Djokovic

1. I will not. Because that's not what I said. I never claimed Omicron affected anybody more harshly than previous variants, you're either unable to comprehend what I said or else you're deliberately misinterpreting my words to mean something they do not. Given your history on this thread recently, my money is on the latter.
2. What I DID say is that Omicron is ripping through the unvaxxed and affecting them MORE HARSHLY THAN THE FULLY VAXXED? DO you see the difference? Would you like me to dumb it down a little further so you can understand it even better, or are we good?
3. I've no fcuking clue what a wuhau is, are you trying to claim that is a variant of C-19?

Your original point said the following......

First off, its's "jabbed" not "japped". For someone with such strong opinions, you'd think you'd know what you were talking about. To the uninformed, this statement implies that omicron is not spreading like wildfire through those who have not been vaccinated at all.

This is a lie.

I corrected that lie and said that Omicron affects the unvaxxed more harshly. You took that to mean that it affects them more harshly than the previous variants, or that's the impression you're giving at least.

This is also a lie.

I am now correcting that lie, and restating the point: "Omicron affects the unvaxxed more harshly than it affects the vaxxed". If you want proof, just look at hospital/ICU numbers and see how they are over-represented, per capita, by a factor of 9:1.

If you need any further help trying to digest this info, please ask away.

He didn't say "I'm opposed to the Covid vaccinations"

He said "I'm opposed to vaccinations"

You're the one who is claiming he meant something else.

It is there, as clear as day, in black and white. You're adding your own little twist on it and trying to justify that by pointing to his comments about a choice to make. In no way does that qualify his first sentence to mean what you're saying it means.

"I'm opposed to vaccinations.......If it becomes mandatory, then I'll have a decision to make" means, in my mind anyway, "I'm opposed to vaccinations.......if they become mandatory then I'll have to reconsider either a) which tournaments I play in or b) my opposition to vaccines". Just because he may have a future decision to make, that doesn't mean he's only opposed to the covid vaccine. You're making sh1t up to try defend your stance on this issue, when it's indefensible.

Nice try, though.

So yeah some of the other exemption holders and visa holders (like Djokovic) got entry (some were even already playing tennis tournaments in Australia ffs!) but now they are being thrown out.

It's all very consistent! (retrospectively of course!)

It's complete retrospective arse-covering bullshit.

Even a small child can see that.

If he was granted entry to the country based on X, Y and Z.......then it later turns out that

• he wasn't completely truthful about X or that
• Y didn't apply to him or
• he got his doctor to lie about Z

then there should be no qualms about the grant of entry to be revoked.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement? Please note I'm not asking you whether these currently apply to Novax, I'm just asking if you agree with the statement, in principle. Yes or no?

The vast, vast majority of trades require some degree of classroom/theory modules. Some of them are quite extensive, though obviously not on the level of a doctorate.

Also, Calling them 'less educated" is a damn sight different to calling them uneducated.

Indeed. Multiple instances of you claiming he's not antivax when he clearly stated he is, multiple times. Making stuff up hardly covers it. Good luck yourself.

Sorry none of that really makes any sense in the light of the additional context of the bullshit that has since gone down in booting out the other players who got the same exemption and visa and were already let into the country.

what's x, y and z?

you trying to force me to agree with some statement with unknown parameters in some sort of " you must answer this gun-to-the-head question with unknown factors right now" is not something I consider relevant.

I will say that information provided by anyone should be truthful and kosher of course

The Australian State of Victoria government had already assessed Djokovic's application for exemption and approved it

The Federal Government, the prime minister himself, Scott Morrison, vowed to honour the State's decision a few days ago!

Djokovic had been granted a visa for Australia by the federal government

This visa had been re-checked again before taking off for his final leg to Australia

If it was just some issue with Djokovic there would be no need to fcuk out the other players who had the same exemption and visa as him who were already into Australia. Would there!?

Players that were already in the country, playing in tennis tournaments already.

If you can't see that the whole thing stinks to high-hell as this point of political arse-covering at the highest level well I can't do anything for you there....