Because that's one of the easiest arguments to dispel. No one should be avoiding the vaccine for that reason. Not even those who had the disease once or twice already.
He still faces the same risk in the future. He still has the same choice. It doesn't change because you are a healthy young person. The risk of this complication is higher from the disease than the vaccine in every group, (the male under 40 doesn't really make a big difference - there you have about a breakeven risk)
He surely has some immunity now, no?
They say natural resistance is better or equal than from the vaccine, everyone apart from anti vaxxers like Djokovic has had a shot or two or three, there's no herd immunity or herd protection
Can someone explain the math to me?
Also people said the regular flu does not exist anymore, give or take, because everyone is wearing masks. Nothing could be further from the truth, full family had flu twice now, me three times(never had that before in my.life, once a year max was normal) and I see the regular flu wave still existing. I haven't had covid that I know of, did tests and am vaccinated.
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 know lots of people who were sick but only tested for COVID. One of my friends was out of work for a month with a bacterial infection they missed for 2+ weeks because they only tested for COVID....
No, what I am saying is that mandating them is a stupid idea. Everyone should be free to do a personal benefit/risk assessment before undergoing any medical procedure. Politicians are no medical doctors and they should have no power to prescribe me a medical treatment. If you mix science with politics, you get politics.
I can see, how the vaccine may be utterly pointless for Djokovic, while it may be very important for others.
And I absolutely agree. Apart from specific situations (e.g healthcare workers) no one should be required to get the vaccine.
But requiring it for crossing borders or playing in a tennis tournament isn’t a mandate. It’s a requirement for a very specific activity that people can just choose to not do. Sure, it’s his job - but such is life.
> I can see, how the vaccine may be utterly pointless for Djokovic, while it may be very important for others.
I don’t think it’s pointless. Protection from vaccine helps even in the recovered, healthy and young. But whether he should get it or not isn’t really relevant, what’s relevant is that Australia required it and they can’t exempt him due to past infection (apparently).
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 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 makes it a bit of a gray area. "Mandated" as in "you have to take it" is one thing (which few states would hopefully ever try) or "Mandated to do X" is a different thing. Then how much overreach is involved really depends on what X is. Working in hospital? Very reasonable. Attending university? Well, that was always a thing. Crossing borders - this was also always a thing.
> 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.
One can argue that almost all restrictions during the pandemic had to be based on very shaky science because there simply isn't time to first await the science and then make the decision. And there are surely a lot of restrictions that are much worse to have, than vaccine mandate for immigration. Shutting down schools or banning gatherings, for example.
> then that mandate was arbitrary and hence tyrannical.
Yeah I mean I don't necessarily agree with all the restrictions around the world and got knows Australia has the most shitty immigration politics on the planet - even outside the pandemic. But what I do think is that they should have the right to have whatever restrictions they want (even tyrannical ones) and there isn't much to do about it.
That's my point. People are basing a witch-hunt on unscientific thinking in 2021 on arguments that are not based on solid science. It does not look good and I think that historians will talk a lot about that.
Besides, it's not as if you ask scientists their response would always be "well our science won't say very much until a year from now, so of course we recommend the status quo until we know more!"
Scientific consensus and consensus among scientists can be two different things (i.e., scientists may well agree or even recommend politicians and authorities to do X, well in advance of science being clear).
I think that there is a witch-hunt against people who are considered to think unscientifically, but the hunters do not have a solid scientific basis for their battle calls themselves. I find that ironic and tragic at the same time.
People in this thread and elsewhere attacked Djokovic for avoiding the vaccine, but nobody was able to provide evidence that would explain why Djokovic needs to be vaccinated, given his condition and history. It boils down to "the rules are the rules" and "same rules for everyone". Read that with Hanna Ahrendt's voice. Pure ideology and decoupling from actual reasoning and common sense. We are supposed to base medicine on science, not on ideology, aren't we?
Novak is now in the former category, but he was in the latter - which is why I don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt any more.
And I absolutely agree. Apart from specific situations (e.g healthcare workers) no one should be required to get the vaccine.
But requiring it for crossing borders or playing in a tennis tournament isn’t a mandate. It’s a requirement for a very specific activity that people can just choose to not do. Sure, it’s his job - but such is life.
Remember that vaccines were always mandated for travel, going to university etc.
> I can see, how the vaccine may be utterly pointless for Djokovic, while it may be very important for others.
I don’t think it’s pointless. Protection from vaccine helps even in the recovered, healthy and young. But whether he should get it or not isn’t really relevant, what’s relevant is that Australia required it and they can’t exempt him due to past infection (apparently).
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.