Djokovic deported

[Scott777]

Yes The country has a firm set of rules. Djokovic appears to have - let's say - mislead the authorities and slip past the rules. If Australians have to abide by them why should a Serbian with little regard for anyone be any different? If rules don't matter anarchy reigns.

And the reason for the rule of being vaccinated?

[T00ts]

For yourself, you can certainly make that decision.  But, not forgetting that the thread is about Djokovic, the point is: would the vaccine stop the lurgy from making him ill?  That depends on what risk there is to him.  He is young and healthy.  The risk of Moronic is probably less than it is from a cold, and certainly won't put him in an ICU.  So is there any reason for Australia to make him have it, before he is let in?

Yes The country has a firm set of rules. Djokovic appears to have - let's say - mislead the authorities and slip past the rules. If Australians have to abide by them why should a Serbian with little regard for anyone be any different? If rules don't matter anarchy reigns.

[Scott777]

But transmission isn't the point as far as I am aware. The vaccine limits the degree of illness. At the beginning Covid was attacking in all sorts of ways but mostly lungs. As I understand it the vaccine is and never has been a total protection but should help to stop us needing ICU medical intervention. On that basis I am happy to accept what it does particularly since my lungs are already damaged.

For yourself, you can certainly make that decision.  But, not forgetting that the thread is about Djokovic, the point is: would the vaccine stop the lurgy from making him ill?  That depends on what risk there is to him.  He is young and healthy.  The risk of Moronic is probably less than it is from a cold, and certainly won't put him in an ICU.  So is there any reason for Australia to make him have it, before he is let in?

[T00ts]

But transmission isn't the point as far as I am aware. The vaccine limits the degree of illness. At the beginning Covid was attacking in all sorts of ways but mostly lungs. As I understand it the vaccine is and never has been a total protection but should help to stop us needing ICU medical intervention. On that basis I am happy to accept what it does particularly since my lungs are already damaged.

[Scott777]

I have accepted that vaccines make little difference to transmission ,and this is the important bit , IN HOUSEHOLD SETTINGS .

Fair enough.  Respect where it's due.  Just out of curiosity, WHY do you think this is the case?  Could it mean the vaccines don't inhibit the reproduction of the virus?  The point is, if they don't reduce transmission indoors, would you expect them to work better outside?

[Streetwalker]

Well sorry thats bollocks.

Mealy mouthed words yet again streetwalker.

Throughout this thread you have claimed numerous times the vaccine reduces transmission. No context , just this continual empty statement .

On the second page of this thread scott replied to you by saying this...


to which you immediately replied accusing him of passing of disinformation and conspiracy theories , and your parting shot in your post was this...

So you hadnt accepted vaccines made little difference to transmission. clearly the headline of your link was implying otherwise , to which i repsonded that the content was different in your link to your headline , and asked if you had actually read the link rather than just taking the headline at face value.
Neither of us need to. Clearly anyone with a brain not cowed into terror by covid can see the vaccine as scott says is making insignificant difference to transfer. That isnt cherry picking the data i want and ignoring the rest , that is the sum of the argument.

You are the one who keeps repeating the headline out of context that somehow vaccines stop transmission to justify your coercionist stance.Thats what the discussion is about...personal choice. You seem to only support personal choice and freedoms when it fits with what you want , and life doesnt work like that.
Minimal . There you go again , out of context mealy words where in short yet again you are accepting risk while decrying others for doing the same. Djokovic is no more likely to pass on the virus than you , and the only person he is risking is himself by not having the vaccine. Thats called personal choice.
bollocks. There you go again , trying to take the moral high ground and talk about collective respnsibility. There is no collective responsibility. Only personal.
No .Australia knew djokovics stance , and he knew their rules , and he was let into their country , then they about turned for whatever reason. That about turn has been quashed on appeal.

Once again you perpetuate the lie that the unvaccinated are a threat to everyone , regarding transmission when earlier you contradicted that when you said this...Do you not see how contradictiory and illogical your statements are , which appear to bend with the wind , before returning to the same dogmatic tripe you have been punting all the way through about reductions in transmissions , which are at worst non existant , and at best , by your own admission , negligible.

Do you actually read what is written Thomas or are you just looking to fill your day by writing nonsense ? (Or bollocks as you would put it )
I have accepted that vaccines make little difference to transmission ,and this is the important bit , IN HOUSEHOLD SETTINGS . Now did that register ?  At no other time have I suggested or agreed that transmission is the same in any other situation  . 

And THAT is the sum of the argument 

 

[Sheepy]

Well sorry thats bollocks.

Mealy mouthed words yet again streetwalker.

Throughout this thread you have claimed numerous times the vaccine reduces transmission. No context , just this continual empty statement .

On the second page of this thread scott replied to you by saying this...


to which you immediately replied accusing him of passing of disinformation and conspiracy theories , and your parting shot in your post was this...

So you hadnt accepted vaccines made little difference to transmission. clearly the headline of your link was implying otherwise , to which i repsonded that the content was different in your link to your headline , and asked if you had actually read the link rather than just taking the headline at face value.
Neither of us need to. Clearly anyone with a brain not cowed into terror by covid can see the vaccine as scott says is making insignificant difference to transfer. That isnt cherry picking the data i want and ignoring the rest , that is the sum of the argument.

You are the one who keeps repeating the headline out of context that somehow vaccines stop transmission to justify your coercionist stance.Thats what the discussion is about...personal choice. You seem to only support personal choice and freedoms when it fits with what you want , and life doesnt work like that.
Minimal . There you go again , out of context mealy words where in short yet again you are accepting risk while decrying others for doing the same. Djokovic is no more likely to pass on the virus than you , and the only person he is risking is himself by not having the vaccine. Thats called personal choice.
bollocks. There you go again , trying to take the moral high ground and talk about collective respnsibility. There is no collective responsibility. Only personal.
No .Australia knew djokovics stance , and he knew their rules , and he was let into their country , then they about turned for whatever reason. That about turn has been quashed on appeal.

Once again you perpetuate the lie that the unvaccinated are a threat to everyone , regarding transmission when earlier you contradicted that when you said this...Do you not see how contradictiory and illogical your statements are , which appear to bend with the wind , before returning to the same dogmatic tripe you have been punting all the way through about reductions in transmissions , which are at worst non existant , and at best , by your own admission , negligible.

Making them defend the indefensible which anyone can read for themselves isn't so bad though. 

[Scott777]

Scott you see conspiracy where there's none 

I have said before, it is normal to conspire.  That's not a theory.  The BBC is just a profit making organisation.  Do you think they don't secretly discuss how to maximise profit in dishonest ways?  Do you think any company who advertises a product does not conspire to make the product appear better than it really is?

[Thomas]

I read it when Scott first linked it before crimbo  and a few times since  and  accepted /agreed that vaccines made  little change in infection rates in household settings  though argued what the seriousness of those infections would be for those vaccinated

Well sorry thats bollocks.

Mealy mouthed words yet again streetwalker.

Throughout this thread you have claimed numerous times the vaccine reduces transmission. No context , just this continual empty statement .

On the second page of this thread scott replied to you by saying this...

The science actually shows the reduction in transmission is insignificant.  So, will you also be walking, running, driving more slowly, to reduce the chance of bumping into someone by 1% and reduce the chance of injury by 0.01%?

to which you immediately replied accusing him of passing of disinformation and conspiracy theories , and your parting shot in your post was this...

COVID-19: How do vaccinations help stop the spread? | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Have a good evening , Im off to the club for some beer  (vaccinated only )

So you hadnt accepted vaccines made little difference to transmission. clearly the headline of your link was implying otherwise , to which i repsonded that the content was different in your link to your headline , and asked if you had actually read the link rather than just taking the headline at face value.

I'm not going to go over all the data again ,its there for all to see and you can make your own mind up on what parts of it you want to highlight and what parts to ignore .

Neither of us need to. Clearly anyone with a brain not cowed into terror by covid can see the vaccine as scott says is making insignificant difference to transfer. That isnt cherry picking the data i want and ignoring the rest , that is the sum of the argument.

You are the one who keeps repeating the headline out of context that somehow vaccines stop transmission to justify your coercionist stance.

As for going to the pub or anywhere else that's my personal choice

Thats what the discussion is about...personal choice. You seem to only support personal choice and freedoms when it fits with what you want , and life doesnt work like that.

I am fully jabbed and  I test before a night out so am quite confident that the chances of me passing on any virus is , yes ,  Minimal

Minimal . There you go again , out of context mealy words where in short yet again you are accepting risk while decrying others for doing the same. Djokovic is no more likely to pass on the virus than you , and the only person he is risking is himself by not having the vaccine. Thats called personal choice.

And that's all we can do as individuals , our best to help fight the pandemic while getting on with our day and for me being vaccinated is a big part of that fight .

bollocks. There you go again , trying to take the moral high ground and talk about collective respnsibility. There is no collective responsibility. Only personal.

Thats basically what the Aussies have asked of Djockovic and every other competitor , while they are asking the Australians to do all they can to reduce the chances of infection/transmission  to do the same .

No .Australia knew djokovics stance , and he knew their rules , and he was let into their country , then they about turned for whatever reason. That about turn has been quashed on appeal.

Once again you perpetuate the lie that the unvaccinated are a threat to everyone , regarding transmission when earlier you contradicted that when you said this...

I read it when Scott first linked it before crimbo  and a few times since  and  accepted /agreed that vaccines made  little change in infection rates in household settings  though argued what the seriousness of those infections would be for those vaccinated

Do you not see how contradictiory and illogical your statements are , which appear to bend with the wind , before returning to the same dogmatic tripe you have been punting all the way through about reductions in transmissions , which are at worst non existant , and at best , by your own admission , negligible.

[cromwell]

So another coincidence.  You are a coincidence theorist.  Rather than the BBC having anyone else on to support their ridiculous narrative, they coincidentally have an actor.  How convenient they find actors who happen to support their narrative.  🤣

Yeah right 

Scott you see conspiracy where there's none similarly coercion,if vaccination is required it's not coercion you can determine not to go there can't you?

[Scott777]

Funny that when the bbc is accused of being anti Tory and brexit.

Of course actors as well as being immune don't have political opinions.

So another coincidence.  You are a coincidence theorist.  Rather than the BBC having anyone else on to support their ridiculous narrative, they coincidentally have an actor.  How convenient they find actors who happen to support their narrative.  🤣

[cromwell]

Of course not.  You are missing the point.  They could have interviewed anyone, and by remarkable coincidence they chose an actor??  BBC have a history of using actors.  Marina Hayter was used in 2018 to say how much she loved Theresa May with her great Brexit deal, and Cameron.  Another remarkable coincidence?

https://youtu.be/uf1Fv5L51pU?t=563

Funny that when the bbc is accused of being anti Tory and brexit.

Of course actors as well as being immune don't have political opinions.

[Scott777]

OK I see actors unlike the rest of the population are immune to all illnesses.

Of course not.  You are missing the point.  They could have interviewed anyone, and by remarkable coincidence they chose an actor??  BBC have a history of using actors.  Marina Hayter was used in 2018 to say how much she loved Theresa May with her great Brexit deal, and Cameron.  Another remarkable coincidence?

https://youtu.be/uf1Fv5L51pU?t=563

[cromwell]

I have never seen or read of anyone adopting the label 'anti-vaxxer'.  That's a media creation, or possibly the Behavioural Insights Team, or some other shady organisation.  Even the minority of people who deny its existence are not adopting the label.  You are just regurgitating a propaganda term.

As for BBC actors, here is a recent actor who appeared on the BBC as a patient.  So, no, it's not clutching at straws.  It does happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_9htD_6fY

OK I see actors unlike the rest of the population are immune to all illnesses.

[Scott777]

First off Scott many of them were self styled anti vaxxers so I didn't name them they adopted that.

I haven't said you have ever said it doesn't exist he did though,taking sides? yes in the respect I highlight the sheer foolishness of his uttering.

And did it occur to me he's a plant? certainly more like a vegetable with his mind process......but you clearly are clutching at straws to come up with that he's been put in place to discredit.

I have never seen or read of anyone adopting the label 'anti-vaxxer'.  That's a media creation, or possibly the Behavioural Insights Team, or some other shady organisation.  Even the minority of people who deny its existence are not adopting the label.  You are just regurgitating a propaganda term.

As for BBC actors, here is a recent actor who appeared on the BBC as a patient.  So, no, it's not clutching at straws.  It does happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_9htD_6fY