Kyrie Irving did not play in Tuesday night’s Nets game, and it appears he is unlikely to play for the foreseeable future.
That’s because the iconoclastic Irving refuses to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Irving has said it’s “not a political thing,” that he’s only looking to be true to himself. But he’s also said he is standing up for others, being the voice of those who are hesitant or outright anti-vaccine.
Irving has the right to refuse the Covid shots, but not to escape the consequences of remaining unvaccinated. His actions endanger not just Kylie Irving, but his teammates, his coaches, and all of the people he comes in contact at the Barclays Center and the team’s practice facility, as well as opposing players and the extended team personnel around the league. This is not a personal decision.
Still, we get ESPN, in its NBA preview of the Nets, describing Kylie Irving not playing as if New York City and the Nets were keeping him off the court.
Consider this passage on the signing of former Spurs guard Patty Mills. The move, ESPN says “could prove crucial on multiple fronts,” but mostly because “Brooklyn will be without Kyrie Irving indefinitely because of New York City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, pushing Mills into a bigger role than initially expected.” Because of the mandate and not because Irving refuses the vaccine.
Irving’s absence is described throughout without using the words Covid, coronavirus, or vaccine, saying instead that “the realities of a pandemic intervened.” Instead, it reframes the debate: The team could’ve used “Irving as a part-time player only in road games,” ESPN says. However, “the Nets have decided he will not play at all until he cooperates with the New York City mandate.”
This is a subtle shift, but it frames the larger debate over vaccines in a way that is both unhelpful and inaccurate. ESPN has the fact correct here, but not the nuance, and that’s because it does not make it clear that this is about Irving — aside from a quick aside saying that it is “impossible to say when Irving might revisit his decision.”
And it is his decision. It’s up to him to decide whether he will get vaccinated, but he does not get to make that decision without consequences, disregarding the potential health impacts on others.
That is not what freedom means. This goes for him — and for all of the other people out there who refuse.
The people out there now proclaiming “My Body, My Choice” say they are only defending their freedoms. That they often seek to deny that same right to others — to women seeking abortions, for instance, which is the group from which they stole their new slogan — is an indication just how narrow their definition of freedom is.
Freedom, despite what it says in Merriam-Webster, is more complicated than just being able to do what you want when you want. That concept of freedom just does not exist in a real world in which we are all connected and in which our actions affect others. You have the right to swing your fist, as the saying goes, but that freedom ends at the tip of my nose — meaning that if your freedom impinges on my freedom then society can limit those freedoms.
So, anti-vaxxerrs, like Irving, can refuse to be vaccinated on the grounds that they have the right control what goes into their bodies. Their decision, however, makes it more likely that they could contract the coronavirus, which in turn creates a greater potential for spread. Because of that, the government — which is empowered by and represents the people — can step in.
So, yes, the New York City mandate is keeping Irving from playing at home at the Barclay Center in Brooklyn. And the Nets, who have decided they are unwilling to let Irving be a part-time player, who are preventing him from suiting up for the team’s 41 road games. But it is Irving and Irving alone who bears responsibility.
I don’t want to imply that ESPN is taking sides in the vaccine debate. In fact, I suspect the wording was an attempt by the sports network to avoid doing just that, which is a problem that has hamstrung much of the mainstream media. It is an effort to create balance when, in fact, none exists. We see it with the climate debate — humans activity is accelerating the warming of the planet and creating more volatile weather patterns, but we still get journalists who will seek out deniers for balance. And we’re seeing it now with Covid. In the end, there is no balance. There is only noise and distortion, and the mainstreaming of deniers and their political beneficiaries.