• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[COVID-19] General Discussion

To finish the job Bill Clinton started

A lot of colleges are going remote to start the spring semester. It makes sense that these schools will have the built in fall back system when plans go awry. My nephew will be going to a wealthy public (state-funded cause I know public means different things in different areas) so I imagine they'll have a fall back plan if COVID literally never ends. For my sister and I who were sent to the local public school, are asses would have been sent off to boarding school in the COVID area due to the way the rural areas have handled it.

But I'm just so tired of the discourse about it. I'm not an expert but it seems to be like a lot of other things. It is something that will change our world permanently however its not going to end our wold. If you take the right precautions we should be able to go ahead with rather normal lives. I just think some people are so addicted to drama that they need this.
Yeah because Bill ******* Clinton is Australian.
 
NB: The following is cut-and-paste of the abstract. Talking about the performance of elite footballers (young, healthy, no co-morbidities, access to the very best medical knowledge etc etc) after their return to play post-covid. Data collected before the Omicron wave.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused economic shock waves across the globe. Much research addresses direct health implications of an infection, but to date little is known about how this shapes lasting economic effects. This paper estimates the workplace productivity effects of COVID-19 by studying performance of soccer players after an infection. We construct a dataset that encompasses all traceable infections in the elite leagues of Germany and Italy. Relying on a staggered difference-in-differences design, we identify negative short and longer-run performance effects. Relative to their pre-infection outcomes, infected players' performance temporarily drops by more than 6%. Over half a year later, it is still around 5% lower. The negative effects appear to have notable spillovers on team performance. We argue that our results could have important implications for labor markets and public health in general. Countries and firms with more infections might face economic disadvantages that exceed the temporary pandemic shock due to potentially long-lasting reductions in productivity.
 

Attachments

  • 368_Fischer_Reade_Schmal.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 1


One viewpoint of a consultant Anaesthetist in critical care at Kings College hospital challenging the Govt's stance to get all NHS staff vaccinated.
 

So apparently Djokovic had Covid on 16th December. However, for me it shouldn't be a valid exemption. Medical exemptions should be reasons why you can't get the vaccine at all. They shouldn't be for one off conditions like recently testing positive. Yes, he might not be able to get the vaccine immediately after testing positive, but he had plenty of time before that to get it. That makes it a choice not a medical exemption that affects him permanently.

Honestly, I'd be curious to know what the plan was before he got Covid, because at that point he logically wasn't going to play.
 
Was just gonna post. Will be interesting how court case plays out on Monday. It seems like one big mess.

Legally, as I understand it, in Australia it still does not allow him to enter on this visa. As Covid infection in last 6 months is not a medical exemption recognised by the ABF and the federal government told tennis Australia this in November. But TA told players otherwise.
 
Was just gonna post. Will be interesting how court case plays out on Monday. It seems like one big mess.
Huge mess

First is allowing a recent covid infection to be a valid medical exemption, especially 6 months as people have definitely been reinfected in that time. A ridiculous amount of time.
Next you have Djokovic being given permission to come and all authorities signing off in it.
Then you have the Australian PM realising he can benefit from this and back tracking in the face of Australian anger for political points.
Next you have the farce of Djokovic being taken to an Asylum hotel where the conditions are atrocious, highlighting the way asylum seekers are treated by Australia for political theatre.
Finally it all goes to court.

Oh and also in there you have Djokovic's dad comparing him to Jesus.
 
Novak hasn't been open about this from the beginning as well. He announced his first infection from Covid he got when he organised the tour with other players in Croatia in 2020, but kept silent about this second one he caught in December until now. This is a guy who was happy to tell the world that he got a medical exemption to play in Australia.

Novak has contributed to this and the PR mess that has ensued whatever the court decides on Monday.
 
The whole thing has just become another farce that is beyond absurd. However, I still think if they had just said having covid is not a valid medical exemption then this would all have gone away. I say that, but then I imagine Djokovic might well have tried to find a private doctor to give him another reason for a medical exemption. Possibly the mental health one.

On a related note, has anyone watched 'Don't look up' on Netflix? I enjoyed it as it was a ridiculous comedy, but I also left me thinking that satire is pretty much dead now. Not because there aren't good satirist, but because real life has gotten so ridiculous that a satirist can't actually top it. You look at the narratives of Trump, Brexit, covid vaccines, this Djokovic saga. How are you meant to satirise what is already so farcical?
 
Yep loved "Don't look up" as it really summed up the ridiculousness of the political elite and modern western society's hypocrisy in the last 2 years.
 
It was a bit **** in all honestly - ok as a very surface level comedy but as a commentary on climate change (I think it was worked on well before Covid?) it was very on the nose and in nuanced.

Average comedy - very Hollywood esque social commentary
 
Legally, as I understand it, in Australia it still does not allow him to enter on this visa.

It's complicated there are a huge amount of reasons he can enter of which he probably qualifies. He's certainly not coming in just as a fully vaxed citizen because you have to certain countries. Everyone in the Australian Open has probably a different kind visa under one recovery program or something. Otherwise nobody gets in.

Vaccination is quarantine based at the state level so Victoria's rules not Australia's as it has none. Victoria does allow one under having COVID in the last 6 months.
Evidence of medical exemption for overseas travellers is:

A certificate issued by a medical practitioner who is authorised by an overseas government authority or an accredited vaccination provider that is written in English or accompanied by a certified translation, that contains:
The person's name as it appears on their passport
The person's date of birth or passport number
A certification from a medical practitioner that the person is unable to receive a dose, or a further dose, of a COVID-19 vaccine due to a medical contraindication, or an acute medical illness (including where the person has been diagnosed with COVID-19) or a documented diagnosed COVID-19 infection confirmed by a PCR test within the previous 6 months.
Basically the real question as initially reported when he entered the border was did he have correct visa. But none of it is to do with his vaccination status.

Also did he have all the correct documentation on him at the time he tried to enter. In regards to non quarantine.

I'm guessing he didn't. But his appeal will likely succeed as he has nessary evidence now.
 
Yeh, I think that's what is playing out Federal v Victoria state law. Under Victoria state law previous infection recovery in past 6 months is a valid medical exemption to enter the state, but Victoria state don't issue visas so that comes under Federal law where previous infection in last 6 months is not a valid medical exemption for overseas visitors who are not vaccinated. So there is no consistency.

We know Rafa Nadal caught Covid in December but was double vaccinated per Federal Australian law so entered Australia legally under his visa. But Novak was not.

I think That is the crux of It even if Novak can prove it on Monday. If federal law trumps state law in this instance then I think he loses. Still, legally it will be interesting and what it comes down to.
 
Alternative headline BBC elected not to go with is "Study shows less than 50% of hospitalised with Covid-19 confirmed as being admitted specifically for Covid-19". (61 out of 126 in the study)


I would imagine with Omicron being so much more transmissable and infection rates in the community being so high, that this is warping hospitalisation rates to a greater extent than previous variants. It must also be inflating death stats more. Although, there is no doubt Omicron in winter is putting a strain on things.

Also not sure how BBC let this article past the editor, where they mention 300 UK deaths per day from the 2017/18 flu.


And finally. 1st booster holding up well against severe illness after 12 weeks, but risk of becoming mildly infectious massively increases (so personally I'll be advising my elderly relatives to continue isolation for a bit longer, and isolating myself so I can deal with them safely).

 
Last edited:
No 4th booster shot yet, but no doubt it will be an annual jab, possibly combined with Flu jab, in the future is my guess.
 


One viewpoint of a consultant Anaesthetist in critical care at Kings College hospital challenging the Govt's stance to get all NHS staff vaccinated.

Proof that dispite what a frightening number of people think, 100% of doctors aren't 100% infallible. Even if everything that he's saying if correct, it's meaningless without an explanation of why it constitutes a compelling reason not to have the vaccine.
 
Proof that dispite what a frightening number of people think, 100% of doctors aren't 100% infallible. Even if everything that he's saying if correct, it's meaningless without an explanation of why it constitutes a compelling reason not to have the vaccine.
That's wholly the wrong way to go about any intrusive policy making - the onus is on the state to prove why their policy is necessary
 
Top