Coronavirus thread

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Hurrah!  Is she feeling any after-effects, tiredness, etc.?

Enjoy your walk.

I'd be curious to hear from folks here--particularly any Australians as to what they think about the whole Novak Djokovic situation (fighting not to be deported and be allowed to play in the Australian Open).  I've been following the story fairly carefully after it broke.  Without reiterating everything that I've heard and/or read, it seems like a big mess.  Tennis Australia seemed to be going by one set of rules for medical exemptions from being fully vaccinated and being able to get into the park to play vs. what the ABF allows as legitimate reasons for being allowed into the country in the first place.  Novak apparently stated that he had tested positive for Covid in mid-December and had been given a medical exemption by two panels of medical experts (supposedly the experts didn't know who was asking for the exemptions and only a handle were granted).  He then stated on I believe it was his Facebook page that he had been given a ME, but in the time that it took from him to fly from Dubai to Australia with his team, his visa had been revoked.   I had heard also that he applied for the wrong type of visa?

To make a long (and getting longer) story short, he is now in a "hotel" along with asylum seekers (some of whom have, it seems, been there for YEARS) and at least one other tennis player (rounded up after she had already been playing tennis in Australia for a week).

All kinds of questions here including how come other people managed to get through customs if they had also been given MEs for the same reason as Novak in the first place?  Why would the TA medical experts give out exemptions to tennis players as apparently Craig Tiley had asked questions to the Australian health department and from what I understand been told back in November that everyone had to be *double-jabbed...and then there's also confusion as to how the Victorian government was  involved, if at all, with all of this too.  From what I understand, CT is saying that he received conflicting information from the federal government (I'm having trouble accessing the latest stories at the moment).

*Or have other legitimate medical reasons for not having been fully vaccinated....and I believe then would need to self-quarantine for two weeks?  Non-legitimate including having had tested positive for Covid within the past 6 months.

Can anyone here shed further light on the above?  And last I heard, Novak's lawyers launched an appeal; that will happen at 10 a.m. Monday (Australian time).

Novak had skirted around his vaccination status for ages, and for whatever reason, didn't want to get vaccinated.  From what I've heard, many Australians are furious with him for not getting vaccinated and then wanting to come into Australia--particularly after all of the lock-downs.  I would appreciate any news and/or impressions from what you've heard/read.

PD

Well, this has been quite helpful:  https://twitter.com/BenRothenberg/status/1479288238116196360  Quite an interesting discussion and info.

Though the "plot thickens"...in terms of when he applied for an exemption--and the deadline that they indicated to apply for an ME by--and also when Novak tested positive for Covid, and his participation in events around that time (and also maskless)...when did he receive the results of the testing too?  And how much of this is political maneuvering ahead of elections?   

PD

[Karl Henning]

My wife has finally tested negative over two consecutive days so we will go out for a walk today.

Huzzah!

[Karl Henning]

I know exactly one vaccine-doubter who expresses his doubts intelligently (part of which, in this context, involves the possibility that he is mistaken). And BTW, he is vaccinated. If a doubter expresses himself like an asshole (and even though I'm a proponent of If they tell you who they are, believe them, let's split hairs and say that [expresses himself like an asshole] ≠ [is simply an asshole]), and complains that he's lumped in with the mumbo-jumbo anti-vaxxers, Vulcan could throw snowballs sooner than our hypothetical good-faith vaccine-doubter could very well pin the blame on anyone other than himself.

[fbjim]

The main reason in western countries is that material reality has become so disconnected from people's everyday experience that we are no longer capable of perceiving it. As such, everyone determines what their own reality is, and consensus on facts is not possible.

The most depressing example of this - many of us live in a reality where we are so - to use a buzzword - atomized from communities that a high death count simply doesn't register. So many of us no longer live in situations where everyone knows when someone on the block, or in the town dies - everything just goes on unless it happens to a close friend.

[Todd]

The most depressing example of this - many of us live in a reality where we are so - to use a buzzword - atomized from communities that a high death count simply doesn't register. So many of us no longer live in situations where everyone knows when someone on the block, or in the town dies - everything just goes on unless it happens to a close friend.

I very seriously doubt GMG offers a reasonable representation of the general population and the experiences of that population.

[greg]

And meanwhile people refuse vaccines. Often the same people who have pointless deadly objects lying around their house.

Someone who leaves guns lying around their house, with kids in it, rather than in a safe in a home without kids, yet is worried about vaccines, is indeed a moron.

The "massive cost" reference was to your stupid proposal to install a camera in every home. Not to vaccine mandates.

Oh ok, gotcha.
"MASSIVE cost and (contrary to your assertion) no real benefit"
this is where I'm confused, I thought I had implied that there would be a huge benefit, being that gun violence wouldn't exist any more.

The one thing people like you won't actually countenance is the thing that actually works: reducing the number of pointless deadly objects you have lying around houses.

I don't own guns, if you are implying that.
Countless criminals/gangs own guns, and they aren't going to give them up if the government is asking them to.
Look, if making them illegal would make them disappear, I'd totally vote on making them illegal.

My impression is that the anti-vax people and the anti-mask people are a pretty big Venn diagram overlap. And are responding to the same sources of disinformation.

You don't seem to be seeing that.

Yeah. Because if you are only looking at mainstream news sources, they are in support of mandates so they have motivation to make it look like anti-vaxxers and anti-mandaters are completely the same because of the term "anti-vaxx" being associated with being anti-previous vaccines (full of crazy people), when, although there is overlap, they are separate things.

Anyways, there is no right or wrong to this issue, there are only tradeoffs/pros and cons, and different people's thoughts should be heard, instead of people being entirely baffled by how others feel, maybe engaging in discussion can help expand understanding. Which is the point of discussion.

[vandermolen]

Thanks so much for the kind comments about my wife which are greatly appreciated 
In answer to PD she is still quite tired although she was still miles ahead of me on our walk today. She has gone to bed early today, leaning me to type away here in peace 

[Madiel]

Why is it that anytime someone refers to "mainstream news sources" my eye twitches?

Anyway, vaccine mandates aren't much of a news story here. As previously mentioned, we don't have to wrestle with huge swathes of the population not wanting to get vaccinated. My sources aren't media organisations. My sources are living in a culture that isn't riven by paranoia.

[Madiel]

As for Novak Djokovic: the current impression I have is that Tennis Australia stuffed up badly. They're busily saying they didn't knowingly mislead the players. I strongly suspect they incompetently misled the players instead.

For one thing, there are indications that they took information that was about being allowed to travel WITHIN Australia, between different States, and applied it to entry into Australia.

I can well believe they might have done that because my professional experience is that people are really, REALLY bad at reading and applying those sorts of little connecting words. Someone could very easily have seen an exemption list on a website page they were referred to and failed to process exactly what the exemptions were for (same as I now see some people talking about Tennis Australia and Victoria granting an exemption without any awareness that that was an exemption to play in Melbourne not an exemption to enter the country).

The federal government would have happily referred Tennis Australia to a website that included information about travelling between States because most of the players ARE travelling between States. There has just been a lead-up tournament in Adelaide, another is in Sydney, and I think there are 1 or 2 others in other States as well. This is relevant information, including to Australian players who don't need a visa to enter the country if they've been playing overseas, but who WOULD at times need permission to cross State borders (same as any Australian has experienced during the pandemic). Plus some of the quarantine requirements have been run by the States throughout, whether you are coming from interstate or overseas.

But there is also evidence that the federal government explicitly told Tennis Australia that prior infection with Covid was not an exemption ground for entering the country, as controlled by federal law.

Faced with a contradiction between this explicit instruction and what they thought they were reading on a website, Tennis Australia seems not to have clarified what was going on.

So my suspicion is high that someone at Tennis Australia believed that one set of criteria was what they needed for all purposes, failing to grasp, despite nearly 2 years of lived experience about how responsibilities in our system are very split on these issues, that a whole summer of Australian tennis with tournaments across the whole country would involve half a dozen different sets of legal rules that wouldn't necessarily be consistent.

[Karl Henning]

Why is it that anytime someone refers to "mainstream news sources" my eye twitches?

Anyway, vaccine mandates aren't much of a news story here. As previously mentioned, we don't have to wrestle with huge swathes of the population not wanting to get vaccinated. My sources aren't media organisations. My sources are living in a culture that isn't riven by paranoia.

I can only dream of vaccine mandates not being a news story in the states.

[Karl Henning]

COVID may become endemic — meaning the virus and its mutations may never disappear

By Hanna Krueger and Mark Arsenault Globe Staff, Updated January 8, 2022, 3:25 p.m.

On the Fourth of July, President Biden peered out on the South Lawn of the White House and made a bold declaration: "We've gained the upper hand against this virus."[wonder if Andrei will consider this a "lie"—kh]

His remarks were met with applause from a crowd eager to heave a sigh of relief for the first time in 16 months. The theme of the celebration? "America's Back Together." The prospect was so promising that Biden's next words hardly registered.

"Don't get me wrong, COVID-19 has not been vanquished. We all know powerful variants have emerged," he cautioned.

Six months later, America is averaging nearly 650,000 cases a day. Officially, there have been 7.4 million cases of COVID-19 since Christmas, meaning one positive test per every 50 Americans.

The virus did not cooperate with the president's Independence Day vision. It mutated. A lot.

"Frankly, I'm still sort of in shock at what is happening at this stage of the pandemic," admitted Akiko Iwasaki, a virologist at Yale University studying the mechanisms of immune defense against viruses.

But even within this current viral blizzard, there are glimmers of hope. Signs that Omicron is less virulent than Delta. That the variant's dozens of mutations may blunt the effectiveness of the vaccine, but do not obliterate the protection the shots offer. That treatments developed these past two years can mitigate some of the most dire cases. That there will one day come a time when we are not at the mercy of the virus, our plans derailed, texts filled with dread, emergency rooms full, and eyes glued to little pink lines on rapid tests.

"I don't think there will be a certain day we declare victory," said Dr. Marc Lipsitch, director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "But we could be moving toward a world in which the virus is endemic but it's less harmful to us — not because the virus has changed, but because we have."

To become endemic means that COVID-19 may never disappear — gone the hopes of a zero COVID future — but it may be defanged by layers of immunity, gained through natural infection and a regular vaccine regimen, as well as a menu of antiviral treatments that lessen the severity of symptoms. The virus will no doubt still pose potentially grave threats to the elderly and medically vulnerable, but the scale of suffering could be much lower, closer to what we endured in the worst flu seasons before COVID's arrival.

To be clear: We are nowhere near that point. The worst week of a particularly virulent flu season might see some 35,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths in the United States. Right now, COVID-19 is responsible for roughly 850,000 hospitalizations and 10,400 deaths a week.[emphasis mine—kh] And those stark figures are being tallied in a country with widely available vaccines and several treatments for those infected. As we enter the third calendar year of the pandemic, much of the world still has little access to vaccines at all.

Given the yawning discrepancies, many experts are understandably reluctant to speculate about how the pandemic may end. The idea of learning to live with a virus that continues to strain hospitals and kill thousands of people a day is a grim mental exercise.

"Tied directly to the question of how we can get ourselves to endemic status is the question of how many people are we willing to let die or be permanently disabled in order to get to that point," said Megan Ranney, an emergency physician at Rhode Island Hospital who has served on the front lines of the pandemic for two years now.

In a letter sent to the student body in December, Northeastern University chancellor Ken Henderson declared: "As we move into this endemic phase of the pandemic, our job is to continue to control COVID effectively, not let COVID control us."

Far larger institutions and government agencies have quietly begun to grapple with the question of how the country learns to live with COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's controversial move to slash the recommended time in isolation for people who catch COVID, from 10 days to five, was rooted in a determination to keep society running even amid record-high case counts.

Shorter quarantines could well hasten the already lightning spread of Omicron. It is likely the costs — death, the possibility of widespread long COVID, and nearly crippled hospitals — will be significant. But the astonishing tempo and reach of the Omicron variant could signal a turning point in the pandemic, some experts say.

"It is possible that Omicron is the last big variant and we will see variations, but they will mostly be sons of Omicron and not pose too big a threat to immunity. This is a highly transmissible variant so it's going to be hard to displace it," said William Moss, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "In this case, Omicron would indeed be the last big wave and we settle into an endemic pattern where COVID is with us, but not posing an existential threat. If I were a betting man, that would be my bet."

He then added: "But I am not a betting man with this virus."

Still, such projections are bolstered by recent bright spots in the data. South Africa's December Omicron wave peaked quickly, and case numbers have been plummeting since Dec. 18. In the wake of the South African spike, researchers have found evidence that people who have recovered from Omicron appear to be resistant to the Delta variant, according to a small study published by South African scientists in late December.

But it is wishful thinking to think that the wildfire spread of Omicron will usher in the final transition from pandemic to endemic without a continuing vaccination push and surveillance efforts to trace the virus's trail.

"We absolutely cannot just throw up our hands and say, you know, we're done with this virus," said Ranney. "Because you'd think we'd know this by now, but the virus does not magically disappear."

In a series of op-eds published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Thursday, six of the public health experts who made up Biden's now defunct COVID-19 advisory board emphasized the need to put infrastructure in place that prevents the country from being stuck in "a perpetual state of emergency."

The essays dripped with measured criticism of the administration's handling of the current surge. Among their sprawling list of pleas: vaccine mandates, investment in next-generation vaccines that match circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, affordable and accessible testing and therapeutic interventions, and a comprehensive surveillance system for emerging variants.

The last two years of shutdown and sacrifice have given researchers the chance not only to develop vaccines but also crucial medical treatments that could also dramatically improve our ability to live with COVID. When they become broadly available, oral antiviral drugs like the Pfizer pill Paxlovid could be game changers in treating infections in vulnerable people, much like Tamiflu treats influenza.

"With these new oral therapies, absolutely I can imagine a place where the virus is around but as no more than a nuisance," said Asish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.

But the scale of their success hinges on the availability of widespread testing: We have to know who is infected to know whom to treat. The new regimens dramatically reduce the risk of COVID-19, but infected high-risk patients must be able to get tested, and then treated, quickly enough for the pills to make a difference. Paxlovid's promising results assume the drugs can be administered in a narrow window — as early as 72 hours after symptoms emerge. US testing capacity continues to be plagued by a host of problems, including supply-chain bottlenecks and staffing shortages, that have left many Americans waiting several hours to days for results.

Even so, the supply does currently exist to use these treatments widely. The New York Times reported that New York City in one week burned through all 1,300 treatment courses of Paxlovid that it received in late December. On Tuesday, the US government doubled its order, but the drug won't be plentiful until April at the earliest.

"None of these [treatments] are useful today so unfortunately we're dealing with this surge without them. It is brutal," said Howard Koh, former assistant secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

"And it is going to be brutal for the next several weeks."

As our ability to stave off the worst of COVID-19 improves, the virus will never truly go away. That leaves open the possibility that it will once again mutate into a "variant of concern." While Omicron's 50 mutations have seemingly made the strain less virulent, they also make clear just how adaptable this virus is — and the humility required in any discussions about what the future may hold.

"The big wild card for me is the emergence of a new variant and its ability to escape immunity," said Moss, of Johns Hopkins. "There is the extreme scenario where a potential variant has complete immune escape and basically acts like a new virus. Had Omicron not come about with so many mutations then this wouldn't be as big of a wild card, but it did."

Early detection of extreme mutations will enable scientists to test and tweak current vaccines and treatments so that they remain effective against new variants. (Think about hemming a mother's wedding dress for a daughter rather than sewing a whole new one.) If a health system or laboratory is too slow to detect and report a concerning variant, the chance to contain its spread and, in potentially dire cases, adapt to its mutations will come too late.

Omicron's swift ascent and the sprawling testing lines it has caused have provided a glimpse at how quickly COVID-19 could rage back if a new variant capable of evading natural and vaccine immunity arose.

"I would be remiss to say that I was confident because this virus again and again has fooled us," said Ranney. "We've declared victory more than once before and we've been wrong."

[Madiel]

Karl, all every consistent with other things I've seen. But then I suspect my media is very mainstream.

[Holden]

I'd be curious to hear from folks here--particularly any Australians as to what they think about the whole Novak Djokovic situation (fighting not to be deported and be allowed to play in the Australian Open).  I've been following the story fairly carefully after it broke.  Without reiterating everything that I've heard and/or read, it seems like a big mess.  Tennis Australia seemed to be going by one set of rules for medical exemptions from being fully vaccinated and being able to get into the park to play vs. what the ABF allows as legitimate reasons for being allowed into the country in the first place.  Novak apparently stated that he had tested positive for Covid in mid-December and had been given a medical exemption by two panels of medical experts (supposedly the experts didn't know who was asking for the exemptions and only a handle were granted).  He then stated on I believe it was his Facebook page that he had been given a ME, but in the time that it took from him to fly from Dubai to Australia with his team, his visa had been revoked.   I had heard also that he applied for the wrong type of visa?

As has been evident throughout the last couple of years, communication between groups over everything Covid in Australia has been poor to downright non-existent and with two levels of government as well as a sporting body involved, this has been shown to be the case. The incompetence is largely on Tennis Australia's part and this is why I think so.

The Djokovic vaccination situation has been circulating in the Australian media for at least six months now with speculation about whether he is eligible to be allowed to play. TA, has had plenty of time to do some research and consult with the correct people to ensure the status of their major draw card. What TA apparently has not done (though this is not confirmed) is advise Novak Djokovic of the exact legal rights and requirements regarding entry into Australia. A couple of well placed phone calls by TAs legal team could have had this clarified months ago. That said, nobody has asked any of the other players coming from overseas what they were informed about when they made application to take part in the tournament. Did they get the information they needed? Was it accurate? Did it cover all contingencies? we don't know yet.

If that information, which should have been in writing, was not accurate/present then Djokovic has grounds to feel aggrieved and possibly be able to take legal action. The public anger stems from double standards where for many months, bona fide Australian citizens have not been able to return home while a host of media, sports and entertainment stars who are not even Australians have been welcomed with open arms and jumped ahead of them in the queue. Aussies hate queue jumpers with a passion!

From my perspective it's simple (or should be). There are a set of rules and they should apply equally to everybody who wants to enter the country. Djokovic's apparent prevarication regarding vaccine status has certainly not helped his cause and the comments his father made to the media (taken out of context or not) have probably made things worse.

While writing this a couple of question has cropped up. If I was wanting to fly to Australia, surely I would need to provide documentation to the airline that is landing me in Australia (Emirates?) that I was eligible to enter. Also, don't the ABF have a role in this also? After all, theirs is the final say.

In short this is a clusterf*** of the highest order.

[Madiel]

If I was wanting to fly to Australia, surely I would need to provide documentation to the airline that is landing me in Australia (Emirates?) that I was eligible to enter.

I've been thinking about this aspect too, about how he got on the plane.

If it's only checked by the airline, rather than any Australian government officials, then I think this can be answered: he did have documentation. He had a visa. He had a letter from Tennis Australia about a medical exemption, which might well have said "he has been granted a medical exemption" without going into the exact details of the grounds for it. And even if it did go into the flawed ground for the exemption, I'm not sure that would have been something that airline staff would be sufficiently well-versed in.

So I can well believe that he presented to the airline as someone who could enter Australia. I can well believe that Djokovic himself believed that he could enter Australia.

He would hardly be the first person in the world to arrive in a country and only then discover that they can't get in. He'd just be an unusually high-profile example. Certainly I can remember getting an authority to travel to the USA and being aware that USA immigration could decide to refuse me entry. I actually had dramas crossing back into the USA from Canada. The border guards in Vermont insisted I had to pay for some new thing before they would allow me entry. I knew they were wrong (and this was proved on a later trouble-free crossing on the west coast) but I didn't dare argue with them about it.

[Florestan]

Novak Djokovic wins court battle, free to play in Australian Open

[Madiel]

Novak Djokovic wins court battle, free to play in Australian Open

Until the government cancels his visa anyway, which it very well might.

From what I can gather (with Australian lawyer's hat on) it's a decision that the cancellation process was improper, not a decision about the merits of cancellation. This is pretty typical for administrative law.  It's not a conclusion that his visa can't be cancelled. It's a conclusion that the process of cancellation was flawed (much was made of the timeline and how Djokovic didn't have a proper opportunity to get help and clarification from Tennis Australia).

The federal government pretty clearly has the view that Tennis Australia did the wrong thing and gave assurances to players, including Djokovic, that Tennis Australia was not authorised to give.  And 2 other people in the same situation have now left the country. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if his visa still got cancelled.

I'm even firmer now in the view that this wasn't Djokovic's fault personally. He relied on what he was told by Tennis Australia and the Victorian Government. What he was told by Tennis Australia simply seems to have been inconsistent with what the federal government had told Tennis Australia. The question in my mind is whether the federal government will decide to hold off, given that Djokovic wasn't personally to blame and given the political fallout if they kick him out of the country. But there might actually be bigger political fallout, within Australia, if they don't kick him out. Either way it's going to be a mess.

[Florestan]

Until the government cancels his visa anyway, which it very well might.

From what I can gather (with Australian lawyer's hat on) it's a decision that the cancellation process was improper, not a decision about the merits of cancellation. This is pretty typical for administrative law.  It's not a conclusion that his visa can't be cancelled. It's a conclusion that the process of cancellation was flawed (much was made of the timeline and how Djokovic didn't have a proper opportunity to get help and clarification from Tennis Australia).

The federal government pretty clearly has the view that Tennis Australia did the wrong thing and gave assurances to players, including Djokovic, that Tennis Australia was not authorised to give.  And 2 other people in the same situation have now left the country. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if his visa still got cancelled.

I'm even firmer now in the view that this wasn't Djokovic's fault personally. He relied on what he was told by Tennis Australia and the Victorian Government. What he was told by Tennis Australia simply seems to have been inconsistent with what the federal government had told Tennis Australia. The question in my mind is whether the federal government will decide to hold off, given that Djokovic wasn't personally to blame and given the political fallout if they kick him out of the country. But there might actually be bigger political fallout, within Australia, if they don't kick him out. Either way it's going to be a mess.

I think this is a very accurate assessment.

Now, if you heard Romanian political commentators you wouldn't believe your ears and couldn't help LYAOL ROTFL. They are basically split in two camps: (1) Djokovic is an anti-vaxxer asshole who created the whole mess singlehandedly in order to push the anti-vaxx agenda, and (2) Djokovic is a hero of freedom of thought and speech and a victim of Aussie totalitarianism --- both of them sheer nonsense.

[MusicTurner]

When checking, it can be seen that the poor kid has hit the ball successfully for more than 153 mio dollars, to which can be added sponsorships, appearances etc.

[Madiel]

I think this is a very accurate assessment.

Now, if you heard Romanian political commentators you wouldn't believe your ears and couldn't help LYAOL ROTFL. They are basically split in two camps: (1) Djokovic is an anti-vaxxer asshole who created the whole mess singlehandedly in order to push the anti-vaxx agenda, and (2) Djokovic is a hero of freedom of thought and speech and a victim of Aussie totalitarianism --- both of them sheer nonsense.

View (1) is not that far away from the view of many Australians. Djokovic might be admired but he is not often loved in the way that Federer is, and that was before any of us had heard about coronaviruses. The business where he organised his own tournament and there was much infection was met with a fair bit of scorn here. The level of sympathy for him right now is fairly low, and the only real reason he has sympathy is because plenty of Australians have first-hand experience of how complicated our pandemic rules have been. Against that is a sense that he just had to get vaccinated instead of believing some very weird and unscientific things. Nadal's opinion on the situation is getting quoted.

View (2) is quite possibly found in the Serbian-Australian community which is pretty obsessed with him.

I can say from personal experience that being at a match at the Australian Open when a Serb is playing can be pretty annoying... this is not unique, in that there are many ethnic groups in Australia who will come out and support a player from the relevant part of the world. But the Serbs definitely rank among the noisier... and my view is probably heavily coloured by the fantastic 5-set match that was nearly ruined by the 2 guys behind me who were paying almost no attention to the tennis, beyond cheering when it was time for Serbs to cheered, and who spent several hours rambling endlessly about all sorts of inane stuff (including which girls in the crowd they wanted) until I finally turned around and told them to shut the fuck up.

Anyway, if Djokovic does end up playing this year, I suspect the atmosphere at his matches will be insufferable. He's the kind of player that will probably just be spurred on by that.

[Karl Henning]

When checking, it can be seen that the poor kid has hit the ball successfully for more than 153 mio dollars, to which can be added sponsorships, appearances etc.

I feel sorry for him. I wouldn't know what to do with all that money.