<p>Covid times have seen many stories of good sense, courage, distress and a range of other human responses in fighting the disease and dealing with its protocols. It is the most pervasive ailment to afflict human beings in the last many decades, and it has not spared any country or community in the past two years. There is not a single individual who has not been affected by it directly or indirectly. Its universality makes for a universe of diverse responses including acceptance, denial, fight or surrender. The drama being played out in Australia with tennis superstar Novak Djokovic as the protagonist or the villain is of an exceptional kind. It is scripted around the singular response of the demigod player to a code that seeks to protect him and others from the virus. The play is still on, or the last set is yet to be played.</p>.<p>Djokovic is a known vaccine-sceptic. He had secured exemption from the vaccination requirement before seeking to defend his title at the Australian Open, aiming to claim the honour of winning the most Grand Slam men’s singles titles. But his visa was cancelled on landing at the Melbourne airport as questions arose about some issues in his application and his eligibility for exemption. The player has been quarantined but he has legally challenged the state’s action. The Djokovic case has become a political issue and a matter of public interest in a country that has one of the strictest regimes of Covid prevention and control. People would not like a superstar to get special treatment for no great reason other than his personal glory while they themselves have been asked to make sacrifices for the greater good of society. </p>.<p>The case has relevance outside Australia because it frames the question of individual rights against the community’s interests, which has been raised in different ways in Covid times. The question can be seen in the local dignitary’s failure to wear the mask and in many other similar, small and big, situations. It is basically about the exercise of privilege against the needs and demands of others. Djokovic is a great player and the public would admire him in normal times. But they would not like him to serve the ball to them and run away with it in a court set to Covid rules, and to make his selfish point to claim the match. Why should everyone’s welfare be weighed against one person’s fancy, wish, or conviction? It does not also help that Serbia, where Djokovic comes from, has among the highest rates of vaccine hesitancy and Covid deaths in the world. </p>
<p>Covid times have seen many stories of good sense, courage, distress and a range of other human responses in fighting the disease and dealing with its protocols. It is the most pervasive ailment to afflict human beings in the last many decades, and it has not spared any country or community in the past two years. There is not a single individual who has not been affected by it directly or indirectly. Its universality makes for a universe of diverse responses including acceptance, denial, fight or surrender. The drama being played out in Australia with tennis superstar Novak Djokovic as the protagonist or the villain is of an exceptional kind. It is scripted around the singular response of the demigod player to a code that seeks to protect him and others from the virus. The play is still on, or the last set is yet to be played.</p>.<p>Djokovic is a known vaccine-sceptic. He had secured exemption from the vaccination requirement before seeking to defend his title at the Australian Open, aiming to claim the honour of winning the most Grand Slam men’s singles titles. But his visa was cancelled on landing at the Melbourne airport as questions arose about some issues in his application and his eligibility for exemption. The player has been quarantined but he has legally challenged the state’s action. The Djokovic case has become a political issue and a matter of public interest in a country that has one of the strictest regimes of Covid prevention and control. People would not like a superstar to get special treatment for no great reason other than his personal glory while they themselves have been asked to make sacrifices for the greater good of society. </p>.<p>The case has relevance outside Australia because it frames the question of individual rights against the community’s interests, which has been raised in different ways in Covid times. The question can be seen in the local dignitary’s failure to wear the mask and in many other similar, small and big, situations. It is basically about the exercise of privilege against the needs and demands of others. Djokovic is a great player and the public would admire him in normal times. But they would not like him to serve the ball to them and run away with it in a court set to Covid rules, and to make his selfish point to claim the match. Why should everyone’s welfare be weighed against one person’s fancy, wish, or conviction? It does not also help that Serbia, where Djokovic comes from, has among the highest rates of vaccine hesitancy and Covid deaths in the world. </p>
