Roger Federer

Where Will Federer Start His 2021 Season?

Will draconian quarantine rules restrict where the Swiss chooses to play?

At the end of December, it was announced that Roger Federer would be skipping the Australian Open.

Initially, Federer's lack of match fitness was provided as the sole reason, but it didn't take long for some more tidbits of information to filter through various media channels.

One such bit of info was that Australia's strict quarantine measures also played a part in Federer's decision to give the Sunshine Slam a miss. Hardly surprising.

Speaking to the Brazilian website Band Sports, former pro and now Head of Player Liaison for Tennis Australia, Andre Sa, revealed he had spoken to Federer on the phone about his participation in Melbourne.

According to Sa, alongside his fitness, the draconian quarantine rules, enforced by a government that has become increasingly authoritarian over the last decade, were also a major reason to give Melbourne Park a hard pass.

While the players will be allowed to leave their hotel rooms for five hours every day during quarantine to practice, that doesn't extend to the player's entourages. That apparently would not work with Mirka and their four children who would be couped in a hotel room for 14 days.

The main reason was the quarantine. I talked to him a month ago, and he had two options. He could come with the whole family and quarantine them. The problem is that Mirka (Federer's wife) and her children couldn't leave the room. They would have to stay 14 days in the room. The exception is only for players. He could go out, train, and come back, but the family couldn't. Mirka did not approve of the idea.

The other option would be for him to come alone. Only there would be at least five weeks away from family and children. And he said: “Dude, 39, four kids, 20 Grand Slams. I am no longer in a position to be away from my family for five weeks.” Andre Sa, Head of Player Liaison for Tennis Australia

Where Will Federer Start His 2021 Season?

Federer Dubai 2017 2nd Round

That decision raises the question of where Federer will start his 2021 season. Virtually all of the Western World is following the same playbook regarding travel restrictions, flawed PCR testing requirements and quarantine rules. So which events can Federer take part in?

One likely start would be in Dubai, where the Swiss is currently practising. That ATP 500 is scheduled to take place on 15th March.

Given that's two months away, what about before then assuming Federer is ready to play competitively?

Neighbouring Qatar also hosts the Qatar ExxonMobil Open the week before but are back to back tournaments realistic on the comeback trail? Probably not.

Rotterdam? That would mean a trip back to Europe, but given Federer is an EU Citizen that shouldn't be too problematic assuming the Netherlands doesn't bring in stricter border controls or quarantine rules.

Hopefully, whatever happens, the restrictions don't limit where Federer can play this season, and we will see him at several events, including the grass courts of Halle and Wimbledon.

But with governments seemingly hell-bent on sticking to measures that have yet to produce any evidence they work despite being enforced for nearly a year, it's difficult to foresee the Swiss playing as much as he'd like to after missing virtually all of last season.

Where do you think Federer will kick off his 2021 season? Let me know in the comments.

Jonathan

Huge fan of Roger Federer. I watch all his matches from Grand Slam level right down to ATP 250. When I'm not watching or writing about tennis I play regularly myself and have a keen interest in tactics, equipment and technicalties of the sport.

Related Articles

48 Comments

  1. My suggestion would be Montellier/Rotterdam/Dubai/Miami.

    I know a bit risky and a packed programm, on the other hand he needs matches and in case he has to leave ealrly a few tournaments in row would make sense to avoid too big gaps without further matches.

    I like the idea of starting with a small 250 Event to biuild up confidence…

  2. Sorry, my text was full of errors:

    My suggestion would be Montpellier/Rotterdam/Dubai/Miami.

    I know a bit risky and quite a packed programm, on the other hand Roger needs matches and in case he has to leave one of this tournaments early the plan of a few tournaments in row would make sense to avoid too big gaps without further matches.

    I like the idea of starting with a small 250 Event to build up confidenceโ€ฆ

  3. For Katyani’s sake, I hope he plays Rotterdam and she has front row seats.
    Fed is that much older and smaller tournaments might be a good start. I’m looking forward to watching some tennis at the AO.

  4. Rotterdam or Dubai should be ok need some 500 or 250 tournament to play for first comeback after long break at this age

    1. Both are ATP500 ๐Ÿ˜‰

      that’s why I Suggested Montpellier (250)/Rotterdam (500)/Dubai(500)/Miami (1000).

  5. Think heโ€™ll want to start somewhere where he feels comfortable and can potentially gain points so Rotterdam makes sense then move onto Dubai. Then hopefully he has a few matches under his belt for Miami. Wouldnโ€™t surprise me if he plays a random exhibition (only if fans are allowed ofcourse)

  6. Because of the last suggestions about Fed skipping AO because of restrictions making it impossible to travel with the family, I would assume, everything depends on what restrictions will happen to every single tournament. If this was the reason for him skipping AO, it’s hard to predict, how the situation will look like for other tournaments, especially in UK, Germany, Spain, France, US.
    IMO there is no any single tournament in the calendar, which will for sure not fall. Some may go under strict bubble, without crowds, with very limited numbers of team members ( resulting in no family).
    First to be cancelled is Tokyo, one of Fed’s main goals.
    Everything can change after Fed&Family are all vaccinated (if they plan it at all). And Swiss authorities are promising, every willing Swiss will be vaccinated by summer (whatever this exactly means.
    The only thing we know for sure is, we don’t know anything ๐Ÿ™
    I’m even not sure if AO will not cancelled after a week of initial quarantine.

  7. It’s certainly a dilemma regarding the timing of the surface swings. Now that he’s missing AO there’s only really Miami left as a significant HC tournament until late summer, so, what to do?
    On the one hand, he needs matches, and the fact he’s based in the Gulf means that a Doha/Dubai double-header would be ideal.
    On the other hand, Maybe he should just forget HC until August/Sept and start his tour in South America since we’ll be entering the Clay swing from April anyway. Makes no sense to play a few HC tournaments and then have a two-month break until the Grass comes around.

    1. Clay has no sense at all for a player. who’s only (but big) problem is the movement. Federer does not need matches. He needs to be fresh before grass and not risk any setback in his recovery. Grass is the surface, where Federer’s hand magic means more than movement and Federer is the best mover just on grass. I mean, he would have the same problems with movement on grass like on any other surface but opponents are not that good movers on grass as they are on other surfaces. Head and hands is where Federer is better than anyone else , especially on grass (on other surfaces maybe Djokovic is comparable in this aspect.).
      My guess is, he plays Dubai, maybe Rotterdam, than skips everything before grass. If conditions allow and tournaments are not cancelled, RLC and Tokyo. Period.

      1. What’s the point in playing 1-2 tournaments and then having another two-month break? There’s a big difference between being fresh and ring-rusty, and two tournaments in 16-17 months is far from ideal prep for a major โ€” no matter how good a record he has there.

        Even though clay is not his preferred surface, so long as his goes into it with few expectations, doesn’t push himself too hard, and with the primary aim being to get matches under his belt, he should be fine. Besides, a few weeks in Argentina/Chile will do his brand no harm at all either.

        Sadly though, and despite the folly of it for the aforementioned reasons, I think he’ll end up playing Dubai and Miami only (maybe Rotterdam too) before hitting the grass, although obviously a lot will depend on the respective restrictions in place at the time.

      2. @Will
        Your argumentation is OK. For everyone but not Federer. Wasn’t he rusty before AO 2017?. Every Federer Magic does not need matches. You can polish it in practices.
        Given Covid disturbances, what he will want to avoid for sure, are too many travels in the calendar.
        Does he need more than Wimbledon and Tokyo titles before he retires? Or continues, if 2022 is finally a normal year and he is in the position of not fighting for anything anymore. Only to have fun. Then it may be last-minute decision, according to family and “civil-life” planning, not in terms of tennis career.

      3. Good point about AO ’17 but coming back after a six-month gap at 35 and a 16-month one at 39/40 are different beasts. You can’t just rely on talent and ‘magic’ alone.

        Regardless my thoughts, I can’t see him playing on the dirt much (if at all) and with that in mind, as per my 1st comment, a Gulf-double would be perfect to get his career restarted with.

        Regarding your comment about not having anything to fight for โ€” he’s a serial champ, with a naturally competitive spirit, who’s broken numerous records, so even if he does win Wimby and the Olympics, he’ll always want more, especially with those two junkyard dogs breathing down his neck.

      4. @Will
        You will (!) maybe laugh, but I will (!) apply the same argumentation again. Re “six-month gap at 35 and a 16-month one at 39/40 are different beasts”. It’s again the same. This may apply to everyone but there is a big chance it doesn’t for Federer. Of course there are some limits. But so far we don’t know, where the limits for Federer are.
        And I don’t think, Federer cares much about numbers of big titles. Some day he decides, there are many other interesting things in life (“FAMILY FIRST!”???) and winning slams can start to be boring. And he decides to start to do different things. And he must not feel it to be “retirement”, but simply another choice for another part of life. I guess, Federer is not a one-dimensional guy. Imagine, Federer turns 60 and can still win slams. Should he? Only for record books? Meanwhile his wife is 60+ and his kids are 20+ and long gone their own ways. And Federer staying still as record-maker in tennis?
        And for us fans we should think about another truth of life. Should Federer win all slams every year over 20 years, would it be still fun to watch? To watch numbers yes, but to watch matches? If something goes well every-time you do it, it may be fine but you have no more fun ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8. Since the PCR test is flawed, why don’t you tell the Office for National Statistics that? They did a study on it showing a false positive rate of 0.005%. Who to believe, the ONS or a bunch of massively discredited lockdown sceptics? Tough question.

    On Roger’s season, a Dubai start would probably make the most sense given he has a house there and could just go train in the perfect environment to prepare.

    1. Mass PCR testing is a ridiculous idea and can only lead to perpetual lockdown.

      The test is not designed for this purpose. It should only be used at the point of care for assisting in determining the course of treatment. Any scientist or Doctor that isn’t on a government payroll or a political activist will tell you this.

      The reason here is a positive test does not mean clinical significance. Look at the UK, 50k positive tests a day, if you chased up these 50k people in 10 days for an update, how many do you think became severely ill? This is what should be done, and reported, and if it did, mass testing would quickly stop.

      As for false positives, how is the ONS determining that figure? But regardless, it is clearly a huge problem. We have no idea what cycle threshold the UK are using and there’s also problems with the labs. They are not being administered with any consistency, cross contamination is a huge problem.

      I mean look at those 60 people in Germany who demanded retests.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-germany-tests/under-pressure-german-covid-19-lab-produces-run-of-false-positive-tests-idINKBN27D1T4

      So 58 of the 60 were wrong. It’s an absolute farce. People with no symptoms getting tested are being lead up the garden path.

      When the inventor of the test himself said this is not a test for determining infectious diseases, I think he was probably onto something. All mass testing of the population should cease tomorrow.

      If justice does truly exist, Drosten, who’s lab created the tests that are in widespread use, will be held to account. We shall see.

      1. Yeah, some think, the more tests you do, the better (by (political) definition. Just like with flu. An experienced doctor can knows how to heal you and all he needs are symptoms, because there is no medicament against viruses. If you have no clinical symptoms, you are healthy or …. dead ๐Ÿ˜‰ Both don’t need tests or cure.
        Mass vaccination is another thing, because any other vaccination may he important for individuals but not for epidemic.

      2. Mass antibody testing would have a sense, to know, how many were infected and are now immune for some period and can wait to be vaccinated, why in the meantime those, who were not (yet) infected can be immunized first to reach herd immunity quicker.
        BTW – the virus itself is a vaccine. But it’s for free, so where is the business?
        Should they put the investment in drugs instead of vaccines, results (in terms of heavy illnesses and death’s) would be a lot better. But the business would be never so big.
        Don’t know, how it works elsewhere, but in Poland they talk since some time about “grey zone” – people with symptoms are not going to doctors, fearing quarantines, isolations a.s.o. They go only if heavy symptoms develop and these are landing under respirators and after short time on cemeteries. Another big part of deaths is due to health systems being paralyzed by Covid and people with pre-existing deadly illnesses having lost the continuity of medical care. Those who really die simply of Covid are probably not worth mentioning.

        As for sports (incl. tennis) I can hardly understand, why respective organizations don’t organize “Covid camps” for Top1000. If someone gets really ill, can be sent to the hospital but I didn’t notice any pro athlete going seriously ill or dying from Covid. They are all fit and healthy and if someone have objections, may decide individually not to participate. If the process was realized under fitting medical control, nothing wrong could happen (in any case not worse than in the case of distancing and so on).
        I was interested in getting such a controlled infection by some health research institute, but could not find any offer ๐Ÿ™ Then I tried to participate as voluntary in clinical challenge test of vaccines (you get vaccinated and then intentionally infected – the only real clinical test for vaccines). No offer.

      3. Mass antibody testing was a good idea at first, but it’s been shown that many people have a background immunity to this disease, and they fight the disease via t-cell immunity. So it will tell you very little as they do not produce antibodies. Antibodies also drop quickly after infection so you won’t get a good picture. My assumption would be many many people have pre-existing immunity to this disease due to exposure to other coronaviruses, it seems very plausible. I can’t prove it of course, but I am sure it will be revealed eventually. Unless it is suppressed like more science seems to be.

        Other drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin are unfortunately too cheap ๐Ÿ˜€ The way HCQ was politicized is embarrassing. Prophylactics should definitely be used. I believe Doctors with less to lose (i.e. private practice) etc are using them effectively and saving lives. The WHO sponsored prelim study of ivermectin shows it’s effective.

      4. @Jonathan,
        Agree re practicing doctors. We have such a story in Poland. A doctor in a provincial small town found out, Amantadine works similarly as Ivermectin (my dog was treated with Ivermectin against Demodicosis, but I guess we don’t have Ivermectin in products for human medicine). Amantadine is registered popular drug against Parkinson and was legally available for the said doctor. He sent documentation (to the ministry of Health, just in May 2020) of some hundred cases, in which he was able to kill the virus in infected people in 48 hours. It worked 100%. The only problem was, not everyone could take it because of serious side effects in some preconditions. Of course no deeper study was started.
        And yes, I’m quite sure (many epidemiology and virology experts confirm), lot of people have pre-existing immunity, based on T- and B-cells (after different previous infections or vaccinations) and there is no test to prove the immunity on this level. But a year ago there was no test for Covid. If you don’t search, you probably don’t find ๐Ÿ˜‰ All that leading to the conclusion – finding different ways to cure would be more and faster productive. Maybe vaccines will work but we will have it documented in year(s). What if they don’t work in long-term? Big news for vaccine developers/manufacturers ๐Ÿ™
        I remember Mr. Fauci, talking about possible ways of strengthening the immune systems and his mantra was, you can take vit. C and that’s all. I guess, every family doctor knows tons about this and the methods are numerous and different – it’s about lifestyle, diet, herbs and different arts of natural medicine, including TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine), which was used for almost 100% of patients in Wuhan and probably is used by great percentage of people there regularly. Well, it’s easy for everyone (doctors not needed) to apply a simple test, but there are lots of tests for different diseases and I guess, nobody tests him/herself for all possible diseases only because tests exist. If you have no symptoms. , Cancer without symptoms? Probably many have. I love diseases with no symptoms ๐Ÿ™‚ But pundits say, they are dangerous, because because if they know, you have an asymptomatic cancer, they would start to cure you early (with the side effect of making your life worth nothing and you maybe dying from stress before you eventually get any symptoms. And, and ….

      5. ‘[False positives are] clearly a huge problem’. That’s your opinion. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. The ONS calculated it by looking at the number of positives they got in the summer (apologies I misremembered, it was 0.04%, but it doesn’t change the conclusion). They did hundreds of thousands of tests and found very few positives. If you assume that all of those tests are false positives, that’s your absolute upper bound on false positive rate: 0.04%. Apply that to the 500k tests per day done in the UK, and you would get around 200 false positives, compared to the 50k positives.

        Even if somehow something has changed with the testing process, including the ONS survey to mean that that is no longer accurate, you would not expect to see significant numbers of excess ICU admissions (London has 33% more ICU beds occupied than last winter). False positivitis does not lead to admissions to intensive care.

      6. As for cheap drugs, what makes you think cheap drugs are not being used? Dexamethasone was one of the first drugs to be approved, and a packet of the stuff is less than ยฃ10, to reduce mortality by 20%. A paper in the Lancet in November looked at HCQ for preventing COVID (after criticism of previous studies for using it after someone was infected), and there was no difference whatsoever, ergo it doesn’t work. I think also you overestimate how much profit there is in vaccines, a ยฃ3 shot (Oxford/AstraZeneca) which each person needs twice, is not as profitable as a year’s supply of statins for all the people who take those (ยฃ400 per year, and repeating for the rest of their lives in most cases). If you want to look at Big Pharma profiteering, statins are a good place to start, not vaccines.

      7. @PRF

        We do have drugs to treat viruses, what gave you the idea that there aren’t any? People with HIV take anti-retroviral drugs, which suppress the replication of HIV. That’s just one example.

      8. The same Lancet that published a completely made up study on HCQ? ๐Ÿ˜ Based on what you’ve spouted so far I would imagine you’re a big believer in remdesvir.

        Look at the Bavaria link. 58 out of 60 were wrong. The test is being used in a completely non standardised manner.

        And if you put the issue % stat of ‘false positive’ aside due to lab issues etc my bigger issue is all the cases that have zero clinical significance? They shouldn’t even be classified as cases.

        Why not check on the 50k positives in 10 days and see what happened to them? How many are actually ill or developed symptoms?

        Mass PCR testing is one of the biggest flaws in this pandemic and tells you nothing. Mullis knew it should never be used for determining infectious diseases. The packaging on the tests still says it, and I see the WHO reiterate this in their recent bulletin. It should end tomorrow.

      9. @Jonathan

        I looked at the Bavaria link. It literally states that the error was due to having incorrect reagents. To go from a one off problem at one lab, to the entire system being broken is a bit of a stretch. And even if the testing was wrong on a huge scale, how do you explain the huge rises in intensive care admissions, or the excess deaths? Normally about 1,000 people would be admitted in the UK with respiratory complaints in winter (flu season), and we’re admitting 4,000 per day. If the testing system is so flawed, why do positive tests turn into hospital admissions, ICU admissions, deaths and excess deaths, in exactly the manner you would expect if the testing system worked?

        However, I do think that the money spent on testing hasn’t really been worth it, and we should have settled (in the UK) for about half the testing capacity (or less), and spent the rest of the money researching and rolling out drugs, vaccines and providing more financial support for people.

        Also the creator of the PCR test didn’t say that it can’t be used to detect the presence of a virus, simply that it can’t tell you whether a person is infectious or not. And also, even if a test result is positive and the person has no symptoms, they may develop symptoms, and hence they should be isolating. Regardless of whether it is of clinical significance, it is of epidemiological significance that they isolate.

        Also, the Lancet paper I mentioned on HCQ was written by a completely different author, so I don’t see how your criticism is relevant as many different authors publish in the same journal. I think your site occasionally blocks links, so if you want to look it up the title is ‘Hydroxychloroquine in the prevention of COVID-19 mortality’. Besides, there are many other studies which come to the same conclusion.

      10. Assuming we had a reliable, stadardised test then mass testing should have been done at the very start of it all. Not mid way through and certainly not now. Every move the government makes has been diametrically opposed to what should have been done. In fact boosting testing now when it’s flu season is a way to justify a lockdown.

        It is my belief that testing is flawed. It’s non standardised, you have labs processing it in different ways. Here is a good thread https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1320536482298384390?s=19

        Are you sure this is correct? 4000 patients admitted per day with respiratory problems?

        I read the data as 4000 patients per day and a % of those are of course showing respiratory like symptoms. Their diagnosis is not part of the statistics.

        And herein lies a big problem, covid tunnel vision. It is perceived that all deaths are covid deaths, all admissions are covid, all covid deaths are avoidable. All excess death must be covid.

        How many excess deaths are as a cause of lockdown? Nobody knows because the figures are all over the place.

        Much of this whole thing has been manufactured in my opinion and getting accurate information has been obfuscated by state and media fear campaigns.

        I would recommend reading Corona False Alarm by Sucharit Bhakdi and making your own determination. Great read by a guy with some serious credentials. Backed up even more by the fact he’s on record about swine flu and mad cow disease with opinions that we now know were correct.

      11. @Jonathan

        I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the testing. As for the admissions to hospital, I know some lockdown sceptics have questioned the official hospitalisation figures (as perhaps including people who test positive despite not being in hospital for COVID-19 treatment). Therefore, let’s go back to the raw numbers again: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1347200811303055364. That’s a great graphic that demonstrates that there are clearly far more people being admitted to ICU than normal (at least 3x, even compared to the worst flu seasons in the last five years, including 2017/18). There is, in my considered view, having examined the data, a significant risk that healthcare services will be overwhelmed.

        As for the way the media or government have framed things, I’m not sure I agree. Certain sections of the media, and some scientists, maybe. But in general, Whitty and Vallance have constantly said when someone has asked ‘why don’t you impose X restriction’, the answer is that even if it might control the virus, the government have to consider other issues like the economy, mental health, and so on. But I agree that certain sections of the media have been extremely unhelpful.

        As for your book recommendation, I’m not particularly inclined to pay to read it. However, I can assure you that I read widely on the issue. I frequently read the material published by Mike Yeadon, ConservativeHome (some lockdown sceptics on there), Toby Young, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Carl Heneghan, Sunetra Gupta, and so on. I also read pro-lockdown sources, or ones that fit into neither category (Tim Spector). I’m coming at this from a position of being familiar with the arguments involved. I also fact-check the stuff I read, and go straight to the raw data for an unbiased view.

        As for excess deaths, you can easily tell the difference by whether they correlate to increases in COVID-19 deaths. If we see increases in COVID-19 deaths coinciding with excess deaths, it’s probably COVID. If we have excess deaths and few reported COVID-19 deaths, then it’s probably not COVID.

        And finally, I still enjoy reading your blog, even though we have different views, so consider this a friendly disagreement ๐Ÿ™‚

      12. It’s worth every penny the book tbh.

        I can’t agree with Whitty and Vallance, they have lost their way from herd immunity to just being mouthpieces for the government. Zero cost-benefit analysis has been shown by the government. And it’s pretty much nailed on, lockdowns do nothing. A big study from the big dog in epidemiology this week showing that. An interesting piece as well from a Canadian Doctor who was massively pro lockdown but has seen the damage they caused.

        And I am not denying the NHS is under pressure. It always is, you can find the same headlines from 2017/2018 that it’s about to collapse, yet nobody gave a shit back then. We also had 10 months to prepare, the Nightingales have been scrapped. But yes, it must be the publics fault for not staying home enough.

        The numbers do not make sense, you are right they are going up, but they have no context. They say 70% of of all deaths in hospital are now covid, does that sound reasonable? Of all the other things that people used to die of in the hospital, only 30% of those things remain. Yet everyone who dies in hospital is tested for COVID on the day they die, if you tested them for 20 other diseases using a test that flags up basically anything, they would likely have 10 of them. This is criminal.

      13. @Jonathan

        Did you take a look at that graphic? It shows that ICU admissions are clearly many times worse than 2017/18. Not just a bit worse. Forget the headlines, they’re meaningless and this is clearly a lot worse by even a cursory look at the stats. And you can’t just magic up NHS capacity. The biggest problem is trained staff, which the NHS has been short of for years, and can’t be sorted with 10 months notice.

        On the point about whether lockdowns work, you’ve got to first define work. If you mean eliminate the virus from a country, then no, lockdowns alone don’t work. If you mean, do they prevent healthcare services from being overwhelmed and slow down or reverse rapid growth, albeit with the likelihood that the epidemic may rise again after the lockdown, the answer is clearly yes.

        As for the excess deaths, we will see. I’m already seeing reports that mortuaries etc are very busy, so that would mean that the COVID deaths are in addition to everything else, not replacing other deaths. But it will take time for it to show up in the figures either way. If there are significant excess deaths, and they line up fairly well with COVID-19 deaths, that’s good enough for me. Because if that isn’t good enough, then that implies that thousands of doctors and nurses have collectively conspired to lie on death certificates, and I don’t find that to be credible.

      14. Mortuarys are often busy and you can find headlines around refrigerated lorries throughout the 00s – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/248975.stm But, nobody cared then.

        If staff was the problem all along, why even build the nightingale? Now it’s been emptied and hospitals are overrun. This sounds like gross negligence?

        While we likely will know more in a few weeks about deaths, given the data is all over the place and hard to decipher – for example, you are tested on arrival e.g broken leg and tested again if you die in hospital (given it’s very much a nosocomial infection surely this will inflate the figure?) it makes the whole thing so hazy.

        The other flaw is like I say, the testing regime, Imagine if covid was a liquid, whether you have 1ml or 100ml in your bloodstream, you are positive and recorded as a case. That surely cannot be good? It completely defies the definition of a case.

        Finally, I don’t think you can say for certain lockdowns even achieve that, as the UK locked down originally after infections had peaked. And given Sweden never came close to their healthcare system collapsing, despite having one of the lowest ICU capacity per capita in Europe it’s a bit of a stretch to say lockdowns do anything positive. Look at Japan, South Korea, Belarus. When Ioannidis speaks, the world should listen: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

    2. To my knowledge PCR was not developed to test RNA virus infections (being primarily a DNA-test), but was developed of late to be able to test for RNA. If I remember well, it’s meant to have accuracy of around 70% (!). And even if it has only 0.005 false positives, maybe it has more false negatives?
      Who to believe? that’s the question. I guess, the best you believe (because the belief is individual) in harmony with your instinct and emotions, because belief is more about emotions than about facts (BTW – what’s actually “fact”?). I’m in the lucky position of someone without a need to believe or not. I’m living since 20 years in the forest with almost no contact with humans, I can’t get infected from my dog or wildlife around (theoretically yes). I could be a subject of some conspiracy theories, because I have chosen the strictest lock-down ever but I’m who decides about “terms and conditions” ๐Ÿ˜‰

      1. Yes, the sensitivity is not necessarily that high, and false negatives are a bigger problem than false positives.

    3. @Jonathan

      Let’s wait for the numbers on the excess deaths, and I think I’ve already said enough on testing, I don’t think either of us are going to change our minds.

      As for the Nightingales, I do agree that was gross negligence. There was never any point building them. I was reading that each London hospital has been asked for 22 staff for the Nightingale, so the obvious response is, ‘where do we get the staff’? It’s been a total waste.

      1. The London Nightingale, at least, has been reopened – but what I understood from the news last night was, only for non-Covid cases, presumably to prevent them from getting infected. Or for people with other ailments who are due to be released soon.

      2. @Alison

        It’s good that they’ve found a few spare staff. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the scale of the building (originally for 4,000 beds), was never going to be practical to use to its full capacity.

    1. Right. Switzerland is not an EU-member, has only some bilateral agreements, including Schengen membership.
      Don’t know, what was Jonathan’s idea – maybe that Federer can travel over Europe (EU) without pass control, needing visas a.s.o. But it’s not the same as citizenship.
      If epidemic restrictions, including quarantine, were meant, they are issued by individual countries, not by EU and can be directed against specific other countries, so what would be to check, is (at the time of the tournament) if Holland has no restrictions affecting Swiss.
      In worst case it’s then about quarantine or “special exemptions” ๐Ÿ˜‰

    2. Yeah I am about as accurate as the PCR test, I meant Schengen area, which makes travel much easier during corona times. Travelling on a British passport, for example, is trickier at the moment, but I get by ๐Ÿ™‚

  9. I think he’ll be playing Doha, Dubai, Halle, Wimbledon, Olympics, Rogers Cup, Western & Southern Open, US Open, Laver Cup, Shanghai, Basel and Paris. Maybe Miami and Stuttgart.

  10. Accoding to
    https://www.tennisnet.com/news/roger-federer-comeback-in-doha-auftritte-auf-sand-sind-geplant
    our man confirms his comeback in Doha.
    Following the interview with swiss television he will take it one step after the other (which means even Dubai the week after is not 100% save).
    He intends to play even on clay but his priorities are Halle/Wimbledon/Olympics and US Open.
    “His body is ready and so is his mind to take the long road again reaching for big titles”…
    Chum Jetze Roger ๐Ÿ’ช

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button