I agree. He can get jabbed and play or continue to refuse and not play. He has a choice, however binary. I’m just saying the competition/s are less competitive without him in it, and people will question whoever does win because the reigning champion wasn’t allowed to defend his Grand Slam titles.
Why he is at no risk from covid itself and has prevuiosly had covid in June 2020, for the much milder Omnicron variant when he has antibodies already it would be utterly pointless from a medical standpoint. This is more about politics and power now than health !
The clear implication is that the Aussies have little confidence in their domestic measures, which seems to be supported by the vaxed players being withdrawn after testing positive while there.
20% of people who've had COVID develop no anti-bodies, so no protection, so it's not medically pointless. The French government have made it very clear, they're going to penalise those who refuse to get the jab and they're making sure they apply the rules to everyone. They have today announced that people who use fake vaccination passports will be fined a minimum of €1,000 and can be imprisoned for up to three years (which they can avoid by getting vaccinated).
Despite even the office of statistics questioning some of the data, it's amazing how much people buy in to what are often irrational 'rules' that a quick look would show aren't going to achieve what they're aimed for. It often looks like some governments think that they must be seen to be doing 'something' so produce 'something' and then demand everyone sticks to it. I can see the sense in controls to limit the spread, but given the vaxxed are still being sent home, and the passport only really proves you may have had a jab about a year ago, a clear test seems far more robust.
That's because we started playing football, then moved on to tennis and now it's snooker, tomorrow who knows?
A big part of the issue, which they now finally seem to be having to address, is that the data presented is so poorly constructed, you can actually prove several opposing arguments from the same data set, and even get the comments of an expert that would support them. I think sometimes people mistake someone being on a 'expert' panel as being experts in the field they're talking about, when its often not the same thing.
The passport only works if you have to show it. We've had two home games since its introduction and at both of them I've just walked straight past the stewards unchallenged. Added to the fact I have the passport on my phone, a paper copy, and the vaccination and booster cards.
It doesn't work even then, because all it shows is you were jabbed at some point in the past year. You could rock up riddled with covid, and still meet those legal requirements. Yet people still think it's meaningful for some reason.
Please see below for death registrations for 2020 and 2021 (provisional) that were due to COVID-19 and were recorded without any pre-existing conditions, England and Wales. 2020: 9400 (0-64: 1549 / 65 and over: 7851) 2021 Q1: 6483 (0-64: 1560/ 65 and over: 4923) 2021 Q2: 346 (0-64: 153/ 65 and over: 193) 2021 Q3: 1142 (0-64: 512/ 65 and over: 630) https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...hsfromcovid19withnootherunderlyingcauses?s=08
Are you sure??? That doesn’t seem very high at all. Do they have the comparison (same no underlying issues) for normal flu deaths in previous years?
It's the same official ONS data that people describe as the gold standard when it fits their argument.
