One commenter in that Twitter thread mentions that the Unix epoch embedded in the URL represents the time of the download, not the time of the test.

Copy paste from the website:

On HackerNews someone gave a plausible explanation for the timestamps: They are regenerated when you download the PDF with the result.

This explains the inconsistencies in the timestamps – but not in the confirmation codes – because they remain the same.

And the inconsistencies also exists in them. The confirmation codes are ascending, so the result from the 16th should have a lower number than the one from 22nd. However, it is the other way around.

isn't the URL what's embedded in the QR code, though?

Previous submission of the tweets in German here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892505

The twitter thread as a blog post: https://zerforschung.org/posts/djokovic-pcr-test-en/

No one has a right to play tennis in a tournament. He should stop being a big baby and get vaccinated, jeez.

The Australian gov should stop being a baby and accept some people will not get vaccinated either because they have recovered or just don't want to

> some people will not get vaccinated either because they have recovered or just don't want to

Sure, and those people don’t get to enjoy the privileges of vaccinated society.

And what if it ends his career? And why if he already had COVID?

The reasonable solution is that no tennis tournaments can be held anywhere with a discriminatory COVID policy.

Let the country do as they please, but that means losing the whole tournament.

It's not reasonable to expect a top performing athlete to risk their heart health on a useless vaccine that doesn't even prevent spread.

That is why they still have Monaco on the F1 calendar because of tradition although it is a rather crappy street track for the modern F1 era.

The Australian Open will always be part of the "Grandslam" for tennis.

What kind of misinformation is this? Where do you get your data?

At least against Alpha and Delta strains, the Covid vaccines SUBSTANTIALLY reduce spread.

What data do you present that they don't? Or are you trying to spread disinformation or are you genuinely ignorant (which is okay, the former is not)?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393v...

You site a paper from June of 2021. The vaccines came out in roughly January of 2021, with average uptake around march.

This paper is not relevant to this discussion, it looks at vaccine outcomes within a less than 150 day window, and only serves to mislead people like yourself.

The probability that it ends his career is far less than the probability Covid will.

Why? Because mild cases such as the one he’s saying he had produced unreliable immunity. After a mild case there’s every chance he’ll get it again. And again.

There is nothing discriminatory about a country/tournament requiring a vaccine against a serious contagious illness.

Everything in your last paragraph is false.

Thoughts? https://airtable.com/shrbaT4x8LG8EbvVG/tbl7xKsSUIOPAa7Mx

That’s anecdotes, not data.

Those aren't anecdotes, there are hundreds of them all sourced.

I almost included the saying in my first comment, but it seemed snarky, so I didn't, and here we are.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Data is validated. Data is correlated.

That air table is like correlating the prevalence of pirates with global warming.

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you followed the thread, at the end they did mention they made it a blog post:

https://zerforschung.org/posts/djokovic-pcr-test-en/