Novak Djokovic is the best male tennis player in the world. He would very likely win the upcoming US Open if he were able to play in it. But he can't. US immigration rules require that foreigners can enter the country only if they've been vaccinated against COVID, and Djokovic has steadfastly refused to do that.
Vinay Prasad says this is ridiculous:
Djokovic is one of the best tennis players of all time. He is currently vying for most majors of any champion (21 to date), competing with Rafael Nadal (22) and Roger Federer (20). But there will forever be an asterisk next to those comparisons because Djokovic is banned from entering the U.S. to compete in this year’s U.S. Open because of a byzantine rule that non-U.S. citizens cannot enter the country without proof of vaccination.
This rule makes no sense from a medical or public health standpoint. Consider the facts. Djokovic is 35 years old, and he is in terrific health. He has had and recovered from Covid-19 twice. This—and the fact that current variants are less lethal than prior strains—means that Djokovic’s odds of doing well were he to get sick with Covid-19 again are remarkably good, and lower than his risk of seasonal influenza.
....Now consider Djokovic’s risk to others. At least 140 million Americans have had and recovered from Covid-19 as of January (this number is higher today), and both vaccinated and unvaccinated can spread the disease. Data shows, when infected, that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals shed virus at similar rates and for similar durations. Forcing Djokovic to get vaccinated won’t protect others. Sars-cov-2 will circulate in the United States for a thousand years whether we let Djokovic in, or keep him out forever.
Then, there are the absurd contradictions in our current rules. Unvaccinated American citizens can move freely in and out of the country without testing. Unvaccinated people can pack the stadium to watch this year’s U.S. Open, where face masks are optional. There is no vaccine or testing requirement to attend. Worst of all, Novak Djokovic competed in last year’s U.S. Open, where he made the finals before the travel rule barring his entry was in place.
Some of this is a little iffy, but let's go ahead and accept it all as true. It's close enough. In fact, there's an additional consideration that makes Prasad's case even stronger: Djokovic is OK with daily testing, which means that in practice he'd probably be safer than folks who have been vaccinated.
But despite all this, Prasad is still wrong. Whether it makes sense or not, the US has a rule in place. Nor is this rule byzantine in any way. It's simple: if you want to enter the country and you aren't a US citizen, you have to be vaccinated. Everyone is required to follow this rule.
So the real question is whether a celebrity like Djokovic should get a special exemption, and the obvious answer is no. Just because you're famous doesn't mean you get a pass on obeying the law, even if you think the law is stupid.
POSTSCRIPT: And the law is stupid. Most likely we should just suspend it. At the very least we should follow the lead of most other countries and require either vaccination or testing for entry. That would put the whole thing to rest and wouldn't endanger anyone.
The man in perfect health has had symptomatic COVID at least twice. Something seems off about the conception of what makes Balkan Slavic genes superior to the rest of humanity.
Perfect health!? Perfect health!? That's rich.
Bosniak NBA pro Yusuf Nurkic should be allowed to beat The Djoker to the white meat with the femur bone of Nurkic's dead grandmother.
"It's simple: if you want to enter the country and you aren't a US citizen, you have to be vaccinated. Everyone is required to follow this rule."
Uh, is this a joke. Anyone seen the border lately?
So much fentanyl (interdicted).
Yeah. Sounds like they're getting almost all of it.
😉
Do you know what interdicted means?
I took what you were saying is that they're stopping a lot of fentanyl at the border (which is true). My point is that obviously a lot more is coming through. Were you saying something different?
From China, via Canada, maybe.
Has nothing to do with Mexico.
Again, not trying to be coy, are you saying that fentanyl isn't coming through the Mexican border? If that's what you're saying, please don't google it or you may be disappointed.
If not, I apologize for, again, not tracking.
So let Novak walk across the Arizona border. In August. Problem solved.
I apologize if I left the impression that I'm the least bit interested in Novak Djokovic or tennis. In fairness though, walking across the border is a lot easier for a lot of people than going through customs, which is why they do it that way...
Are you a coyote?
Nah, but if I was, I wouldn't leave people to die in the back of trucks. I value human life too much.
You are a more humane grifter than Greg "Legs" Abbott, I'll give you that.
I won't pretend to be following this super closely. I get that he's busing illegals to sanctuary cities. I'm confused what he's doing wrong.
The federal government is responsible for protecting the border, but they are balking. Texas is saying they don't want the illegal immigrants and are passing them along where possible. Sanctuary cities are saying they are welcome there (but, ironically, they don't actually seem to want them).
What's the problem then? Is Texas supposed to do the dirty work that the federal government and sanctuary cities won't do simply because of proximity to the border? That seems unfair to Texas. Libs pay lip service, but don't actually have to get their hands dirty in the process? They're up for making a soundbite, but not for actually helping?
In the end, we're probably a lot closer to agreeing on immigration than you think. I totally recognize and see the need for immigration. It's a numbers game and Americans aren't having enough children. I just don't think the current system is terribly effective.
Let's blow it open, invite these people over, give them papers and a path to citizenship. This brown underclass isn't working for me and these people are political fodder for both sides. It's disgusting, imo.
"In fairness though, walking across the border is a lot easier for a lot of people than going through customs"
This is beyond asinine. "going through customs" is what happens if you cross a border on a road, or through an airport, which is how the vast, vast majority of entries/exits to countries happen.
So, say, you didn't have the paperwork to go through customs. Would you then say it would be easier to cross the border somewhere else?
Not sure if you're being coy or generally confused by my statement, but I don't see anything asinine about it.
I always want to hear people making this argument explain to me where the cut-off should be for "above-the-rules" people.
They seem to be happy to make claims that this or that person should be, I think on the basis that other tennis-fans (or whoever) will agree that this is some sort of exceptional case. But rules governing many millions of people have to have rules for exceptions for obvious reasons. So, what rule are they proposing?
Is it economic impact? if we assume Djokovic would generate $X million, does that mean antivax execs for firms generating that much should also get passes?
For some strange reason these folks don't seem to want to explain how special they think someone needs to be before they should officially be more equal than others.
It works both ways these days. How down-on-your-luck and out of control do people have to be before they should officially be more equal than others?
So, when it comes to the plight of Rohingya Muslins in Myanmar, you stand with Mark Zuckerberg in the "Not my problem/Let them die" camp?
Isn’t that, in effect, what the collective we have decided about Afghanistan?
Only if facebook had spent the previous twenty years propping up the right of Rohingya not to be subjugated/exterminated by rival factions.
Nah. I won't lie and say I'm up to date on Myanmar. However, I'm truly troubled by the slave labor in China and Qatar. It's not much, but I try to do little things like quit watching FIFA soccer. I think it would be difficult to enjoy a soccer game knowing how many people died building the stadium and accommodations.
Anyway, my comment was in regards to allowing criminals in America to act anyway they'd like depending on how "oppressed" we consider them. Essentially, I can't take a dump on the sidewalk without getting a ticket and/or arrested, but a homeless guy can because he's down and out.
Obviously, just one example off the top of my head. I'm sure I could do better, but assuming you're being sincere, I'm guessing you know what I'm getting at.
My gosh, this is your pathetic example? The homeless guy literally doesn't have a place to take a dump no matter how much he wanted too. While you doing so on the street would be purely out of a desire to do so.
Regardless of this, odds are that if that homless guy gets seen by one of the too many bully officers that are prevalent in many police departments, he wouldn't only get ticketed but probably get thrown in jail with fines he's unlikely to ever be able to pay back, and sooner than later a criminal record that will haunt him forever.
But sure, in your mind he is the one getting the lucky breaks.
Dontre Hamilton wasn't taking a shit.
He didn't even have his pants down.
(To be fair to the officer who shot him, though, Hamilton was acting out (even if due schizophrenia). He was not so innocent a lamb as the 14 year old Laotian boy that John Balcerczak & Joe Gabrish handed over to Jeffrey Dahmer.
& I would also like to add, the Grafton Police Department should get more shit for hiring Gabrish as a detective; the Milwaukee Police Association got what was coming to them when Union President Balcerczak defrauded their bank account; & Phillip Arreola & Glenda Cleveland did nothing wrong.)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently cops shot a guy because he was crapping? If so, I'm with you, that's terrible.
Still, why is it so difficult to just say, "yeah, some people are above the law, and yeah, some people are below the law too".
Is it some weird issue to concede anything, no matter how benign? So weird the pushback I'm getting on something that's so OBVIOUS.
IFGAF why someone's dumping on the sidewalk. That's adding emotion to a logical argument and totally irrelevant to my point.
To be clear, you're saying that if I looked up the average homeless person in SF they'd have a record for dumping on the sidewalk? Is that what you're telling me? I believe we both know that's not true.
I'm happy to concede that they probably have a better reason for crapping on the sidewalk. Why isn't it just as easy for you to just concede my original point that some people may be above the law, but some people are certainly below it?
Either way, are you really happy with trying to have a society function that way? Wouldn't it be great if laws applied to all of us equally?
Are you referring to the recent college debt relief? If so, the answer to your question is all over every news aggregator at the moment - basically every outlet has some version of a "how do I qualify for debt relief" article.
If not, you're doing the same damn thing I mentioned above - strategically failing to be specific because your argument collapses on contact with reality.
I'm definitely not the best at following these string, but if you're referring to me, I clarified above. Nothing to do with college loans.
However, I am encouraging my children (who are currently or will soon, depending on the child, be working their way through college without needing to borrow money) to borrow money anyway.
I'd love to see them take the borrowed money and buy an investment property with it. Then, hopefully, their debt will be wiped away and they'll literally get a free property out of it. How sweet would that be?
Honestly, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. If someone else's kid is good enough to get free money, surely mine is as well....
The anti-vax stuff isn't even the most loathsome thing about Novak Djokovic. This is a man who is friends with, and is willing to be photographed socializing with, Milan Jolovic. Jolovic, for those who are not familiar, was the commander of the Bosnian Serb militia responsible for massacring 8,000 Bosniaks at Srebrenica.
Djokovic is an apologist for mass murder.
You could have just said he's Serbian.
I still regret I never got to a Croatian Eagles v. Milwaukee Serbians AYSO match. Would have liked to see if hate crimes are straight redcards, or yellows plus a warning.
He's always been an insufferable jerk and all around POS as a human being. As good as he is playing tennis, he is equally loathsome as a person in general.
" a byzantine rule that non-U.S. citizens cannot enter the country without proof of vaccination"
I don't think "byzantine" is the word he wants. The rule is dead simple, completely binary. He wants something more like "stupid" or "senseless" or "arbitrary." Arbitrary is usually what people say about a rule they don't like.
But isn't an "arbitrary rule" an oxymoron? What Prasad really wants is an arbitrary exception to a simple rule. Unless different_name has it right and what Prasad really wants is a more complicated rule.
It's not unlike the GQP using Section 42 to keep out Messican & other LatAm illegals, because of COVID, while at the same time suggesting COVID is such a null threat that masks, vaxxx, etc., are unnecessary imposition on Gadsden Principles.
Like your straightforward comments here, & not just because they don't include references to people by names other than their legal ones - sometimes that takes me a while.
Haven't forgiven WJC for ignoring pleas (including my 2 letters) for some effort to work with allies to intervene in some way. That & Rwanda...
I have a talking Bill Climpton doll, but I am a Gary Hart-Janet Reno Democrat.
Bill has his problems.
One has to wonder what other rules celebrities should be exempt from. Is there a list?
And what level of “celebrity” grants you an exemption. Should any laws apply to Tom Brady? Paul McCartney? Beyoncé? Does Ringo get a pass? Robert Fripp? Who decides which celebrities make the cut?
We are in a strange place right now with Covid numbers (cases. hospitalizations and deaths) all going down, but of course we've seen them climb back up in the past (like after going down spring 2021 and then going back up). As a result, with this in flux, unsurprisingly there are mixtures of rules and restrictions at every level that are not exactly consistent, which Prasad is pointing out. But is this really a surprise ?
BTW, the US is far from the only country with this restriction. I had to be vaccinated to go to Canada this summer and I was spending most of my time canoeing in the wilderness and seeing no one.
Djokovic has made a choice that he is free to make, though I think it's a stupid one. The consequence of that choice at this moment in time is that he can't come to the US to play tennis. Not that important.
BTW, I like to watch tennis and Djokovic is the best in the world right now. Too bad he's a moron.
There are a few places where the numbers are increasing, including deaths.
Well now that sounds really unfair to poor Novak. I wonder if there's anything he could have done to solve this problem?
FUCK DJOKOVIC. FUCK HIM WITH A GOD DAMN CRUISE MISSILE.
That is my fucking answer. Get fucked moron.
People have lost sight of existential realities. Time was when parents beat down the doors to get their kids vaccinated, and public health officials had more power and even condign arbitrary powers to stop disease. Now disease is regarded as mere annoyance and measures to control it capricious infringement of individual beliefs and rights. No sense of shared common responsibility and sacrifice.
My mother was nearly totally paralyzed in 1948. I was one...and didn't see her again for a year or two while she was at Warm Springs. I never called her 'mother' or 'mom'; she was alway Molly....and I grew up taking care of her. She lived a life of near flaccid immobility...and was a flaring torch of love, grit, spirit and courage....until her death in '77.
That, Is. Reality.
People act as if public health and individual responsibility to it are a) no big deal, nothing to take seriously and b) unreal impositions. As if you could pick and choose. Until it strikes you down...or those around you....maybe those you love.
Public health and our social safety net have become victims of their success. It is as if, after years of relative safety, people think that they can jump off a cliff and fly.
Polio hurt you & your Mother terribly, but I'm glad that she wasn't in an iron lung.
When l was in grade school, a classmate two doors from my family's house was more fortunate, although she was sickly & limped, but polio then & now in NYC makes me wonder how so many seemingly intelligent citizens now believe every lie about all kinda of vaccines - & probably never learned in school about times when certain quarantines were enforced - & "Typhoid Mary" was held for a total of nearly three decades.
Individual rights shouldn't be compromised, but those people forget that public-health policies protect us all. Calling for the death of medical professionals, not just government leaders, is an astounding change of perspective.
Apropos of nothing, the science fiction convention was held this weekend in Albuquerque, with a strict masking policy. The theme was "After the Plague Years." At opening ceremonies, the mask policy was stressed, with the adminition that "let's make this the LAST plague year!"
I saw nobody complaining or whining. Everybody wore their masks, and when a new attendee entered the building and saw everybody had a mask on, he asked for one, too.
But then, these were scientifically-inclined people, whatever their political stripe.
I seriously doubt it. That is, while you're surely right that they're "scientifically-inclined people," I strongly suspect the overwhelming bulk of them are non-MAGA.
Completely agree with Kevin here. The question of whether or not at this juncture the law makes sense is different from whether a sports celebrity gets an exemption.
The idiot should just get vaccinated.
At this point the law is more about finding out who's a dumbass than it is about public health. Still a worthy cause, says me.
I followed the link, which is to a site called Common Sense There wasn't much story so I started reading comments, which are nonsense. I was puzzled as to what was going on until I went to the home page. Common Sense is Barri Weiss FFS.