16-01-2022 06:17 PM - edited 16-01-2022 06:19 PM
Novak Djokovic has lost a bid to stay in Australia after the Federal Court upheld the government's decision to cancel the tennis star's visa.
The Federal Court hearing, expedited to take place the day before the Australian Open begins, is the culmination of a weeks-long saga over the Serb's visa.
The men's world number one arrived in Australia just before midnight on January 5, had his visa cancelled by Border Force officials shortly after, then had it reinstated by a Federal Circuit Court judge in a hearing last Monday.
Late on Friday, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic's visa for a second time, citing "health and good order grounds".
Djokovic's lawyer's disputed that decision, taking it to court for judicial review.
The full bench of the federal court this evening ruled against Djokovic.
In the Federal Court today, Djokovic's lawyers accused the minister of producing no evidence to back his claim that Djokovic's presence in Australia would incite anti-vaccination sentiment. They also argued it was irrational, illogical or unreasonable for the minister not to consider that deporting Djokovic could whip up the same sentiment.
Djokovic's lawyer Nick Wood said Mr Hawke had misinterpreted media reports about Djokovic's views on vaccination, and the level of support he receives from anti-vaccination groups.
He was particularly critical of the minister's reliance on a BBC article as evidence Djokovic opposed vaccines. He argued the article was written before vaccines were available, and it actually showed Djokovic had an open mind and did not believe himself to be an expert. He criticised the minister's failure to ask Djokovic himself about his views.
But the minister's legal team argued there was ample evidence of Djokovic's "well-known stance" on vaccination — including the fact he had refused to get vaccinated himself – and that the minister had no obligation to ask Djokovic about his views.
They said Djokovic could not prove the minister had not considered the possibility that deporting him could also stir up anti-vaccination sentiment, and even if he did not consider that outcome, that would not amount to an error on his part.
Federal Court rules on Novak Djokovic's legal fight against visa cancellation (msn.com)
Will they keep him out for the three years?
Personally, I applaud the decision.
on 29-01-2022 02:43 PM
I won't address the problems with that study. Instead, let's focus on one simple thing:
THIS WAS WELL BEFORE OMICRON.
❝This retrospective cohort study of 1 health system included 150 325 patients tested for COVID-19 infection via polymerase chain reaction from 12 March 2020 to 30 August 2020❞
Rubrication and bolding mine.
Omicron is - as has been said ad nauseum on these boards, in the media, in research reports, in studies, and more - FAR MORE INFECTIOUS and with VERY MUCH HIGHER IMMUNITY-EVASION than previous variants. I cannot put that any more clearly... other than to say that the Omicron variant not only can, but HAS, reinfected people who previously had COVID-19 or were fully vaccinated.
If you think for one instant that previous COVID-19 infection results in eternal antibodies, I hope that this assurance will prove an eye-opener. I have already posted links to studies and research showing that generally speaking, previous infection is not as effective in antibody response (or T-cell response) as vaccinations, and especially so in comparison with vaccinations that include a booster shot. I have also already posted links to studies and research showing that for previous infection and for double-dose vaccinations, antibody protection wanes within a relatively short time and that this is particularly important when looking at what protection is afforded against Omicron.
Not only that, but immune response as a result of previous infection varies hugely across individuals. For a significant number, there is no immune response sufficient to merit the term. (Antibodies, if any, below threshold.) For many, immune response is barely above the threshold and would not be sufficient to prevent reinfection even against a less immune-evading variant than Omicron. For some, immune response is sufficient for a while to compare reasonably well with vaccination for a limited time. Unless every single previously-infected person is to undergo rigorous and time-consuming (and costy) laboratory testing on an ongoing basis to ascertain antibody response, it is neither practical nor logical to assume even barely minimal level of protection.
Hence... to restate your suggestion, as per results, it would be highly unreasonable for prior infection to qualify for vaxxx status.
Just... no.
on 29-01-2022 02:46 PM
@imastawka wrote:How has this turned into a thread for vaccination stats?
Aren't there enough on the subject already?
Please pick one.
Anyone looking for stats will not be looking here.
You know bs has to be spread far and deep to have the desired outcome
on 29-01-2022 02:49 PM
on 29-01-2022 02:57 PM
Personally, I find it interesting because it gives insight to the minds of some people who are opposed to vaccination. I'm confident that if Djokovic were to read this thread and realize the company he's keeping, then he might rethink his position on vaccination.
on 29-01-2022 02:57 PM
BBC research has cast doubt on the timing of the positive Covid test Novak Djokovic used to enter Australia to try to compete in the Australian Open.
It was provided to exempt him from rules barring unvaccinated people.
However, the serial number on his test on 16 December appears out of sequence with a sample of tests from Serbia over this period gathered by the BBC.
It is also higher than for his second (negative) test result from six days later.
His visa application was ultimately rejected, but not on these grounds.
These findings raise questions over what impact a later positive test result would have had on his ability to enter Australia.
Documents submitted by his lawyers to federal court in Australia included two Covid (PCR) test certificates, one with a positive result on 16 December and one with a negative result on 22 December.
A German research group called Zerforschung first picked up on the discrepancy that the earlier test had a higher confirmation code than the later one.
They wrote a blog titled "Novak Djokovic's time-travelling PCR tests", and partnered with German news site Der Spiegel who reported on the issue.
Documents submitted to the federal court in Australia included one from the acting director of Serbia's official health body, confirming the dates on these certificates accurately reflected when the tests had been carried out.
Mr Djokovic was tested in Serbia, and received his results from the Institute of Public Health of Serbia.
All these test results have a unique confirmation code.
We wanted to check whether these numbers are generated in strict chronological order in a single national database at the time of processing.
If so, it would bring into question why the earlier test had a higher serial number.
So we collected data from as many Serbian test certificates as we could to plot these confirmation codes on a timeline.
Each dot on the graph above represents a single confirmation code on a test certificate we obtained.
Of these, 21 were provided by BBC colleagues based in Serbia, all issued by the Institute of Public Health.
A further 35 were obtained from Milovan Suvakov, a Serbian research scientist based in the US, who had been posting some of his own data on Twitter.
He sent us the PDF files for all these results - some redacted to protect identities.
The confirmation codes in all cases slotted into the same chronological timeline as our initial batch sent by BBC colleagues and showed that the earlier the test result date, the lower the confirmation code.
The only outlier of all the confirmation codes we've plotted was Mr Djokovic's positive test on 16 December.
We have tests in our sample from 16 December as well as from the days either side.
They all follow the expected pattern with confirmation numbers increasing chronologically.
If you then take the confirmation code for Mr Djokovic's positive test on 16 December (7371999), it fits on our line between the test code results we have for 25 December (7366969) and 28 December (7415312).
This would seem to suggest a test from between these two later dates.
We know that the two tests taken by Mr Djokovic were processed in different laboratories, and it's possible that these labs were issued with different batches of confirmation codes.
This might explain why his first test has a higher code than his second.
However, in our list of confirmation codes, we have two that were processed in the same lab as Mr Djokovic's positive test (two days and four days after his sample). They both have lower confirmation codes.
In addition, the test results we gathered were processed at eight different labs, and there is nothing in the data to suggest different labs have separate batches of confirmation codes.
"There is always the possibility for a glitch," says Djordje Krivokapic, a specialist in data and digital security.
"But if that were the case, there would be a simple explanation," he says. "I don't see why the state authorities wouldn't just say that."
We've put all our findings in this report to the Institute of Public Health of Serbia, as well as the government's Office of Information Technology.
We've tried on multiple occasions and through various channels, but have not yet had a response.
We also contacted Mr Djokovic's team and invited them to explain the discrepancies, but haven't heard back from them.
Source: BBC News
on 29-01-2022 03:23 PM
Worth repeating.....
on 29-01-2022 05:06 PM
Sorry Countess, my eyes glazed over when I saw your TLDR post.
Went back and read it, and found some interesting info.
Thank you.
on 29-01-2022 05:33 PM
Me too - just the upshot would be good.
on 30-01-2022 10:06 AM
@rogespeed wrote:
As per results is not unreasonable that prior infection qualifies for vaxxx status
---------------------
Prior infection does qualify for delay in vaccination/booster shots in some jobs.
It doesn't give someone vaxx status though and nor should it as statistics need to be accurate and infection and vaccination are 2 different things and should be recorded as such.
But if you actually read the covid hotline info and so on, you'll read of the period of grace given to people after infection before they would need to be classified as close contacts and enter isolation again etc
For Novak though, this is beside the point as the conditions for entry to the tennis specifically excluded prior infection alone as a qualifier to get to play. We can argue till the cows come home about whether that is reasonable or unreasonable but that is part of the requirements for entry into the competition. As such, Novak or his manager should have known beforehand they might have a problem. I'd suggest they knew that but tried to get around the rules.
on 08-03-2022 11:06 PM
Leftards applaud most lies and corruptions.......you will get the payback. PRIDE always comes before a fall. Ciao.