"Absolutely wrong.
Timestamp is the time of pdf download. Everytime you repeat the process timestamp will change.
Difference in confirmation code is because he used 2 different state labs on 16th and 22nd.
Very poor analysis, I have to conclude."[1]
"You need to understand that these papers are not fakes. Both tests, database records as well as pdf certificates are 100% legit.
He and his family have enough influence in state institutions to organize 100% original PCR certificate but with false positive result."[2]
"I have now checked your theory with my PCR test from October 1st. I have downloaded it now from http://e-zdravlje.gov.rs, scan QR code and timestamp from URL is 1641917096 (Tue Jan 11 2022 16:04:56 GMT). So timestamp in URL is not when test is done, but when test is downloaded"[3]
I wouldn't have bet a public accusation of this magnitude on those auto-incrementing ID's. There's a possibility the earlier positive test was conducted privately and was only registered with the government at a later date when he knew it would be required for visa purposes.
The name of the institution that conducted the test is on the test result. It's a different one but I don't know if they would constitute private or public and how it works in Serbia.
It could very well be a unique ID not for the test but for the generated pdf document. 100% have done a system like this and we put the ID of the "doc" rather than the internal entity. This is also not a smoking gun in my opinion.
The Spiegel article [1] additionally claims (and supports with screenshots) that the 7371999-259039 certificate reported a negative result at a previous point in time. Unfortunately there is no way to verify that, but still: Any ideas how it could be explained?
They claim that they got both negative and positive results yesterday, which almost has to be user error or a software bug. Even if someone at the Serbian health agency had write access and were dedicated to helping Djokovic, why would they want to change the results a week after he landed in Australia? (A bad table join could easily cause this, although I'm not sure why that wouldn't have caused larger issues in Serbian test tracking.)
Even I made a mistake here in this thread and pasted Novak's url instead of mine. It's very easy to make user error when copying long urls with numbers in them. Especially when you want to check and recheck two QR codes.
I received seven digital covid-related certificates in two countries so far. 5/7 had blatant errors in them. Wrong vaccine, wrong place, wrong birth date, typos in name, completely empty, typos in the template. I was able to get them retroactively corrected where needed (3/7) and in two cases, the errors corrected themselves. Nobody ever looks at these things.
Regarding (2): in French we call those "faux vrai papiers", fake real papers. They are records that are issued via the legitimate system, but fraudulently. There is an epidemic of fake Covid vaccination records coming from France of this type, and being bought at least in Switzerland, and probably all over Europe
This is very sad development for me, Djokovic's countryman who really bought his story. Nut facts are facts.
I can share my own (positive) test, which confirms timestamp and id theory. My test was taken on the 7th January, it was a rapid test, not a PCR. But it's in the same government database:
Timestamp: 1641591150, which translates to GMT: Friday, 7. January 2022. 21:32:30. That seems to be right, it was taken earlier on the 7th and probably entered later to the central database.
Also, ID of my test is: 7601263. Djokovic IDs are 7371999 (16/12 test) and 7320919 (22/12 test).
It really looks like IDs are incremental, and that his test that was supposedly taken on the 16th was taken on the later date.
One consolation fact is that he wasn't positive when he took photos with kids on 17th.
EDIT:
I messed up and copied Novak's QR url! fixed now!
Ok, this is getting strange. There are two ways to get test results:
- it's automatically sent to email (if they have it)
- you can download it from ezdravlje.rs portal
The test I shared above is the one I got on email. However, I went to portal, downloaded pdf, and now I have two copies. They're different! IDs and all the data are the same, but QR codes are different.
Timestamp on new pdf is: 1641923234, which is GMT: Tuesday, 11. January 2022. 17:47:14
So it appears that timestamp is related to when pdf is generated, and when you download it from the portal it's generated at that point of time, i.e. there are no pdf documents sitting on government server!
So this timestamp is definitely no proof of forgery. But test ID might be - that one is still suspicious.
And one more thing, when I switch tabs with my two QR codes - page content is the same but shifted a bit. I didn't look into html/css to see what's different.
I have 2 more datapoints. My wife went with me to the testing on the same date. If you're negative on rapid test, they usually take PCR as well. Since she was negative on the first one, there was a PCR too. These are her QR urls:
Timestamp: 1641924832, time: GMT: Tuesday, 11. January 2022. 18:13:52
I downloaded PCR from portal today, that's why it has today's timestamp.
What's interesting is that her test IDs are 7601574 and 7631146 while they were taken within 15 minutes from each other. There's some 30k difference, and I think Serbia runs around 40k tests a day. PCR samples are sent to central lab and processed later, that would explain why PCR's ID is much higher.
However I don't think we have definite proof of how these test IDs are generated. Different labs could be assigned batches of IDs, PCR tests itself could have preassigned IDs (you can see they have same ID when you're tested, but I'm not sure it's the same ID as presented in results). If test ID is generated when results are inserted into database, then they should always be incremental and Novak's test IDs point to forgery. But there could be other explanations.
Intro:
Looking at covid19.rs/homepage-english/ I can see that there was a total of 1.444.532 people tested and the data is marked for 10.01.2022 at 15:00.
From the dataset:
Date: 2021-12-16, new tests: 13690.0, total tests: 7032035.0
Date: 2021-12-22, new tests: 14808.0, total tests: 7107851.0
Date: 2021-12-26, new tests: 9265.0, total tests: 7158932.0
As We can see Djoko's "ID" (7371999) is much larger than total number of tests for 26th of December 2021 (by 213067) and for me this furthers your point that We don't know how this number is generated.
(It seems to be sequential, but is it?)
They probably generate ID when results are stored in database, not when samples are taken. Difference in processing time explains this. What are the dates of result (stated at the bottom of the pdf)?
All valid reports ("Report is VALID!") - both negative and positive tests - are in green color (Bootstrap 3 class .alert-success).
All invalid reports ("Report IS NOT VALID!") are in red color (Bootstrap 3 class .alert-danger). You can see it when open https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs without any subdir/script/query string.
Green/red have the same semantics in Serbia as in Germany.
This green for positive test mean just that QR code and associated test are valid, not that it’s good or bad. Positive test is bad in the first 14 days but after that it’s good - it gives you same rights as if you were vaccinated. But it’s the same test in both cases and green just tells us it’s a valid document.
Digital certificate is different kind of document. That’s the one you need to enter restaurans, bars, etc. after 20h - it will be red if you don’t fulfill conditions, e.g. vaccination or positive test within last 6 months (but not within 14 days), etc.
In programer’s lingo, test result is const, while digital certificate is a function of multiple conditions in context of current date/time.
Can you see from your records whether the confirmation number (i.e. 7601263-535518) is fixed at the time of the report, e.g. sent as part of the email? An alternative that comes to my mind is that the number is assigned when the report is first generated, which could in principle explain why Djokovic's numbers are out of order if the first time he accessed his PDF was on 26 Dec.
My two PDFs with different QR codes have the same test ID (7601263-535518). So that one is not generated on the fly. But we don't know 100% if it's generated on database insert (altough it very much looks like that), or if there are some batches depending on lab, PCR batch, etc.
This is super important for everyone to see. The timestamp is not proof of time of test but rather the time that the test was "generated" for download. Anyone prominent on Twitter should respond and assist with this information.
I've done these kinds of systems many times in the past and there could be any amount of reasons why a timestamp is included like this. Especially with weird government regulations, policies and rules that mandate all sorts of info to be included inside government documents. Like adding a year or date to when a company was registered to a company's company registration no.
I've been beating this drum for a while, but HN really needs to just ban direct links to Twitter threads. I can't remember the last time I saw one on the front page that was actually true.
When the messenger is spreading false information all the time, yeah, you shouldn't let them be a messenger anymore. I wasn't being hyperbolic: the vast majority of Twitter threads that I've seen make it to the HN frontpage, easily above 75%, are factually incorrect ragebait.
No, I go on Twitter multiple times a week and generally like it. Any active Twitter user will tell you that it's common for false and misleading tweets to go viral. That doesn't mean the site is bad, but it does mean it's a bad idea to go around posting random tweets on news aggregators, since there'll always be someone tweeting any take you can think of.
> That doesn't mean the site is bad, but it does mean it's a bad idea to go around posting random tweets on news aggregators, since there'll always be someone tweeting any take you can think of.
We’re not talking about random tweets, we’re talking about on-topic tweets from posters like foone which consistently post relevant content. You’re throwing the good out with the bad and claiming that folks submitting off topic links are bad apples that ruin the whole barrel. I just don’t find your logical argument internally consistent or rational.
Again, what I'm saying is that I don't think there's much good being thrown out. I don't know who foone is, so it's possible I have a biased sample somehow (maybe I don't visit at the right times?) but almost every tweet I've seen linked on HN has been false or misleading.
There have been multiple tweets that reached the front page in the last 24 hours that were quality, substantive, relevant to HN content.
I’ll admit I do use Twitter (and HN!) a lot, though.
Here’s one with 600+ points. You’re telling me we should block Twitter on HN. I’m saying that’s a bad idea for HN. Seems like the users of HN agree with me. HN is for all of us, not just any one user’s preferences.
Yup, its timestamp for creation of PDF. Just tested on my old PCR tests and timestamp i get in URL is from 11.1.2022. and PCR swab was done on 27.2.2021.
The question I have is this - is the test ID generated when the test results are generated for the first time (either sent by email if they have it, or accessed through eGov or eHealth portal), or are they generated as soon as test results are complete? If it's the former, then it's theoretically possible that the first (positive) results have been downloaded for the first time on Dec 26, and thus have a higher ID number.
Unfortunately, no data points from me, even though I have been tested MANY times due to my profession. They've got my email, so they obviously get generated immediately.
However, I do have a data point for screenshots when QR code of the positive test stated that the result was negative. This is something that happened to me as well (back in 2020, once, and never since then). It was a bug, obviously. The second part of the ID is person-specific (all my test results have that second part identical, regardless of when they were taken) - it seems that if a positive test is followed by a negative test, that happens sometimes.
Third option: the test ID is generated well before the test is taken.
When I donate blood the nurse pulls out a sheet of around 20 pre-generated identical barcode stickers, and attaches one to each piece of paper and bag of blood. This uniquely identifies my donation end-to-end.
Djokovic's PCR tests were done at two separate labs. It is quite possible that each lab is bulk-allocated a unique range of IDs every day or week from the central authority. You'd see big "time jumps" from one lab to the other if you assumed the ID was always in time order.
Depending on how they handle their range (e.g. if they are handing physical stacks of barcode stickers around) the code may not even always be in time order in the same lab.
Additionally, on Novak's PCR test from Dec 16th on the website, the test result "NEGATIVE" had been changed to "POSITIVE" sometime around 14h00 on January 10th.
Noticed by several people, including myself (took screenshot even myself before and after).
BTW, apparently my IP address has now been blocked accessing to that website :)
I get this message now:
"Ваша адреса је блокирана 24 сата!
Vaša adresa je blokirana 24 sata!
Your address is blocked for 24 hours!"
While I guess in these cases governments don't really worry about enumeration aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem - it's still often a security risk that means you usually try to avoid it.
Even when internally you have auto-incremental ID - you can provide a non-sequential public ID (e.g. at least use SkipJack/Skip32 of that incremental value).
Rate limiting has been implemented on this validation page from the start to prevent crawling and abuse.
And please do not lie about changes on the test! Really bad thing to do right now, not just for Novak, for everyone in his situation.
Skipping the part where I discuss my general doubt of intellectual capabilities of the fellow commenters here.
- Datum uzorkovanja (Date of sampling): 22.12.2021 14:12:10
- Datum izdavanja rezultata (Date of issuance of results): 22.12.2021 16:15:49
=> I will ignore the time needed to get the actual swabs to the laboratory and do the necessary paperwork etc and round this to ~2 hours of time available for testing.
- Vrsta analize i proizvodjac testa (Type of analysis and test manufacturer): Real Time PCR test-SARS-CoV-2, , Sansure Biotech INC; Hunan Province
See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke. This is the reason PCR testing: costs, is usually indicated by symptoms already present/positive antigen test.
>See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke.
While I have no clue how they work in detail they offer 60 min express PCRs in Germany at least at my airport.
Those are NAATs, which, while they are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are not the same as PCR reported in the test. Plus, I'm unsure as to where you saw 20 minutes, the shortest I see offered there is 'whithin an hour'.
It is not directly helpful (or unhelpful) to your point or to the parent as data doesn't seem broken down in that way. However, in all these sorts of discussions it would be really great if things had context. So, for example (and sake of argument) if someone says 800 children per day were admitted, we had a comparison. Is it high, low? How about a rate per 100,000 comparison across other countries? Not asking for anyone to do this, merely attempting to articulate my point.
A bit of eyeball math shows 12 million people in UK under 16. Even if 800 a day was true...should I worry?
Unfortunately the Serbian registry doesn't provide a timestamp for when each test was taken.
But our intrepid OSINT researcher discovered that the data in the QR code begins with a UNIX timestamp, such as cqcode=1640187792... and cqcode=1640524880...
From that one might infer that the positive test actually happened 4 days after the negative test.
The documents Djokovic provided to the court claim the positive test happened 7 days before the negative test.
There are scientists who state we're at the point where "we need to target the vulnerable" (rather than giving boosters to all over-12s) and that "there [is] no point in trying to stop all infections, and that at some point, society has to open up".
Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, chairman of the [UK's] Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is one of them.
The point when society has to open up is when there is enough community immunity that removing mitigations doesn't cause healthcare shortages due to staff infections or resource constraints. That's after Paxlovid is readily available or vaccine mandates have driven up vaccination rates, not today.
> The point when society has to open up is when there is enough community immunity that removing mitigations doesn't cause healthcare shortages due to staff infections or resource constraints [..]
Currently many staff shortages are being made much worse by public health policy, not Covid19 itself, in that otherwise healthy staff being forced to stay away from work to comply with quarantine requirements.
These requirements are now being relaxed[0], which is a good thing, but at some point the requirements need to go back to how the world worked before Covid which is approximately "if you're sick, please stay at home; if you're healthy, please come to work".
Most of the country. There are only a few places where the vaccination rate is already high enough that a mandate couldn't increase it at least 10%.
The scare quotes around "fully" are unnecessary. Two doses is enough to drive down hospitalization risk to flu levels. Boosters aren't necessary from a public health perspective because boosting the already vaccinated has a miniscule effect on total hospitalizations. (Sure, if you want them to reduce your own risk, that's fine because they have been approved. If you want them to reduce disruptions in your workplace, that is also fine. Just don't expect to materially impact health system availability.) Vaccinating the unvaccinated has a much larger effect. Alternatively, Omicron seems like it will reach them before mandates take effect or Paxlovid supply is ready, with worse outcomes on the health system.
> Two doses is enough to drive down hospitalization risk to flu levels. Boosters aren't necessary from a public health perspective because boosting the already vaccinated has a miniscule effect on total hospitalizations.
If you look at the data, it appears that vaccinating the young and healthy has "a miniscule effect on total hospitalizations", too.
There are very few young and healthy in the parts of the country where vaccination rates are low. The last Covid hospitalization surge in the US was mostly working age adults, whom the mandates would apply to.
> There are very few young and healthy in the parts of the country where vaccination rates are low
I'm not quite sure what to make of that claim. There are an awful lot of unvaccinated young people in the USA.
"13.2 million of US children and adolescents ages 12- 17 are fully vaccinated. [this] represent[s] 53% of 12-17 year-olds"[0] (as of 5 Jan 2022)
also
"Child vaccination rates vary widely across states. In 10 states, at least three-quarters of children (age 12-17) have received at least 1 dose, and in 16 states, fewer than 50% have received 1 dose."
You then said "there are few young and healthy in parts of country where vaccination rates are low".
I'm still not understanding that statement. Across the globe - and across the USA - there are loads of unvaccinated young people, and (happily) most of them are healthy, and (happily) the data show that young healthy people are at very low risk from Covid19 even without vaccination.
Do you understand now? The entire point of this thread is that vaccine mandates will allow society to open up, which is not yet possible due to health system constraints, nor was it possible earlier. Your doctor quote is nonsensical in that it doesn't say anything about when society can open up. Today? When the pandemic first started? Obviously not — only when immunity is high enough or effective treatment is readily available.
From that same Dr. Pollard:
“When we do open, there will be a period with a bump in infections, which is why winter is probably not the best time. But that’s a decision for the policy makers, not the scientists.
“Our approach has to switch, to rely on the vaccines and the boosters. The greatest risk is still the unvaccinated.”
2. Increased vaccination rates mean the health system won't be overwhelmed, allowing society to open up.
The doctor you yourself cited agrees with step 2, as do most of the governments in the world that are managing their countries' transitions to endemicity. There are multiple examples showing that step 1 is correct.
It appears that some regions may actually be at risk of driving ratios downwards as they shorten the validity of vaccination certificates for those already "fully vaccinated" but who haven't had additional shots since then.
Judging by my vaccine confirmation (same system), it's when the certificate was created. In my case the timestamp points to a day after I've received my dose.
'Цовид-19' has to be one of the laziest transliterations I've ever seen. Coronavirus is spelled with an initial К in every Cyrillic-using language I'm aware of, not a Ц (ts) sound in English. It's basically a keyboard IME transliteration, since in Serbian, "c" would be the Roman equivalent of "ц".
Yep, Serbo-Croatian (technically Bosnian-Montenegrian-Croatian-Serbian) "K" for "koronavirus". The only difference between languages is Latin versus Cyrillic.
Thank you for pointing this out. I kept out these differences on purpose, because it culturally divides us.
I am well aware of them: Croatian is not my native language. But, I learned it and I am conversational in the Shtokavian (Štokavian) dialect. I am Štokavski. This is the standard dialect of Croatian, in Croatia.
My family however were Čakavski. They spoke the Chakavian (Čakavian) dialect. They are from the islands of Croatia. Unfortunately, it is a dying dialect of Croatian that is Venetian in origin. It is not mutually intelligible with Štokavian, but everyone in Croatia seems fond of it.
Čakavski dialect is not Venetian in origin. It is Slavic, like rest of Croatian dialects, but with many loanwords of Italian and Venetian origin (or, more likely, from extinct Dalmatian [romance] language). While many romance loanwords and particular unique sound shifts make it sometimes hard to understand to rest of Croatian/Serbian/Bosniak crowd, it is not that you need a translator
I've just managed to get my ip address a 24 hour ban by tweeking the timestamp parameter once! Which is a pretty obvious DoS vulnerability if anyone wanted to disable a venue's pass verification ability.
You turn up at a venue which is scanning these QR codes as part of some vaccinated only entrance policy, let them scan your amended code, you don't get in, nor does anyone else after you.
We have the deepest respect for the German language, but HN is an English language site and posts here need to be in English. It's hard enough to get people to read the articles even when they are.
Good for Serbia for implementing some centralized system. A PCR test result in the U.S has absolutely no way of being verified, either negative or positive
In Israel, which swabs every person who lands at the airport. There is a suspiciously steady stream of people flying in from the U.S who were negative before take off and positive 10 minutes after landing
For Omicron, with an incubation period of three days, one should expect negatives to turn positive with a transatlantic flight.
Google suggests that it takes 10-12 hr to fly from NYC to Israel. That's a long time with a fast virus. (Even with a week's incubation period, you'd still expect to see it, just less.). Furthermore, many of those negative tests will have been 24-48 hr prior to takeoff, depending upon legal requirements that day.
It's okay to suspect malice, but it may not be necessary here :).
Doesn't the thread suggest someone has fiddled the system on Djokovic's behalf? If that's the case then the centralized PCR verification system is nothing but a house of cards.
No centralised government conspiracy needs to be invoked here.
The corresponding QR codes in the documents still point to a negative and a positive test result in the Serbian database. The charge is that the Date of Sampling/Sample ID/Date of Results was swapped in what appears a Word document [1]
The timestamp is likely when the entry was opened in the system.
Not when the test was made.
Normally that's the same.
But it's not enforced, as for example a test center which lost it's internet connection temporary is still allowed to add tests once the connection is back up.
So we don't know for sure that the test is manipulated.
We only know for sure that it was placed later in the system, not that it was made later.
I think this is a pretty big stretch. What does it mean for the "entry to be open in the system"? You think it is more likely the test center lost its internet connection for multiple days than that Djokovic lied?
> You think it is more likely the test center lost its internet connection for multiple days than that Djokovic lied?
No never wrote anything like that.
I just wrote that the date in the system is from when the information was put in the system, and that there are reasons why it is allowed to put information into a system about an older test.
I didn't say that I think it's likely that it had been the case in this case.
The internet connection is just an random example(1). Someone more involved with the process could probably list many other reasons such a thing can happen.
It just means that it's just an hint that something unusual happened but not at all a prove that the test was made later.
It even less means that anyone from the operators of the system recording the tests was involved, it's enough for a single laboratory which can evaluate tests to enter a fake result, there are probably tens or even hundreds of such laboratories in most EU countries.
There are even chances that the manipulation was quite different then what it seems to be, like the positive test has been made at that point in time, but it was intentionally hold back from being put into the system, because the person wanted to be able to lie about not having had covid. Now hat is clearly a unlikely thing. But possible.
Anyway the point is that "datum of recording" != "datum of test" is on itself not _that_ unusual in general. But if it happens in this specific context with another test being made shortly after before the first tests result was put into the system etc. it is _very_ suspicious.
Depends on where you got tested in the US. States like NY, NJ, CA and others have mandatory reporting requirements, so test results get returned to the county or state DOH and are verifiable.
The problem is at the state level, you have a lot of weird political stuff that influences what and how each state performs certain processes.
There’s also a huge flow of travel from US to Israel, and lots of weird corner cases and loopholes. (Just like Canada and Mexico)
But Serbia's system seems flawed, the EU system has all the data encoded in the QR-code, including name, the date the test was performed, the sort of test (PCR or antigen), and the result, plus a digital signature to prevent changing of those fields. And the QR code is given to the person and is static. The app that checks it checks that the document hasn't been modified by verifying the digital signature. What Serbia seems to have done is to have a PDF with the timestamp, and QR code which goes to a website showing a database entry with no timestamp (except for the URL which apparently does contain a Unix timestamp, but that's not authoritive nor easily parsable by huamns).
So if I got a negative test in July and a positive one yesterday, and I want to fly somewhere, it seems I can just copy the QR code from the test in July and paste it into a Word document that says "The test was performed on January 10, 2022, and the result is available through this link: [QR code with the link to the results from July 2021]". And it seems this document doctoring (with a document with a result that allows unvaxed entry) is what Team Djokovic has done.
Worth pointing out that this is Serbia's internal system, but you can also request EU QR from the same website.
Serbia's one of 33 non-EU countries whose centralised system is up to EU standard, and as such you can get both the Serbian QR code and the EU QR code.
As such, assuming no shenanigans (even though things point otherwise), he should have no problem converting it to the EU QR code and presenting that.
> But Serbia's system seems flawed, the EU system has all the data encoded in the QR-code, including name, the date the test was performed, the sort of test (PCR or antigen), and the result, plus a digital signature to prevent changing of those fields
(I'm in the EU): I can get a free "gargle" PCR test - either via walk-up test centre or via collect/test-at-home/drop-sample-in-collection box any time I want here, and in both cases there is zero verification that the sample I provide for the test actually came from my mouth.
If you have a friend who is Covid19 positive, it would be trivial to get yourself a positive result.
The Netherlands has a separate local and international version as well with less information in the local version because they didn’t want everyone and his dog implementing different rules.
But for the international version you can’t just decide to give less information because then it won’t accepted.
I do not think that is entirely true - all my PCR tests have contained the name of the lab where the test was performed as well as the performing (or, in some cases), supervising physician.
That does not mean it is easy to verify test results, but it should be possible.
I find it funny how some countries suddenly make your life a lot easier if you have a positive test history.
Canada has a fairly annoying requirement to have a negative PCR test taken within 72h of takeoff (or arrival by car), which can be dicey/expensive in many parts of the world to get, but if you have a positive PCR result from 14-180 days, this requirement drops and travel gets a lot easier than those that never got a positive covid test. Regardless of vaccination status.
A rapid or PCR test from within the last calendar day is required to enter the USA. It's pretty hard to get that in many countries now b/c the winter/omicron surge. Plus, it's often expensive.
USA only requires that for air passengers. Requiring overseas checkin agents to be disease doctors was okay, but asking CBP to verify paperwork and stop threats at the border was too much to ask.
Funny story I heard recently: Someone tested positive in Mexico but "had to" get home. Flew to Tijuana, walked across the border (no COVID test needed for land crossing), and caught a flight home out of San Diego.
It still makes sense to protect the airline employees, but I no longer view a pre-flight test as a reliable measure to stop COVID from arriving in the US.
And the timing/availability. I almost got stuck somewhere because the login/pass I was supposed to use to get my result never worked and the place was basically shutdown on weekends.
I had a friend in Mexico and took PCR on Monday for Tuesday flight. Tuesday flight got cancelled. Couldn't get ahold of 2 major airlines on phone on Tuesday so just showed up to airport on Wednesday to get any flight into Canada before 72 hour test expired. A bit of a mess.
PCR tests can come back positive for several months post-infection, so there may be no point in testing people in that post-infection period, because it will come back with too many false positives to be useful. 180 days sounds long for that, but people do test positive for months sometimes.
The reason you can test positive for so long is that it takes time for remnant RNA from the virus to totally leave your system, and even though it's not replicating (you aren't infected or infectious), the PCR test is just detecting the RNA.
… which is a good argument for antigen testing (as your entire pre-entry testing regime, or in conjunction with a positive PCR history).
The other difficulty (impossibility?) is in segmenting the chronically infected vs those that are just working out the remnant junk of their recovered infection.
Pointless pedantry, just because I've been watching TWiV: the PCR test is detecting virus RNA because coronaviruses have RNA, and there's no DNA there. The rest I absolutely agree with.
More pointless pedantry from TViV, as I listen frequently as well: the hosts always point out that RT-PCR tests for the presence of viral RNA, but viral RNA particles being inside your nose or mouth doesn't necessarily mean they are infectious. The scale of CT values is 0–100 and lower CT values means more RNA copies. This is used a proxy for infectivity, though it's not terribly scientific. Furthermore, CT values are rarely (if ever) included on the test results.
Sure, and in isolation, it's even a reasonable guideline. The issue is that combined with most of the other covid guidance, the incentives are misaligned.
The choices become
1. Follow the majority guidance, wear masks, avoid large gatherings, get vaccinated, get tested often.
In which case you will have to continue paying for testing to travel (and risk not being able to travel at the last minute)
OR...
2. Intentionally go get covid (usually by neglecting all the above guidance). Get a positive result. Avoid expensive testing, have easier travel, get easier access to gatherings.
Speaking only from my pre-Omicron experience, even mild breakthrough COVID was no joke. I spent a month extremely tired, was prescribed a steroid inhaler and only now feel about 95% back to normal (about a month later).
Choice 2 is valid, yes, but unless Omicron is much, much more mild for most people I wouldn't make that choice for myself.
Luckily I got an official PCR test confirming positivity at the very end of my COVID journey so I can take advantage of that horrible month.
Not at-risk by any means, but it was a terrible experience. Worse than any flu I've had. I think that it would have been very serious if I didn't have two shots in me.
As an anecdote, that's exactly the behaviour/mentality I've heard from some people I know that still refuse to take the vaccine. They are young and fit, and their reasoning is exactly that, it's easier to just get infected, recover, and get papers for traveling that are valid for 6 months...
It's a gamble. I'd rather benefit from all the readily available medical science developments before I get infected. In Europe getting infected is generally only valid for 180 days for travel. From what I know only Hungary would grant longer recovery certificates based on an antibody test.
I wouldn't expose myself if I was immunologically naive to sars-cov-2, but I am happy to have had it before the vaccination as I was exposed to a more varied and wide antigenic sample than the one from the vaccines I got.
Given antigenic imprinting phenomenons I am happy to have been introduced to the natural virus first.
That's precisely what Herr Drosten, German top virologist and a member of state anti-Covid team suggested, to get infected after second shot to get a permanent immunity with a low-risk profile.
Unfortunately, Germany bought too many vaccines, and they need to use them all to be able to buy even more.
Claiming that some scientist or study stated something or other is not useful unless context is provided. At least it should be clear when it was said, since the position of science is subject to change as new data is available or the situation changes.
The quote that you probably refer to, is this one, from 3 Sep 2021 (translation by deepl):
"My goal as a virologist Drosten how I would like to become immune now is: I want to have a vaccine immunity and then saddling on top of that I definitely want to have my first general infection and the second and the third at some point. I have resigned myself to that for a long time. And then I know, I'm immune for a really long time and I'll only see this virus every few years, just like I see the other coronaviruses every now and then. As a relatively healthy adult, I can take responsibility for that. There are other populations that can't. But I can only answer for myself, for my own health, because I am now twice vaccinated. And I have to admit, I would also like to be vaccinated a third time."
On 9 Nov 2021, he's on the record with this (translation by deepl):
"One can debate whether one has grasped this correctly at the beginning. I think that the plan to work with two doses at the beginning was correct. Because what changed here was the virus. But now we just have to acknowledge, the vaccine is not specifically targeted to the delta virus, but to a virus that is not even circulating today. The virus has changed."
So definitely a preference for more than 2 shots and not suggesting that anyone do this, other than he himself, personally, given his specific risk profile.
Is his stance on delta equally valid in light of the new omicron variant? Maybe, maybe not?
I wouldn’t call it more durable, but it can be more diverse/flexible (there’s more to covid-19 than a specific spike sequence).
But if it was more durable (long-lasting), they wouldn’t have the 180d limit. They put that limit in because of the (lowwwww) risk of continuing to test positive after recovery, but the worst case report I’ve seen is in the 6 week after recovery range.
It’s mostly Canada trying to be punitive when it comes to travelling by requiring PCR, when a within-24h antigen test would be cheap, easy, catch as many asymptomatic cases as a less-fresh PCR, and near zero-risk of false positives immediately after recovery.
Please cite your supporting sources for that assertion. What I have been hearing does not support that, and even seems to be slightly the opposite (but not a lot of weight on those).
From the whole timeline, it would look to me as someone created a later test result that they backdated for him to be able to apply for a Visa. This would explain why Djokovic was out in public at the time he was apparently positive (I doubt he would have public appearances after a day after a positive test) and it would explain the test result ID discrepancy.
It could also explain why the positive test result was generated on 26th and the negative one on 22nd.
Thank you. I'd say that is very convincing, especially with him walking about on 16, 17th and 18th.
When scanning a QR code, is the date visible anywhere on the page? I am trying to guess whether someone just edited a PDF with a different date (might explain why they chose 16.12 - you need to change a single number). Alternative would require someone back dating a test in the system.
No, that is the weak point of this system. Anyone can change date in pdf and no one can check that except Serbian authorities. The only limit for date is one year after test because verification system (qr code link) is set not to validate older tests.
Apparently the qr code (and related timestamps) are generated when the result document is downloaded, not when the test is performed. Der Spiegel should have confirmed their theory with other serbians who have access to test results.
Could someone double-check my understanding of this? Is the conclusion that Djokovic lied about the order (and specific dates) of his PCR tests, with the goal of entering Australia while still testing positive?
Either that or the positive test is a fabrication that was backdated on paper to claim the „recovered“ status. I would also not rule out the possibility that there has not been a real positive test at all and that the tampering could include false data entry.
In 2016 "22% of Serbian citizens who had contact with public institutions included in research (traffic police, public health, educational system, courts - civil litigation, public services that issue official documents, departments responsible for social welfare), had paid bribe at least once in the previous year."
This would be not the first case where the rules are "bent" for the sake of Djokovic family: https://birn.rs/teniski-centar-novak-do-novih-kvadrata-uz-us... (unfortunately I couldn't find the source in English; in short, they got some premium Belgrade land, which was initially planned for a public park, for their tennis academy)
I think it is likely that there was no positive test at all. It all seems a bit coincidental that the only way an unvaxxed person without a medical condition could have gotten into Australia was via having a recent positive diagnosis and then Novak just happened to have a recent positive diagnosis. It's also suspicious that he has had a previous COVID infection. If there was no Omicron then I think this would be very suspect. Omicron makes it a lot less suspect because getting re-infected with this variant seems more likely and the base rate of infection seems to be higher.
I don't think the certificate validity is in question since the URLs of the Serbia government sites can be accessed. Unless the implication is that Serbian government aided in the fraud.
My bet is that Serbian government participated in "helping" Djokovic get a pass here. It's not an old history when some (neighbouring) country was manipulating tests at massive scale. The Serbian president was one of the first to shout about "discrimination", not even knowing yet what are the rules to enter Australia. Hopefully authorities will get to the bottom of this story.
The linked URL does not have a timestamp in the test details. It could be possible that they faked the certificate with the "correct" QR codes, deliberately in the reverse order.
If corruption was involved, I'm surprised they didn't go for the more straightforward route of using an infected swab from someone else (get it from the hospital or something) and using that as the first test.
What difference would that have made? None of the evidence in the dispute is focused on the test result itself, it's all about when and by whom the data was entered.
Yeah, thats right. Also some other alarming details like Novak knew he tested positive and yet instead of quarantining he went on to attend a gathering of children unmasked.
It says results were issued / ready, not that he received it.
And given they were ready at 8pm it’s quite possible that the guy that makes Djokovics mail account was long gone. It may even have landed in the Spam folder if he is using Gmail (happened to me once).
Exactly, this is a potential criminal offence in Serbia, and school rules don’t apply here.
It’s up to the court to decide what happened. I guess that Serbian courts can get the details about the results delivery. All it has to do is ask email providers to check logs, both on the sending and receiving side.
As always, it’s the one making accusation that needs to provide a proof.
On the other side, he can claim before Serbian court that all is five and the test was fake, but he can’t be processed about that in Serbia, since he neither faked nor used it there. And in Australia he can claim test is valid, and Australia would need to prove it’s fake if the want to cancel his visa. Which they cannot prove that easily, since Serbian authorities are not obliged to jump on immediately on the Australian request.
Yes, it would be a loophole and playing two legal systems, but that’s what companies do all the time when it comes to taxes.
Well there is also two other options I can see, although I cannot say how realistic/likely these are: either the researchers „guessed“ wrong and the number in the url is no unix timestamp but just some random digits. Very unlikely imho, given how close the timestamp values are, but not impossible.
The other option would be that the pcr test was indeed taken on the 16. but only entered into the system 10 days later on the 26.
not sure if that is realistic.
Not saying it’s either of these, just that we cannot disregard these options imho.
More fuel to the fire - no reason he should get a pass when other people can't. Sorry - it's only tennis and he's trying to cheat to get in. This isn't to political leaders talking about the fate of their people.
Sorry, I don't really follow those sports news, so maybe I missed something; but how did he try to cheat? He applied to Australian Open for an exemption, and was granted an exemption [0]. How is this cheating?
As far as I can follow the accusations this is the current state:
- lied about travel activity beforr entering Australia (he declared not having traveled within 14 days prior to entering the country but he flew from spain and had an interview in serbia during this time)
- if what zerforschung found here he did not have a negative PCR after getting a positive PCR test first (which would mean he cannot infect others and has bery likely immunity), but a negative PCR and *then* a positive PCR after, which could in the worst case mean he was infected and still travel.
In any case my doubt about the truthfulness might be colored by my experience with the uncorrupting nature of serbian bureaucracy. Were I had multiple instances of public officials trying to get bribes for very basic things.
He got an exemption the Victoria state rules, this is the same as you getting a paper from Florida saying you can travel freely there and trying to enter the US based on that paper.
His exemption was a process provided by the Australian Open tournament. More than twenty people applied for it and only a handful got the exemption. The process they outlined was a blind process (those evaluating the applications did not know who the players were) and two stage.
It's not like he tried to cheat the tournament or Australia with this. He was following a provided process.
Note, this is separate from any notion of him cheating or not with the process. Just saying it doesn't appear he tried to sneak in by bypassing the processes.
The reason he's being looked at instead of the others who went through this process is likely that he posted about it on social media.
> not like he tried to cheat the tournament or Australia with this
If the evidence presented here holds, Djokovic submitted falsified documents to the Australian government and courts. That's potentially visa fraud, perjury and a bunch of things that would put an ordinary person behind bars for years.
I don't think I was clear enough. By going for an exception he wasn't trying to cheat the tournament or government. If he tried to cheat while in the process that's a different matter.
> Djokovic submitted falsified documents
If the dates are real from the records everyone has found then he would, in theory, still qualify. So, why change the dates?
Djokovic has people who do all this stuff for him. I wonder if something happened in translation or somewhere else.
> If the dates are real from the records everyone has found then he would, in theory, still qualify
Djokovic pursued an exemption on the basis of recovery. That requires a positive test followed by a negative one. If the allegations here hold, he tested negative and then positive. That wouldn't be proof of recovery, but of infection.
There is a lot we don't know and I'm slow to judge and curious for more information.
For example, was he getting regular rests due to being tennis? Did the wrong ID for the recovery test result get submitted by accident? This is plausible and accidents do happen.
I'll be curious to see more details that come out on this.
Whose fault is it if the tournament didn't put a process together that worked properly with the government? The people who used the process or the organization that created it?
> Whose fault is it if the tournament didn't put a process together that worked properly with the government?
Djokovic may have a claim against the Australian Open for wasting time and causing inconvenience.
That doesn't mean Canberra must grant him a visa. And it is in no way an excuse for submitting falsified documents (if he did that, which is far from proven) to Canberra and her courts.
If he is singled out while the others who successfully went through this process are not wouldn't it should some form of prejudice? Targeting a high profile player to show that a politician in more powerful, or something like that?
I assume others who claimed medical exemptions aren't prominent antivaxxers whose request for a medical exemption from completing a course of vaccinations (recommended spacing between doses >21 days) on the basis he was unable to because of a COVID infection less than 21 days before his flight is pretty absurd (even assuming the tests are valid and he answered all visa applications questions truthfully).
Just because the public outcry might have prompted politicians to intervene doesn't mean they were wrong to do so
It was a bit of a stuff up but at the end of the day an unvaccinated non-citizen does not qualify to enter Australia (except with a valid medical exemption which why the hell would Djokovic have).
"people are welcome in Australia. But if you're not double vaccinated and you're not an Australian resident or citizen, well, you can't come." - Australian PM Scott Morrison - 6th Jan https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-canberra-act-35
According to the ATAGI guidelines (which are not the border rules), previous covid infection is not a contraindication for vaccination, and as a temporary exemption vaccination can only be deferred by up to 6 months in the case of "acute major medical illness".
Apparently Tennis Australia was specifically told this by border patrol but they didn't pass that information on to the players. Probably everyone was too chicken to tell Novak.
On that note, I have no idea on what basis he was granted an exemption when he applied for his visa in November, given that he had not even been covid positive in the last 6 months (at that time, lol).
I have a bit of sympathy for Novak with the lack of concise communication but at the end of the day he wouldn't be the first person who has been irritated by bad government communication, or the first person to be turned away from a country because of confusing border rules.
his exemption was based on the fact of him having the virus and being recovered. But based on the twitter thread they are suggesting the positive test happened after the negative test.
From the looks of it, it's because he may have lied about his activity and the documents may also be false. Seems that he didn't want to take the vaccine so instead he got a backdated positive test because the rules allow for unvaccinated people with recent positive tests to have more freedom of movement.
Especially in tennis where tournaments are designed to be 'open', that is semi-professional and allowing for amateur entrants. If he were professionally affiliated with a particular country, that might be an extenuating circumstance.
But as he is a private citizen seeking glory in AU, it's inappropriate to make an exception in this case.
OT: what sports and games have the most open major "Open"s? Are any more open than US chess?
The US Open in chess is open to anyone who is a USCF member, which is anyone who wants to buy a membership ($45/year, $40 for seniors, $27 for young adults, $20 for youth, $85 family plan covers parent and children under 19 and college age students up to 24, $55 family plan that covers all children under 19 in the same household). Obtain a USCF membership, pay the US Open entry fee, and you are in.
When you play in the open, regardless of whether you are an experience pro grandmaster or some newbie who barely knows the rules that entered on a whim, everyone is in the same group. It uses the Swiss system rather than a knockout system, so every plays the same number of games.
There's really not much difference as far as the tournament goes between that top grandmaster and that newbie, except that the press and spectators will be a lot more interested in watching the grandmaster play, so the top boards will usually be set off in some place making it easier for observers, and they might be fancy wood boards and set instead of the paper or vinyl boards and plastic pieces most players will be using, and maybe nicer chairs.
If that newbie wins enough to be a leader, that newbie will be playing on those top boards.
If that grandmaster has some bad games and ends up in the middle of the pack, they will be down playing with the hoi polloi.
BTW, if you win the US Open you are automatically invited to the US Championship, an invitation only round robin tournament.
Every other year the US Championship also serves as the "zonal" tournament for the US in the World Championship cycle. Doing well in your zone's zonal earns you a spot in the FIDE World Cup. Doing well in the World Cup earns you a spot in the Candidates Tournament. Win that and you are the next challenger for the World Chess Championship.
In chess then if you sell your soul to the Devil in exchange for winning the next 50 games of chess you play you should be able to become World Champion!
9 to sweep the US Open, 11 to sweep the US Championship, 8 for the World Cup, 14 for the Candidates Tournament, and 8 for your match with Carlsen for the Championship.
Is there any other individual sport or game where selling your soul gets you such a short path from complete unknown to World Champion?
Golf has a shorter path to "world championship." Compete in local qualifiers, then sectional qualifiers, and then win the British Open ("The" Open). I suppose you'd need a some number of rounds (6? 20?) before then to build up an official handicap first, so that they'd let you into the local qualifier, or you could fake those.
The tennis Grand Slams used to be for amateurs only (I think the Olympics were the same). Professionals used to be looked down on as selling out to money etc.
Eventually tournaments became Open as they also allowed pros in.
I agree he shouldn't get a pass but for different reasons. If the wealthy can get exempted from onerous burdens like quarantining or waiting 3 weeks + 14 days to become vaccinated then they will never remove that burden for the rest of us.
It's a great point. We could turn things around and point out that if a questionable and unexpected restriction can be imposed on a wealthy, given what's at stake, and knowing all the press coverage it would generate, then they would never hesitate to jeopardise important stakes for the rest of us due to some bureaucratic interpretation of the current travel restrictions, interpretation of course hardly possible to challenge.
This is basically the Canada problem: we have tough rules for 95% of people, but we exempt 5% from it, so every variant quickly ends up here uncontrollably anyway.
Windsor Ontario has something like 1000+ health care workers commuting to the Detroit area that have been exempt from most entry test/vaccination/quarantine requirements. Same for truckers and flight crews and ~30 other groups.
I think this is only changing next week with an actual vaccination requirement.
If you want to go for covid-zero, go for it, but if you half-ass it, you get all the disadvantages without any of the advantages.
Your entry tests aren’t strong enough to prevent 100% of cases anyway. You need a strict, no exceptions quarantine that lasts long enough to cover any incubation period. And even then, workers at the quarantine site might get infected.
Probably not even worth attempting given our border has so many illegal crossings.
I agree with you that Detroit/Windsor has been a sieve when it comes to sealing cases outside of the country, but considering that we've never come anywhere close to COVID zero, it's a minor concern at this time.
A vaccination requirement wouldn't do anything to control the spread of every new variant. The primary benefit of vaccination is preventing severe symptoms; it doesn't prevent infection or transmission.
Covid-zero is impossible in any open society. China is still pursuing a covid-zero policy, but even with locking down entire cities and imposing travel bans they're far from zero.
> The primary benefit of vaccination is preventing severe symptoms; it doesn't prevent infection [...]
I think this dichotomy (prevents vs doesn't prevent) is false. Vaccination reduces the likelihood of getting infected and it reduces the likelihood of severe illness. Perhaps not to the same degree, but my point here is that it's not black & white as the quoted wording implies.
> A vaccination requirement wouldn't do anything to control the spread of every new variant
It may increase it by selecting the un-protected strains.
> it doesn't prevent infection or transmission
Source? We’ve (largely) vaccinated our way out of other diseases. I haven’t heard of any outbreaks of mild measles or mild rubella and I suspect it’s because vaccination gets the R lower.
> why are people upset with him standing up against these pointless vaccine mandates?
In these events he is not standing up against anything. He appears to be quietly proving false statements about his test results and/or his recent travel history in order to manipulate the system to his advantage (i.e. gain the ability to take part in a tournament in a country he is likely not eligible to enter).
They don’t prevent the spread or contraction of the virus but they reduce the transmission period and greatly reduce the severity of the disease if a fully vaccinated person contracts Covid-19. They may not be a panacea but they’re a very useful tool in dealing with Covid-19 and keeping people out of hospital unnecessarily.
250 0-4 year olds died with Covid and 573 5-18 year olds died with Covid. Remember these are people that died in the hospital with a positive Covid test. One study out of UCSF found more than 40% of kids hospitalized with Covid were there for a reason other than Covid, like a broken arm, and then also tested positive with an asymptotic case. Likely the kids dying with Covid could be overcounted as well.
The time to have this discussion was two years ago. We are talking about children and youngs that were killed by Covid, not with Covid and the number is 'too much' to keep ignoring the plain facts.
Thanks for the info and those links. There hasn't been nearly enough public information on _how_ jabs help. The rhetoric is always 'get jabbed because it protects health services', which despite being true, leaves a lot out. It also doesn't help that a lot of easily accessible information is contradictory and focuses on considering one's own heath rather than everyone's.
I think the parent comment’s question is more along the lines of “if Australia is so deathly afraid of Covid, why are they hosting an international sporting event at this particular time?”
"If everyone who is so concerned about Đoković these days - including the media, Australia, Balkans & Đoković himself - was so much concerned by the torture of #Assange & refugees across the world, perhaps we would have something called freedom today." by Srećko Horvat (https://twitter.com/HorvatSrecko/status/1480597836542660613)
I believe in personal freedom, but the limits of that are when it impacts on others personal freedom.
If someone dies of covid in hospital, they occupy a bed for about a month before dying.
A hospital has limited capacity. In my country, Australia, we have public health so everyone pays for that hospital capacity.
Vaccination reduces a persons risk of severe disease by 90%.
I got vaccinated to prevent myself and my family getting sick, and a nice side effect of that is that it also helps hospitals from running out of capacity, because I'm very unlikely to go to hospital should I be infected with covid.
It's insanely selfish and stupid to not get vaccinated.
I also think Assange should have been freed long ago, and I want journalistic freedom because the truth is the most important thing we have.
No. I'm not. Your thoughts to vulnerate bodily autonomy for an alleged greater good are egregious. Authoritarian and ignoring the Nuremberg Code.
Your hospital bed propaganda is just that. Part of the push to blame sectors of the population who don't comply with the lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, you name it. An honest strategy was never assessed.
Your country, Australia, just banned Novak for his thoughts. Not for any rule breaking. Not for any health reason. Australia and much of its population are being absolutely discriminatory and ready to commit crimes against the humanity of others under the pretense of "the greater good".
You overplay the dangers of covid, lie about transmission and beds, prevent early treatment, deny human rights, prevent discussion of science, ignore or censor side effects.
And then you call people stupid and selfish for not making the same decision you did?
You're a horrible person. A truly disgusting one, like so many. I'm not surprised considering the country you live in, but it's your fault if you fall for hateful propaganda.
You're not for truth. You're for harming people who don't follow your politics.
I wonder why they only show a picture of the non-contested negative test and not the positive one with the disputed URL so we can validate the evidence ourselves.
Skipping the part where I discuss my general doubt of intellectual capabilities of the fellow commenters here.
- Datum uzorkovanja (Date of sampling): 22.12.2021 14:12:10
- Datum izdavanja rezultata (Date of issuance of results): 22.12.2021 16:15:49
=> I will ignore the time needed to get the actual swabs to the laboratory and do the necessary paperwork etc and round this to ~2 hours of time available for testing.
- Vrsta analize i proizvodjac testa (Type of analysis and test manufacturer): Real Time PCR test-SARS-CoV-2, , Sansure Biotech INC; Hunan Province
See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke. This is the reason PCR testing: costs, is usually indicated by symptoms already present/positive antigen test.
And before you ask: but what about the positive test, it was done under your suggested 10h too?
The positive test results actually have the exact test kit specified (https://www.cepheid.com/en/tests/Critical-Infectious-Disease...) and it's definitely not PCR. Furthermore, that company doesn't even manufacture PCR tests/systems. Their focus is on rapid pathogen detection systems.
The negative test on the other hand, doesn't specify the test kit used at all, only the manufacturer. That manufacturer though, not only produces PCR tests/systems, but most of the covid-related products are PCR-oriented, along with a few rapid/antigen solutions. (https://www.sansureglobal.com/products-and-solutions/covid-1...)
Note: on their product details pages you will see mentions of 60 minute amplification time. That might indeed be true, but amplification is, albeit long, just one step of a multi-step process (extraction, preparation, amplification, evaluation).
I honestly don't even care if he's vaccinated or not. He's one of the best Tennis players of all time, and if he wants to be unvaccinated, he should have the right. However, he doesn't have the right to provide a fraudulent test result in order to enter into a country with its own rules, and a Tennis tournament with its own rules. Covid or not, vaccine or not, this is a scummy move by one of the world's most influential athlete.
He just had root access at the gov't COVID testing system level.
Here's a separate thought experiment too:
We've all heard stories of people faking COVID tests. E.g. people don't want to pay the price to get tested, or they can't be bothered to go get tested, so they grab an old covid test, change the date and then go to the airport. The airline representative can only do a visual inspection of the document, and most of the time they have bigger issues than making sure each covid test is valid. For example, they're not going to call the doctor's office for each test.
This seems to be what Djokovic did, fake the COVID test. Hundreds / thousands of people break the rules with fake covid tests and they don't get caught, but he fakes it once and he gets caught.
With this framing, you could in fact say that he is under even more scrutiny than the rest of us. So, not only does he have to follow the rules, he has to follow them even more than we do.
I'm going to stop paying my taxes, because some other people also do not do it. If the IRS goes after me, it's discrimination, because they could've gone after someone else instead :)
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
It's up to ever single individual to interpret what is just and what is unjust, with all its consequences.
I, personally, find that the restriction is stupid, doesn't bring any benefit, and would have no problem to completely disregard it on a moral basis, if I had no fear of consequences.
The tricky part is how to identify what is an unjust law. If each individual is free to make that decision and not bound, that is the absence of a state, that is called anarchy. The consequence is not freedom, because those who have power will rule anyway. Therefore in a democracy the power to determine what is just is vested in the legislator and the power to apply those laws is vested in a government that responds to the parliament that put it in place and the power to oversee the application of laws lies with independent courts, the judges of which have nothing to fear and nothing to gain in adjudicating a case. Don't like that system? That's calling for a revolution. To me, that's the wrong path. I prefer to live with the bad decisions or compromises a government makes instead of fearing the gangs and guns in my neighbourhood.
I agree with you, but it’s not either or. You don’t need to drop the whole system just because you find some parts of are unjust. Opposing, ignoring and fighting nonsense is the way to go, because the rules change only when something previously illegal becomes socially and morally acceptable. That’s how we got cannabis legalisation and same sex marriage.
Feel the same – even if this test investigation is true (looks true) he can plead ignorance of course by saying he doesn't know how that system works.
In effect, if his team + Serbian gov't manipulated the tests, I'm not sure what the recourse is, except for the Australian gov't to sue the Serbian gov't?
If he delegates that declaration he still is responsible. That's the normal and perfect consequence of the concept of legal representation. You cannot just hand your duty over to others and then get away with anything. And honestly if there is one thing he must have known, regardless how many overpaid aids he employed, that is whether his test actually came back positive. So the struggle involves him rightly, not the Serbian government or whoever aided and abetted a wrong committed on Nov. Dj.'s behalf.
I am not sure how this applies in Djokovic's case? He isn't claiming that there are errors (made by others) in any of the papers he has provided, or is he?
P.S. But either way, of course it's he who is ultimately responsible, in the same way I'm responsible for the contents of my tax return, regardless of who prepares or files it on my behalf.
Except many of these cases where folks are trying to vilify someone turn out to be false or misleading, so slow down on the judgement bandwagon you seem eager to jump onto!
The date an image is generated (which is what they are looking at) on some website is not the date's the test were taken.
Look Nadal also broke the rules, he had Covid on 20-th and entered 31 December, and he was supposed to quarantine for 14 days, per Australian law and rules.
This was never about the law and rules, it is just politicians wanted to make a show. I think it is embarrassment for whole Australia how the whole thing played out.
I checked the rules and they're more complicated than you give credit. If he had a negative test, he was allowed to travel.
The way it played out was poor, and few are impressed. We're still yet to find out fully what happened behind the scenes. A lot of misinformation is circulating.
NSW removed all restrictions right before Omicron. They had zero of these so called “extremely strict rules” in place for the last month or so. The premier only changed tact when it became obvious that hospitals would be overwhelmed (back to day one of the pandemic).
We don't have any restrictions now. We went from 100 to 0 and its spreading. I don't think there was even any density rules in my state, the nightclubs were packed on the 31st.
Everyone I know who went clubbing on the 31st did end up with covid as well.
More likely it's a bunch of folks like yourself stirring up outrage where none exists. It's becoming a bit of a pattern. No actual look at reasonable explanation - just straight to the "he's lying" claims.
Pathetic.
The date a doc is downloaded has no bearing on when a test was taken.
Stirring up outrage? The unix time stamp on his test results indicate he lied about the order of his tests. I would say lying to get into a country to play tennis is worthy of outrage.
Maybe, but it also is an unprecedented privacy invasion at mass scale. Medical data used to be protected private information. At least in my country. Now everyone and their grandmother is entitled to be informed about personal medical details. It leaves a bitter taste.
How can you use the certificates without giving people access. Why aren't these people authenticated before they can access the data, so it can be traced back? Which measures are implemented in order to protect the data from abuse?
I have a vaccine cert that works like this. How do I know that none of the countless people who had access to that by now did not leak the data into some ad tech database or are using it for other nefarious purposes?
You can't. You're asking for DRM for the information that you got a positive test. This is impossible. There is no way for what you're asking to be done, website or not - people can repeat and do whatever they want once you know your test status.
So we are back at the point were some medical details are essentially made public which leaves a bitter taste. I am not so sure that there is no way to protect that data at least to some extent.
Most countries didn't even try, while some countries have at least systems in place that try to reduce the privacy impact. Will all these countries ever delete all this fine-grained contact tracing, testing and vaccine status data? Of course not.
In Germany it just made the news that police was unlawfully accessing contact tracing data.
Positive tests for infectious disease have always essentially been made public, yes. This is not new, it's been the case for over a century in most countries.
You have the right to know if you have been in contact with someone that has tested positive, and you have the right to tell other people.
Is this some sort of fallacy I don't understand? If you are travelling internationally your are identified no matter what and even before covid you had to show proof of vaccination for different parts of the world.
Since I cannot reply on the comment were you accused me of lying on the internet.
> You have three ways to enter German businesses either a digital certificate or a vaccination card from the pharmacy or your who vaccine passport
The vaccination card from the pharmacy *IS* the print out of the digital EU certificate, including the QR code. That's all I got at the pharmacy. Businesses will not accept my foreign certificate. I have no other certificates. This is my reality.
You have three ways to enter German businesses either a digital certificate or a vaccination card from the pharmacy or your who vaccine passport... I am in Germany as well STOP lying on the internet.
> Ja. Die momentan auf dem Markt erhältlichen Impfzertfikate in Scheckkartenformat werden im monochromen Thermotransfer-Druck erstellt und enthalten neben dem Namen der oder des Geimpften auch den QR-Code der zweiten oder dritten Impfung. Für den Kartendruck ist lediglich der QR-Code des Impfzertifikats der letzten COVID-19-Impfung erforderlich. Die Kosten für die Herstellung eines solchen Ausweises trägt dabei die oder der Geimpfte selbst.
> Die Überprüfung des Zertifikats erfolgt im gewerblichen Bereich über entsprechende Prüf-Apps (CovPassCheck), mit der der QR-Code der Karte gescannt und damit der Impfstatus nachgewiesen wird. Wie beim Nachweis über die CovPass-App oder die Corona-Warn-App oder den gelben Impfausweis muss die Nutzerin oder der Nutzer sich außerdem mit ihrem beziehungsweise seinem Personalausweis identifizieren. Wenn der Impfnachweis im Scheckkartenformat verloren geht, ist dies im Vergleich zum Verlust des gelben Impfbuchs nicht problematisch, da eine neue Karte jederzeit bestellt werden kann.
The vaccination card *IS* the digital certificate in physical form. You may want to look deeper, before you accuse people of lying.
What is your problem with a digital anonymous certificate that it gets non anonymous as soon as you have to proof that it is indeed you that got the vaccination? You are talking in circles and there is still the WHO vaccination passport.
I was talking about the unprotected URL-type certificates (like Djokovic's certs and my original vax cert), before you moved the goalpost to international travel and called me a liar.
> there is still the WHO vaccination passport
The WHO passport is not useful either, if it does not contain any proof of vaccination, because it is on another continent during vaccination and you are in lockdown. Also, have you seen someone using them for entering businesses during the last couple of weeks? People are clearly pushed towards an app for displaying a QR code that could as well have been a simple image. Let's not normalize installing state-made apps. I am not consenting.
Actually there is a fourth undocumented option, the one that I am using right now: scan the code, create a new qr code with the data and store it on my phone or print it. It is just an image. Works better than the one from the pharmacy, because my QR code is sharper. The app is as useless as the vaccine mandates.
However, let's also not act like officials all around the world did not dismiss data privacy without hesitating during the pandemic. Just like before, only more. Did you read about the police in Mainz accessing LucaApp data for investigations?
Since it looks like the (always thin) scientific basis for vaccine mandates and G2 is crumbling by the day, I suspect that their proponents will soon look pretty foolish anyway and the rest of us can finally move on to dealing with the pandemic in a sensible way.
Sorry, the failure to not have your vaccination passport with you has nothing to do with laws in the country you are residing in. The same goes for you printing out your certificate if they reject it because it is not an official form of proof this has nothing NOTHING to do with laws. It may inconvenience you but it's your own failing not that of lawmakers or others. The same goes for the tennis players certificate, no one forced him to show it to the world. His lawyers also could have asked to not disclose it in the court documents because it is a health document. At least you came to your senses and admitted to lying about it.
> Sorry, the failure to not have your vaccination passport with you has nothing to do with laws in the country you are residing in.
Try to gaslight someone else. There was never an obligation to carry a vaccine passport before the pandemic.
> At least you came to your senses and admitted to lying about it.
I am sorry, but you seem unwilling to understand. I explained how I was not able to get my status certified without getting my privacy violated, while you seem determined to not believe.
Stop moving the lamppost there was an option and YOU couldn't because you left your vaccine passport at home during a pandemic. If you got your first vaccine outside of your home country, you could have easily gotten a new one in every pharmacy or even on amazon [0]. Just because you didn't doesn't mean the country didn't offer a solution for exactly your problem. This is a dilemma of your own making not of laws and also for a lot of international travels you always needed your vaccine passport.
> Stop moving the lamppost there was an option and YOU couldn't because you left your vaccine passport at home during a pandemic.
I am moving the lamppost (this last time) for you and everyone else to figure out that I was wrongly accused by you.
You have no idea what you are talking about and you are jumping to conclusions, because apparently you want me to be wrong about this so hard.
I left before the pandemic and there was absolutely no requirement to have a vacc pass for my destination at any time. Stamping yellow passes was not even offered at the place of my vaccination. Probably somehow it would have been possible if I had the pass, but that was at least never communicated to me. I called the embassy multiple times and asked how to convert that into a cert that is accepted in the EU. They had no idea at that point. Just like you.
Yeah that's probably another lie. Even when I entered North Korea they needed the WHO vaccine passport from me BUT hey I am in a good mood these days so tell us in which magic fairytale country you got vaccinated in that did not offer you to use the WHO Vaccine Passport and I google it for you and show you that you could have shown a WHO Vaccine Passport and got it "stamped". Oh and just to be 100% sure I do this for you so you can see that the problem is YOU and YOUR misinformation that you try to be persistent about. We are not even talking about the blatant lie of your first comment anymore. We are talking about a new one you fabricated by yourself by moving the post over and over again.
There is no protection against leaking these URLs and there is also no authenticated access history stored. Since you are supposed to show them to many people everyday, they are basically public.
Plenty of honest people care. Especially Australian natives abroad who weren't able to see their families for months due to travel restrictions.
People like Australian snooker player Neil Robertson who was in tears last year when his wife was able to get his father to fly to the UK to see him for the first time in over a year.
In the USA at least complaining to our useless government has virtually no effect whatsoever for the typical citizen[1]:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
Which makes me wonder what exactly the talking heads on the tv mean when they talk about "our Democracy," given that we the People of the USA observably have no real democratic input. So who is being referred to with the first person plural pronoun? It's certainly not the vast majority of the citizenry.
I would be surprised if a different result obtains in Australia.
He's turning to the Donald Trump of the tennis world. No matter how cunty his behavior is, he'll have his supporters (god bless nationalism, one of the more obnoxious forms of tribalism). And now with the whole shitstorm he'll even gain the support of the anti-science antivax crowd. Like Trump and to some extent Obama, he's become the subject of a cult of personality. He can never do wrong in their eyes.
Just to protect my ego when this is downvoted and flagged to death: watch this comment get downvoted, because even HN has too many such numbnuts.
Your comment was correctly flagged because it broke numerous site guidelines. Please don't post like this to HN again. In particular: please don't post in the flamewar style, please don't use the site for ideological battle, and please drop the name-calling. Also, note this one, since you're breaking it badly: "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
Edit: actually, you've been breaking the site guidelines so frequently that I've banned this account until we get some indication that you actually want to use HN as intended. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
No it recalled one specific test that had been granted emergency authorisation. There are now better tests that can also detect influenza in addition to covid. The older tests could only detect covid.
Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that the CDC withdrew the use of its PCR test and admitted it can't distinguish between the flu and COVID-19. The CDC is withdrawing the test, but it has nothing to do with the flu. The agency-created PCR test simply isn't needed because hundreds of tests from private companies have addressed this need and been approved by the FDA. The CDC test properly showed positive results only for COVID-19; a person with the flu could not test positive for COVID-19 using the CDC test, experts say."
“Continue working”… he’s an international tennis star that probably doesn’t need to work an extra day in his life, not a mother of 4 working 12 hours days to make ends meet. Also his only loss would be losing the opportunity to win another Australian Open. But I guess superstars don’t have to make sacrifices like us regular people have had to throughout the pandemic.
Why does Australia even have a loophole that allows PCR tests instead of vaccination, without also requiring that the person can't be vaccinated?
You'd wish the tournament could have been clearer here and just said that all athletes should be fully vaccinated, regardless of what any authorities say.
It's PR after all, and the PR of an antivaxer playing is much much worse than the PR of Novak missing the tournament.
I’m no proponent of vaccine mandates or even overly broad vaccine “passports”. Not because it isn’t effective but because it’s eroding trust in authorities.
That said, international travel is one of the places that should be strict, and high profile international competition could and should make an example. Taking part isn’t a right. Organizers have an opportunity to set an example here.
It's not testing positive per se that is the exemption, it's if you have a medical contraindication to the vaccine. The argument is that recent infection is a medical contraindication, which the tournament organizer accepted but the feds have not.
That doesn't make much sense to me: it seems to require a person who has an allergy to the vaccine to also get infected. At any rate, the sensible course of action would have been to allow only permanent, approved medical contraindications to be grounds for exemption. Temporary contraindications (like recent vaccination/infection) would simply invoke an apology and a wish they get better soon.
Fair point. But even so I’m concerned that even trusting “note from random doctor” is far too relaxed. Requiring a medical exemption issued in Australia or by a doctor approved by Australian authorites seems much more secure.
These are the ATAGI guidelines though, the border can do what they want and they do not recognize previous infection as an exemption, apparently except in very special cases where the person is a millionaire with a world-class backhand.
It'd be really interesting to know why he was given an exemption even while he hadn't tested positive in the past 6 months.
Note that the first link is published by a Commonwealth Government entity and the second is not the government. His exemption was granted by Tennis Australia, not the Commonwealth.
"the whole world is talking about the test certificates of a tennis player right now"
No, I don't give a shit about any tennis players and am tired of celebrity and sports activities being "news". Very few people actually do care, let those people read/watch niche media sources if they want to do so but don't make it part of the mainstream news. I would be perfectly fine if I never heard another tennis (or golf, or hockey, or football) story in my life. If a story affects nobody or very few people and has no advisory or actionable element then it doesn't deserve to be part of international "news".
"You need to understand that these papers are not fakes. Both tests, database records as well as pdf certificates are 100% legit. He and his family have enough influence in state institutions to organize 100% original PCR certificate but with false positive result."[2]
"I have now checked your theory with my PCR test from October 1st. I have downloaded it now from http://e-zdravlje.gov.rs, scan QR code and timestamp from URL is 1641917096 (Tue Jan 11 2022 16:04:56 GMT). So timestamp in URL is not when test is done, but when test is downloaded"[3]
[1]https://twitter.com/CharlieWafflees/status/14809568793249955...
[2]https://twitter.com/CharlieWafflees/status/14809588647617003...
[3]https://twitter.com/blokovi/status/1480938239515148297