates has only brought him big trouble, and he’s likely to strike a repetition of the incident with the forthcoming French Open. If he doesn't pull his head in and comply with the new French vaccine mandate then the chances are good that he'll likely be locked out again. As we’ve just witnessed, if anything, there are more vaccine mandates now than previously and some countries are becoming much less tolerant of difficult and recalcitrant people than in the past.

As for vitamin D, no I’ve not had my levels tested but I’ve been taking about double the normal dose for about a year now, the levels certainly won’t be low. BMI: I’m close to the middle of the normal range. Insulin: no; air: not yet but the day is still young.

“That was a paper from the Lancet.”

When I said ”damn lies and statistics taken out of context.” I meant it. In fact, The Lancet article is almost the quintessential example of what I was talking about: someone cites a very reputable source to prove a point and then expects everyone to take its findings as gospel, or readers are bamboozled with the science and then don't question any further—these outcomes being the original objective. I've known The Lancet for years and have read articles from it in the past, and I'm well aware that it's an authoritative source of information. Moreover, I have no doubt that when The Lancet published the article the information therein was both authoritative and up to date—the trouble is that it was published on April 20, 2021—some nine months ago! (Here, your objective may not have been to deliberately mislead but one sees so many instances of this tactic that it's hard not to believe that most of them are nothing other then a deliberate ploy to deceive.)

The information the article contains is now nigh on useless—it's nothing other than ancient history, thus it can no longer be relied upon for fact and authoritative information, as the COVID situation has changed vastly from the time of its publication. For starters, we've developed better methods of treating the disease, we’ve had time to evaluate booster shots—and probably the most important factor of all, which is that we’ve seen the subsequent emergence of COVID's most contagious strains to date—Delta and Omicron—and they have altered everything.

I’m far from the smartest person around but I’m certainly smart enough not to be conned or mislead this easily whether deliberately or otherwise. When presented with a link like that or when reading scientific papers the first thing I check is the paper's submission date, I then check the publication date.

However, what this demonstrates is that in this highly polarized climate over COVID, people have very few qualms about twisting or distorting the truth—or exaggerating for the point of emphasis: as the saying goes ‘if the facts don't agree with one's own worldview then alter them to suit’. Unfortunately, it's this widespread propensity to not to bother checking the accuracy of source material, or to cheat and be loose with the facts that’s been one of the most significant and substantial reasons for why our response to the COVID pandemic has been—and still is—in so much of a schemozzle.

Re: hospitalization rate by vaccination status in Denmark, I have now read various docs and I’ve nothing further to add other than Denmark’s response to COVID, like almost every other country or different location across the globe, has had a very different response to the disease when compared to many other places. And that’s happened for any number of reasons: the time of its first lockdown, vaccinations rates, etc., etc. are likely to be very different to anywhere else.

With respect to tolerating the risk, yes I do spend more time at home than previously. This makes sense for two reasons, the first is that it just makes sense to do so if it’s at all possible, and because of COVID I am able to do just that. The second reason is that I have yet to receive my booster (third) shot, so it’s prudent to be more careful than normal. Where I am I’ve not been able to get the booster shot because of damn stupid rules set by the authorities who require a certain set time between the initial shots and the booster, here that’s four months. And for similar bureaucratic reasons, the initial shots weren’t available earlier. Whilst it's likely that maximum antibody response will be achieved at four months or more, we simply don't have the luxury to be overly fussy with Omicron about.

Moreover, it’s not for the want of trying, I told both my doctor and pharmacist on multiple occasions that if I couldn't get my booster very soon then I’d obtain it on the black market. I further suggested that they report me to authorities for both making such a suggestion, not to mention overly 'harassing' them and making a nuisance of myself. Of course, nothing happened, it was just water off a duck's back—and I'm still waiting (and looking for alternative sources).

Again, my experience here only further demonstrates the enormous variation between counties, states and even towns in their differing approaches to dealing with COVID—like your comment about vaccine mandates being dead. Whether they’re dead or not clearly depends upon where one is. As you're well aware, Djokovic’s efforts to buck the system over vaccine mandates only brought him big trouble, and he’s likely to strike the problem again if he doesn't pull his head in and bow to the inevitable. The forthcoming French Open comes with new mandate that all players be vaccinated. As we’ve just witnessed, if anything, there are more vaccine mandates now than previously, and from what we've seen it's clear that some countries have become much less tolerant of difficult and recalcitrant people than previously. Like them or not, evidence suggests we're stuck with vaccine mandates for the foreseeable future.

As for vitamin D, no I’ve not had my levels tested but I’ve been taking about double the normal dose for about a year now, so my levels won’t be low. BMI: I’m close to the middle of the normal range. Insulin: no, air: not yet but it's still early in the day.

I'm damn fed up with being constantly lectured at to get my booster shot and the message being made worse—rubbed in like salt in a wound—when in the next breath I'm then told that the State's vaccination centre had 50,000 spare places or whatever the number was which were not taken up—only to find that I'm still ineligible because of the ridiculous four-month rule.

Any other time a four-months interval is probably OK but not with Omicron on the loose. And having only AZ shots with Omicron about is essentially equivalent to being unvaccinated. (No doubt you've likely seen the HN story where Israel has said that with Omicron four shots doesn't seem to fully to the job.)

Stupid bastards, some of them (the decision-makers) couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag on the deck of a sinking ship. That said, many of those who are trying to pick up bits are not only working overly hard to do so, but also their situation means that they are often overly exposed to the virus. The people I really feel sorry are the overworked medical workers. I'm damn glad that I'm not in that profession.

"...summarily for 5 or 6 months out of the last 20. I'm sensing that you may be familiar with that."

Right, I do, the only effective outcome of your incarceration seems to be that you'll get into the Guinness Book of Records. Not much of a compensation is it?

Your sense is correct, I'm from the Emerald City, but it's been anything but emerald over the past year or two.

Vaccination has long been a requirement for admission into countries, and Covid isn't a new event either. The only new things going on here is Djovokic being public about it, and some minor bureaucratic issues, other than that it's very much business as usual.

But in any case I don't have an opinion on the tournament, I don't watch those anyway. It's up to them to figure out whether this is worth cancelling things over.