Game, set and match for Novax Djokovic - it would seem.
Foreseeable chain of events, and easily predictable outcome. Would seem to be a calculated move, but odd as the likelihood of a negative outcome for his "brand" seems probable.
All professional sports have long ago become big money business, so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised.
The world number one was held in the city's airport for several hours before border officials announced he had not met entry rules and would be deported. As mentioned above, Border Force carry more weight than Tennis officials.
It needed to happen to send a message, thin end of the wedge etc.
I heard this morning that Italy are making vaccinations compulsory for over 50's. Now there's a news item to really get the anti-vaxxers stirred up!
Not convinced by Italian's compulsory stance. Think it might be a dangerous road. I removed the rest of my initial post because i was of the opinion that I couldn't garner my thoughts clearly enough to make sense to anyone but me. Sorry Wrightpayne and Doug. Basically to clarify i said "No compulsory vaccination but consequences of choices made"
I'm with you WB - choices and consequences. We should all have complete control of what goes in our bodies whilst we are of sound mind.
Believing you can have complete control of anything is an illusion.
I don't believe that mandatory vaccination for Covid is required, but I can imagine situations where it would be valid.
I am completely in agreement about there being consequences to peoples choices.
This is good on the unvaccinated
1.6K Roadsport SV
"Why is logic so absent by authorities. Compulsory vaccination is an absolute no no. I mean fundamental to basic human rights. However if you don't want to be vaccinated (again a fundamental human right) then that should be accepted but you have to then also accept that you will not get certain aspects of life available to you. (entry into shops, priority hospital treatment restaurant access etc) The choice is yours to make. Can someone please enlighten me as to why this is so complicated. I must be missing some basic tenet. i'm actually serious, it's a genuine question. What am i missing. What makes anything compulsory to your own body? I can think of nothing."
Most people nowadays go for some version of Mill's threshold: Strong support for personal liberty up to the point where there is a risk of harm to others. (But it's still worth noting that this is a very modern view of ethics and not what was taken for granted for most of human history.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
I think that you're following something similar. I'm sorry if I've got that wrong.
For a communicable disease you've listed some specific applications of that threshold. But you could have included working in the proximity of others, walking down the street, and using public transport. So the limitations could be very stringent and still consistent with that threshold.
Then there's the question of detection and enforcement. This includes an enormous helping of pragmatism. It might not be feasible to check vaccination status in each of those situations. But it might be feasible to check each individual if you uncouple that check from the specific situation. Or to vaccinate everyone and then be sure that each situation is covered. So that sets up a possible conflict between the ideal response and the feasible response. Something has to give: harm to others from avoidable disease because enforcement isn't possible in practice or loss of freedom for a few who don't want to be vaccinated?
That's the serious answer.
But some examples of what's being described as "compulsory vaccination" would be welcome. In practice those programmes tend to have quite a wide range of exceptions.
PS: This ignores conspiracy theories. And they're relevant because if the data used to set the threshold are deliberate lies then the threshold can't be put in the right place.
PPS: I disagree about the prioritisation of medical care. And this came up in another recent thread. It's better to base this on current need rather than some judgement of whether the need for care was caused by personal choices.
Yes JK your PPS is correct and of course relevant to the Hippocratic Oath. I think the area of difficulty is the perceived threat from (in this case) the virus. As an example, If it's morbidity rate was say 40% regardless of age i think views would change dramatically.