Anthony Albanese receiving a COVID-19 vaccine (Image: AAP)

Crikey readers are not ones to shy away from debate — and COVID-19 vaccinations raise debate like no other. From the question of how societies will — or should — treat the unvaccinated, to cash incentives for the vaccinated, you waded in. Elsewhere you had a go at pinpointing why tennis fans take such a dislike to Novak Djokovic, and gave some suggestions for portable foreign terms for our political class.

On treatment of the unvaccinated

Donald A Kay writes: I am getting a bit miffed about a gaping hole in this discussion of letting the virus rip among those who refuse the vaccination. There might be a nuanced discussion to be had but it ignores a whole section of the community who do not have access to the vaccine even if they (or their parents) want it.

My wife and I have both had our first shots, with second shots to follow as soon as recommended. But my daughter has not had a shot and, like everyone under the age of 12, there is no plan on the horizon for her to be offered the vaccine. The person in our house most likely to get COVID is the one for whom there is no plan or schedule to vaccinate. Given mum and dad will be fully vaccinated she is also the most likely to have serious consequences from getting COVID. So far the kids have sort of skimmed through this but they are about to be thrown under a bus. And we need them. Who else is going to pay back the huge cost of the pandemic so we olds can sit back in vaccinated comfort?

Stephen Dunn writes: If they get COVID they pay the full cost of their treatment. No Medicare support. However, those very few who get sick from vaccines get full support. Their choice.

Henk Brolsma: Everyone who wants a vaccination should be given the opportunity to get one, and health departments should do everything to get the vaccine to them whether they are in aged-care homes, remote communities or are homeless. Those who for medical reasons can’t be vaccinated need to be safeguarded. Those who simply refuse will need to run the gauntlet of the virus once 80% or more of the population have been fully vaccinated.

On a vaccination incentive

Patricia Berry writes: I am an 80-odd-year-old pensioner. I am halfway through my sleeve roll-up because I believe in the vaccination. However, I think giving people $300 each for rolling up their sleeves is a terrific and brilliant idea and I support it — especially as it doesn’t mean those mean cost-cutting bits (that we have become accustomed to with this government), like not giving it to those who have already complied.

Constantin Radu writes: The short answer: yes. The long answer: yes. Who wouldn’t?

Barbara May writes: I would be very happy if I was given $300 for my shot, I wouldn’t be embarrassed or upset. But then I was lucky because I was a 1A/B recipient as an acute-care nurse. Also my workplace helped me source the injection. I’m lucky — unlike my children who are both in their 20s and can’t get anything. 

Peter Wilson writes: This is a bullshit question. There is simply not enough to go around. Another marketing brain snap. Get the goods first! I know people what are waiting and pissed off with lack of supply. Scotty couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Roger Clifton writes: Getting vaccinated is a democratic duty: to protect one’s elders, loved ones, colleagues and fellow Australians. Turning it into a sordid cash transaction trashes the power of responsibility.

On disliking Novak Djokovic

Simon Clements writes: Novak Djokovic has been a media villain for a while. I don’t watch him play any more as he is like a wall — the ball just comes back almost every time. He started his career playing the Hopman Cup in Perth and proved to be the most sociable and likeable character, especially when compared with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. While they developed their media image, Djokovic tends to just say whatever springs to mind.

Journalists tend to copy each other and toe the line. And I doubt Djokovic cares. He is likely to get the top slot for grand slam wins and that is what matters to him. Federer has the most watchable style in men’s tennis, and is a great asset to the game. Djokovic probably uses the criticism as motivation to keep winning.

Eric White writes: I agree there is something to be said about the joker’s timing and his heritage that probably unfairly earned him a bad rap. I do find it interesting that so many people don’t like him and always express a desire that his opponent beats him.

I recall there were some other issues apart from his general attitude of “might is right” that put people off. Years ago he appeared to feign injury to avoid playing Federer or Nadal more than once — which did not go down well. Otherwise a little bit of humility would go a long way, but I think any hope of that is long gone.

Tony O’Brien writes: While I respected Djokovic’s enormous talent and actually liked the guy, his antics in an Australian Open turned me off. I can’t remember the year, but he was playing Andy Murray. Murray, a friend of his, was getting the upper hand in the first two sets. To counter this Djokovic began to look injured. He was limping around the court and it got so bad I thought he would have to retire. Then, with Murray completely put off his game, Djokovic came good. The injury was gone and he took out the tournament. Djokovic lost all my respect at that moment.

Having said that, I’m no wonder to the natural world either, so he has my forgiveness. But it took a while.

On political vocabulary

Urda Herbst writes: I laughed so much upon reading your article. Thanks for the entertainment. I would like to add a word: verzögerungsgenießer — delay aficionado — for ScoMo’s appalling vaccine rollout and opening up our borders when we reach 80% vaccination rates (by then I will probably be dead).

Allen Brown writes: A few gems from Melanesian pidgin:

  • Grisman: literal translation “greasy man”. Meaning a slimy, insincere person (our PM)
  • Pren bilong ol: literal translation “friend of everyone”. Meaning an untrustworthy false friend (take your pick: probably most of our political class)
  • Rabisman: literal translation and meaning “rubbish man” (the parliamentary National Party).

Let us know your thoughts on Crikey stories by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.