WTA ATP Aus Open 1/17 - 1/30 2022

[meganfernandez]

No, it's not a HIPAA violation. This was a talking point that got shot down early in the pandemic. To travel anywhere internationally your vaccine status has always been required. to enter school in the States your child has to be vaccinated. Tiley is being cute here.

I think she meant that the reason for any exemption would be private.

I misread and misunderstood her point. Thanks for the clarification.

Indeed, that's what I meant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ponchi101]

It can surely be seen that way, but the people of Victoria may have a different point of view. I would certainly frown if, after one year of being locked down, a tennis player is allowed to enter the territory unvaccinated and no explanations are given.
A fine line between privacy and transparency by the government.

[meganfernandez]

It can surely be seen that way, but the people of Victoria may have a different point of view. I would certainly frown if, after one year of being locked down, a tennis player is allowed to enter the territory unvaccinated and no explanations are given.
A fine line between privacy and transparency by the government.

Yes, there is. And I agree that Victorian or Australian citizens might make a case for knowing, so they can determine if their representatives are handling Covid to their satisfaction. But the rest of us, I don't think so.

[Deuce]

Does anyone know what the restrictions will be (if any) for players who get a medical exemption?
Will they only be allowed to commute between the hotel and the tournament, and go nowhere else?
Will they have to isolate in their hotel room when they're not playing?
Will they be allowed to book practice times just like vaccinated players?
Etc.

If, for some reason, players with a medical exemption have few restrictions, and they can be among the public, then the public definitely has a right to know who they are.
But, of course, those with the medical exemption should not be permitted such freedom.

[meganfernandez]

Does anyone know what the restrictions will be (if any) for players who get a medical exemption?
Will they only be allowed to commute between the hotel and the tournament, and go nowhere else?
Will they have to isolate in their hotel room when they're not playing?
Will they be allowed to book practice times just like vaccinated players?
Etc.

If, for some reason, players with a medical exemption have few restrictions, and they can be among the public, then the public definitely has a right to know who they are.
But, of course, those with the medical exemption should not be permitted such freedom.

I don't know protocols, but I bet it includes daily testing, or maybe JUST daily testing.

What you're saying amounts to the public having the right to know who and who isn't vaccinated, ie whether any particular person is vaccinated. I'm not sure I believe that. I'd have to examine it. But I'm leaning toward no but not convinced, either. Some personal information is public and sometimes published for the common good.

[Deuce]

Does anyone know what the restrictions will be (if any) for players who get a medical exemption?
Will they only be allowed to commute between the hotel and the tournament, and go nowhere else?
Will they have to isolate in their hotel room when they're not playing?
Will they be allowed to book practice times just like vaccinated players?
Etc.

If, for some reason, players with a medical exemption have few restrictions, and they can be among the public, then the public definitely has a right to know who they are.
But, of course, those with the medical exemption should not be permitted such freedom.

I don't know protocols, but I bet it includes daily testing, or maybe JUST daily testing.

What you're saying amounts to the public having the right to know who and who isn't vaccinated, ie whether any particular person is vaccinated. I'm not sure I believe that. I'd have to examine it. But I'm leaning toward no but not convinced, either. Some personal information is public and sometimes published for the common good.

Yes, the public has a right to know. Hell, in many countries, there are 'vaccine passports' required to get into restaurants, movie theatres, basketball/hockey games - even tennis tournaments. People who go to these places are 'revealed' as being vaccinated.

I feel that the public has an absolute right to know if unvaccinated people are flying into the country/city as exceptions to the current laws, and are permitted to be among the citizens - and that right overrides the right of the unvaccinated people who are given these exceptions to keep their status a secret.

No-one has to know what the nature of the medical exemptions are - that's irrelevant to one's personal safety. But unvaccinated foreigners entering the country to mingle with citizens is relevant to everyone's safety, and so everyone who could potentially find themselves in the same indoor area as the unvaccinated player has the right to know.

[ponchi101]

Being vaccinated is different than revealing a medical condition. You do not chose to have a medical condition. You chose to be vaccinated precisely to avoid having a medical condition.
By now, C19 has a separate condition: we now know that the vaccines do not protect you against the disease in the same fashion that other vaccines do, i.e., we know you can and most likely will get the disease even if vaccinated, but the vaccine simply reduces the level of symptoms you can expect. For example, the opponent of a player that is not vaccinated may want to skip the post match hand-shake, and rightly so.
In the most extreme example, this is not as revealing as being forced to say whether or not you are HIV+. This is simply: did you take a jab. As I said before, every time I fly into Africa the government of the landing country asks me if I took a jab for yellow fever. And if I say that that is personal, it is back on the plane for me. Simple.

[meganfernandez]

Being vaccinated is different than revealing a medical condition. You do not chose to have a medical condition. You chose to be vaccinated precisely to avoid having a medical condition.
By now, C19 has a separate condition: we now know that the vaccines do not protect you against the disease in the same fashion that other vaccines do, i.e., we know you can and most likely will get the disease even if vaccinated, but the vaccine simply reduces the level of symptoms you can expect. For example, the opponent of a player that is not vaccinated may want to skip the post match hand-shake, and rightly so.
In the most extreme example, this is not as revealing as being forced to say whether or not you are HIV+. This is simply: did you take a jab. As I said before, every time I fly into Africa the government of the landing country asks me if I took a jab for yellow fever. And if I say that that is personal, it is back on the plane for me. Simple.

Actually, the vaccine gives you about 70% protection against infection. It doesn't just mitigate symptoms. I've been curious about that from the beginning and reading about it. I haven't done a deep dive, but the mainstream reports are that it does provide a lot of protection from infection/contraction (of course, it wanes to some degree, but not immediately). I mention this for its own sake, not in relation to whether vaccination status is considered a private matter.

I agree that institutions involved in protecting the public should get to know. It's a public health issue. I just don't know if individuals have a right to know about every other individual, like through a registry or just publicly available records. Like marriage licenses. Maybe.

[ponchi101]

I am not trying to convince you although I am trying to convince you
Let's try a hypothetical scenario.
Should you be forced to disclose any sort of STD to a potential partner? It is not a trivial condition, and such a partner may want to end a relationship if s/he believes the risk is not worth the relationship. I gather that most people would agree that such a disclosure should proceed.
Now, with STD, the obvious thing is that their is only one way to transmit the condition. So you DO NOT have to make it public to all people, only to those in which you can engage sexually with.
However, with C19, the path of transmission is through the air. You literally catch it by being exposed to a person close to you that carries the virus. So: in view that a player that has been infected can transmit it to anybody else, simply by standing next to that person, should that condition be known (the unvaccinated status) to ALL players in the tournament? For example, if Novak (because he is the crux of this conversation) has NOT been vaccinated, should other players have the right to know and then decide whether they want to have a mask less conversation with him, much less share a lunch table?
---0---
Txs for the bit about the vaccine giving you 70% protection about infection. I was not computing that one.

[meganfernandez]

I am not trying to convince you although I am trying to convince you
Let's try a hypothetical scenario.
Should you be forced to disclose any sort of STD to a potential partner? It is not a trivial condition, and such a partner may want to end a relationship if s/he believes the risk is not worth the relationship. I gather that most people would agree that such a disclosure should proceed.
Now, with STD, the obvious thing is that their is only one way to transmit the condition. So you DO NOT have to make it public to all people, only to those in which you can engage sexually with.
However, with C19, the path of transmission is through the air. You literally catch it by being exposed to a person close to you that carries the virus. So: in view that a player that has been infected can transmit it to anybody else, simply by standing next to that person, should that condition be known (the unvaccinated status) to ALL players in the tournament? For example, if Novak (because he is the crux of this conversation) has NOT been vaccinated, should other players have the right to know and then decide whether they want to have a mask less conversation with him, much less share a lunch table?
---0---
Txs for the bit about the vaccine giving you 70% protection about infection. I was not computing that one.

Thanks! Gives me something to think about, but I feel bad about hijacking the AO thread. Not that there's much else to discuss right now.

[ti-amie]

How long did Ash Barty have to stay out of Australia? If I'm her, or any of the other regular Aussies who have been forced to stay away I'd be seething that someone got a "medical exemption" and is free to potentially spread the virus to everyone.

[Deuce]

I am not trying to convince you although I am trying to convince you
Let's try a hypothetical scenario.
Should you be forced to disclose any sort of STD to a potential partner? It is not a trivial condition, and such a partner may want to end a relationship if s/he believes the risk is not worth the relationship. I gather that most people would agree that such a disclosure should proceed.
Now, with STD, the obvious thing is that their is only one way to transmit the condition. So you DO NOT have to make it public to all people, only to those in which you can engage sexually with.
However, with C19, the path of transmission is through the air. You literally catch it by being exposed to a person close to you that carries the virus. So: in view that a player that has been infected can transmit it to anybody else, simply by standing next to that person, should that condition be known (the unvaccinated status) to ALL players in the tournament? For example, if Novak (because he is the crux of this conversation) has NOT been vaccinated, should other players have the right to know and then decide whether they want to have a mask less conversation with him, much less share a lunch table?

Not only other players should be made aware, but also anyone who may come within close physical proximity to them - tournament personnel, fans, members of the general public if they are allowed to roam around the city freely, etc.

[meganfernandez]

How long did Ash Barty have to stay out of Australia? If I'm her, or any of the other regular Aussies who have been forced to stay away I'd be seething that someone got a "medical exemption" and is free to potentially spread the virus to everyone.

I don't think she had to stay out for any particular period, but she chose to between Miami and and the US Open because it was unrealistic to go home and quarantine and then go back on the road. I assume she quarantined for 2 weeks when she returned in September, if Australia is still requiring that. She was probably vaccinated by then, so maybe vaccinated people don't have to quarantine once they have a negative PCR. I don't know.

[ponchi101]

Early in the year she said that she would have to stay out because the quarantine measures, if she were to go back home, would make it impossible to go in and out and be able to train properly. That was the reason she did not compete in the fall; she would have had to stay out again for some considerable time.

[ti-amie]

Early in the year she said that she would have to stay out because the quarantine measures, if she were to go back home, would make it impossible to go in and out and be able to train properly. That was the reason she did not compete in the fall; she would have had to stay out again for some considerable time.

Thanks. I was just about to look this up. The virus restrictions. had everything to do with her staying away from her home country. She should be seething about these "medical exemptions".