MCO
-
Posts
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by MCO
-
-
7 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:
You are comparing "covid so far" to Omicron, which is a much less lethal (almost not at all) variant that lives in the upper respiratory system. It is a common cold.
Maybe, but people have died of omicron. It’s possible you are proven right but it’s too early to tell how deadly omicron actually is other than it’s much less deadly. Hopefully it is the beginning of the end of the higher death rates compared to other seasonal diseases.
-
3 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:
Great question.
No one cares because it's not politicized.
It is politicized. But you can’t say that the few thousand colds kill a year, or the 30,000 the flu kills a year is the same as COVID so far. It isn’t. That said, I mostly agree with you when it comes to overreaction of responses. Just be real about explaining the difference and the risk you are taking. I think the risk is low, much lower than the media makes it seem. I also think the risk is higher than the common cold. I don’t think those are two opposing views.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:
2000 Americans died with it or of it? Which variant?
How many Americans died yesterday of other causes?
How many Americans died yesterday of the common cold?
-
1 hour ago, Buddy Spike said:
It is, because it's a common cold. It doesn't require near the hospitalizations as any other variant. This is how it burns itself out. Time to stop this insanity.
I agree with you that over the top reactions needing to stop and most of our countermeasures right now aren’t doing anything, are for show, and we should be accepting more risk, but the 2000 Americans that died yesterday from it would probably say it’s still more than a common cold even if it’s usually less severe.
we should be framing it for what it is, and making risk decisions that make sense. My two options now are it’s a common cold and any reaction is over the top, or it’s the Black Death and everyone will die if they don’t mask up with 7 masks.
It can be more than a common cold and your argument can still be valid that we should be getting back to normal.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:
Thread revival (and also maybe termination). A good buddy of mine was in the first 13O training class; he told me this weekend that the AF is terminating the the 13O career field and that he needs a job. Anybody else hear the same?
I’ve heard this
-
10 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:
The problem isn't the simple act of wearing a mask. The problem is the implicit messages, day-by-day being cemented in people's heads.
Implicit message #1: Uncovered face = scary and unsafe.
You (and everyone else) must wear a mask for "safety" or "health."
Many, many people now instinctively think anyone with an uncovered face is: a) gross/disgusting b) germ-spreading, c) dangerous, d) all of the above.
Implicit message #2: No mask = rude, selfish, uncaring, asshole, etc.
You can make character and personality judgements based on mask status. (At least half the population, and virtually all businesses with mask requirements, are donning the bullshit rag for that reason alone, and you know it.)
Overall implicit message: "Health" is mask wearing and getting shots, and other humans are dangerous.
The true horror will present itself in 10-15 years, when this generation of kids (who are being conditioned to believe all of the above) become adults.
My kids watch movies filmed before 2020 and anytime there's a crowd, they frantically ask "where are their masks?!?!" "Dad, how can they fly on an airliner without a mask???" It makes me want to vomit.
We have lived life as normally as possible throughout this whole thing, .... sports, travel, seeing friends and family.... all unmasked to the absolute max extent. But the fact is, most of their time is spent in school, where the lunatic branch Covidians have them masked and distanced and afraid. And shamed because they're not vaccinated, or because they were seen unmasked at baseball practice (ohh, the horror). It's despicable.
Imagine how f'd in the head they'd be if we were idiot Covidian parents at home as well. Well, that's reality for many kids - they're having this bullshit irrational fear pumped into their heads FULL time, at home and school. You are flat out crazy if you think the implicit messages I listed above won't cause irreparable damage over time.
Depends on where you are… blue country, everything you said. Red country, if you wear a mask you are obviously a freedom hating libtard. No one lets you just do what you want without judgement.
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, pawnman said:
I'd argue the puritan stance against birth control and teaching teens to use it probably creates more abortions than it prevents.
The huge pushback against legalizing gay marriage, marginalizing a chunk of the population.
Constant covering up of abuses in large faith organizations. The Catholic Church is the most visible example, but definitely not the only one.
There's a ton of things the religious right supports that I think are at odds with what Jesus teaches... but there's a Bible verse for everything.
It is always fun to watch someone quote a Bible verse as support, then clearly ignore the verses before and after it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Waingro said:
More specifically, freedom from religion is a tenet (yeah it's tenet, not tenant) of our constitution.
If you feel like Sky Wizard is calling the shots in your life, cool. But that stops with you - fortunately it's an all-volunteer force and we're all welcome to either play by the rules, or take your ball and go home.
You're spot on - I'll happily uphold my oath regarding establishment of religion. Keep that shìt at home.
There is nothing wrong with the government acknowledging religion as long as it doesn’t sponsor a specific religion and force everyone to join it.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Negatory said:
It is overly simplistic to say that all humans are innately religious. I’m not, and I think you’ll find that is true for many others.
I think your right, but to his point many people treat non religious things like religion, such as political parties. My good side said this is good and the other side is evil, therefore it is so.
-
4 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:
I addressed that in my RA with a whole page. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and supreme court case Frazee v. Illinois clearly establish legally that there is no denominational or previous track record metric for establishing that someone has a sincerely held religious belief. Like alot of people, I had no idea that vaccines were routinely developed, researched, tested, and grown/produced using aborted fetal stem cells. I can't go back in time, just apply my beliefs now and in the future. I won't be taking any vaccines in the future involved with aborted fetal stem cells, but the RNA/DNA is also a no-go for me. I wouldn't say it is a "weak" argument.
The real question for the air force is the whether or not the opportunity cost of approving my RA and keeping the leadership/aviation/mission benefit I have outweighs the benefit for health/readiness afforded by a 100% vaccination rate. We all know how it is going. I don't expect the DOD or AF to make a critical decision here when careers and perceptions are involved...the slim chance for a win will come in Federal courts or from congress. Hence...delay/degrade/deny as long as I can.
Dude...people acting like you (and others on here) make it much easier for me to walk away and hold true to my own personal integrity and faith. This isn't just my loss, it's a mission capability and leadership loss. Fellow officers, pilots, Airmen, and American's are ripping each other apart as things decay around us. I may be in the 1% asking for an RA, but my personal observation is around 30-50% aren't happy with any of this. I've served pretty dam successfully and well as an officer and pilot for 13+ years now. Instead of anything substantial, you attack me to make me sound like a quaker or flat earth retard because of my faith.
I would say no....all of modern medicine doesn't do this to you. Humans have never been injected with synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) before these COVID-19 vaccines....most modern medicines puts chemicals directly into your blood stream, they've never hijacked and replaced cellular protein production at the individual cell level (you don't seem to have even an elementary understanding of how it works comparing it to "modern medicine"). **Cue the "RNA" vaccines have been tested for 30 years, they are amazing!!! Guess you didn't read about ADE or all of the animals that died with the RNA vaccines they tested on animals only (the reason they never went to human trials).**
And guess what, based on my secular health opinions and faith I (and my family) avoid pharmaceutical medical options unless they are the last/required option. We minimize x-rays, minimize processed food, and try to use hygiene/health products that are naturally derived without chemicals. Guess what....I've been a successful pilot and military aviator hacking the mish for 13 years even if you would rule me out for not being born with wings.
I'd encourage you to review how ribosomes work with cellular protein production...you would see that no other modern medical process or product has ever messed with this or used synthetic RNA. That specifically is my objection. The cool part about the constitution and religious freedom is your opinion doesn't matter as long as my belief is sincere according to the law of the land.
100% bro...probably the first post I've agreed with you on and I appreciate the respectful comment. I considered MLCOA/MDCOA/threats heavily before going down this road, I'm aware of where it will likely lead. It's worth it for me.
Im not judging your view, just that your argument will be tough if you took all the other vaccines. No one ever thinks their own argument is weak. At least not people with actual convictions.
-
8 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:
I took a break from baseops for a number of months, so I'm pretty late into this conversation. It was a challenging few months spiritually, professionally, and personally when I first began grappling with the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of the conflict between my faith and career. I've seen a lot of comments acting like those of us seeking RA's are criminals violating lawful orders, politically driven selfish trouble-makers, willful granny killers, etc. I'd like to provide cliff notes with what a believe are a strong legal and policy justification for approving religious accommodations in the AF/DOD. The reality is the DOD and any employer could choose to approve medical or religious exemptions while still mitigating and complying with the mandates/law. I did the job for 1.5 years before there was a vaccine, and I'm deployed flying in AFCENT/USAFE right now with my temporary admin exemption while my RA processes.
-----------------------------------
United States Constitution: The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment clearly prohibits Congress (and the DoD as an arm of Congress) from using a specific test or requirement (religious dogma, denomination, doctrinal view, or opinion from a religious leader) to validate the sincerity or legitimacy of a sincerely held religious or faith-based belief. Further, it prohibits passage of any law (or lesser policy) that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA): Congress passed this law in 1993 which states “The Congress finds that- (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;”. It further states that “(b) EXCEPTION.-Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”
Frazee v. Illinois (Supreme Court Ruling): On March 29, 1989, the US Supreme Court in Frazee versus Illinois, ruled that it is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and illegal to fail to recognize a sincerely held religious belief based on the fact that it isn’t built on “tenets or dogma of an established religious sect”. In this ruling, the supreme court establishes that it is not the government’s role to question or discredit a sincere belief based on where the belief originates, rather the government should be asking 1) is this a sincerely held belief that places a substantial burden on a person…and 2) what is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest?
DoD Instruction 1300.17 (Religious Liberty In The Military Services): DoDI 1300.17 “Establishes DoD policy in furtherance of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recognizing that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion”. This instruction “Implements requirements in…“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, and other laws applicable to the accommodation of religious practices for DoD to provide, in accordance with the RFRA, that DoD Components will normally accommodate practices of a Service member based on a sincerely held religious belief.” Paragraph 1.2.e states “In accordance with RFRA, if such a military policy, practice or duty substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of religion, accommodation can only be denied if: (1) The military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. Paragraph 2.3.b.(2).(b).3 provides the Military Department (delegated to AF MAJCOM/CC) the specific authority to approve a religious accommodation request for immunization in particular.
Air Force Policy & Governing Directives
AFI 48-110 (Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases): Paragraph 2-6.b.(3).(a) addresses administrative immunization exemptions and states “Immunization exemptions for religious reasons may be granted according to Service-specific policies to accommodate religious beliefs of a service member.” It further states “For the Air Force, permanent exemptions for religious reasons are not granted; the MAJCOM commander is the designated approval and revocation authority for religious immunization exemptions.” This instruction establishes a process and precedent for approving this accommodation request for a vaccine exemption, and it also provides an option to revoke the accommodation approval if or when it is no longer the “least restrictive means” of preserving the compelling government interest of mission capability, readiness, health, and safety.
AFPD 52-2 (Accommodation of Religious Practices in The Air Force): Paragraph 1.2 of AFPD 52-2 states “The Air Force has a compelling government interest in mission accomplishment and will take this into account when considering Air Force members’ requests for accommodation of religious practices. This interest includes military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or public health and safety for both the individual and unit levels.” Paragraph 1.4 also states “The Air Force will approve an individual request for accommodation unless the request would have a real (not theoretical) adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, or public health and safety.” Further, paragraph 1.4 states “Airmen have a temporary exemption from compliance in the cases of medical practices or immunization while the request is pending.”
DAFI 52-201 (Religious Freedom in The Department Of The Air Force): The DAFI 52-201 adequately addresses the government requirement to ensure the “least restrictive means” of meeting the compelling government interest. Paragraph 2.2 states the following: “As the right to request religious accommodation is based on the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, it is critically important to fully consider and appropriately value an Airmen’s or Guardian’s request.” It directs reviewing and approving officials to ask two questions:
· “The first question to answer is whether the request is based on expression of sincerely held beliefs (e.g. conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs). If it is based on a sincerely held belief, the relevant expression can include any religious practice…”
· “The second question is whether the policy, practice, or duty from which the member is requesting accommodation substantially burdens the expression of that belief.” “A governmental act is a substantial burden to a Service member’s exercise of religious if it:
o “Requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief;
o “Prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief; or”
o “Places substantial pressure on a Service member to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.”
Adverse Action & Punishment: Paragraph 1.3 states “A member’s expression of sincerely held beliefs may not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion; and may not be used as a basis for making schooling, training, or assignment decisions.
Failure to Accommodate: Paragraph 2.7 states “If, after a thorough analysis of the above factors, the religious accommodation of Airmen or Guardians cannot be met, administrative actions that may be considered include reassignment, reclassification, or voluntary separation.”
If you refused every other vaccine for similar reasons then I think your argument is valid. If this is the only vaccine you have had an issue with I think your argument is much weaker.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, passingtime69 said:
THIS. anyone making a fuss about being worried or how threatening variants are or the spread or the efficacy of s vaccine preventing spread blah blah blah. - ing dumb.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appI mean the families of the 2000 people that died of COVID today in the US might disagree, but if you mean that we may be done treating it like a pandemic and just accept a couple thousand deaths a day that may be true.
i just think it’s dumb my two options according to most here and the news are to completely lockdown scared and cause everything that comes with that, or completely ignore it and claim I’m not in the target population I don’t care and cause everything that comes with that. And if you end up in the middle somewhere you are obviously in the other side of the debate and can’t think for yourself and are just a pawn for “the other side”. This is why when I see people saying “ItS NoT PoLiTiCaL” for the most part I don’t believe them.
-
1
-
-
Just now, VMFA187 said:
Well, I was coerced into receiving the JJ vaccine on Thursday around 2pm. I woke up 10 hours later and felt like absolute garbage, as bad as when I had covid two months ago - Fever, worst muscle soreness I've ever experienced (truthfully), headache, and joint pain. Lasted until a few hours ago.
Can't wait to see what long term side effects will be revealed in the coming years... At least I'll have about a year head's up on most of the willing test volunteers.
Of note, there were people in there who were a week from even being eligible for a booster asking if they could get it early. Astounding.
It’s astounding someone has a different opinion than you?
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, FLEA said:
Was refferring more to the point that you go a lot of places and still hear weird shit like "position and hold" or "XX tower confirmed cleared to land" replied with "confirmed." There are certain words we are keyed in onto and as much as you guys are argueing this I know you're all full of shit because Ive been flying a good chunk of time as well and I've never seen a pilot (not just myself, but anyone ive flown with) accept a clearance he wasn't absolutely certain on. So joke all you want but my point still stands.
Point that wording needs to be exact when you decide it needs to be.
-
2 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:
LoL... I was clueless about the Guard once also. Then I Palace Chased and never looked back.
It makes me laugh the hardball our leaders play at times. In my past 20 years in the service, I have never seen as much policy and brain power (or lack thereof) go into anything that'd make a positive outcome for our troops.
So I got my 2nd jab a few days ago by the "deadline". As some will remember, I got the first one back in the summer before it was made mandatory and chose not to get another one. Other than a pretty sore arm for a day and a little bit of tiredness, I didn't get any other side effects from it. Maybe it is because I went so long between doses. Who knows? Who cares? Call it my booster.
What is funny (or maybe not so funny) is to now hear people in my unit talk about "long term" side effects. Seems that everyone is talking about the same stuff - Stiff joints. Muscle pain, mainly in the arm it was administered. Arthritic-like symptoms. Less stamina when exercising.
For me, the shoulder I got my first jab in four months hasn't been the same since. I don't have as much strength in it and I have less range of motion. If I sleep on it, it is usually throbbing in the morning. Did I hurt it doing something else and this is all just coincidence? I can't think of any other event when this could have happened. Other than that, I do feel like it is harder for me to run when it come to stamina. I've been a pretty avid runner and although I did put on a few pounds of "COVID weight" this past year, it just feels like something different. Who knows? I have read quite a few testimonies online from avid runners who run a hell of a lot more than I do who claim they've lost their stamina after their vaccine as well.
I had the opposite… I had a bunch of weird long term COVID side effect that all went away after my shots. Again, I don’t put a lot of stock in my one experience because of correlation and causation, but it felt like it helped.
-
4 minutes ago, UPT-hopeful said:
Words mean things. Semantics are important when dealing with legal ramifications of volunteering for a shot vs being legally ordered to receive a shot.
Like I’ve said, people have made decent arguments against the shot, but the Pfizer vs generic argument seems like it’s grasping for any loophole and lacks understanding of how they name vaccines and drugs. Good luck to the guys that make that their hill though.
-
2 minutes ago, UPT-hopeful said:
That’s the whole point. Who can legally order that service members receive EUA shots?
Hint: it’s not SecDef.
The person that legally can, hasn’t, because the events that are required for that order haven’t happened.
Once FDA fully licensed shots become available in the US, EUA shots can no longer be provided (that’s a lot of money, I mean doses). Do you see where this trail leads?
It leads to semantics.
-
1 minute ago, UPT-hopeful said:
The FDA labels them legally distinct.
They may be chemically similar (or even the same), but there is more to fill FDA licensure than chemicals: manufacture, storage, transportation.
Legally distinct.
Good luck fighting that one
-
9 minutes ago, UPT-hopeful said:
SecDef’s order was only for FDA fully licensed shots which are currently unavailable. Service members are welcome to volunteer for EUA shots. The order cannot currently be fulfilled. The devil is in the details, as they say.
No he just named the generic name of the shot. Its the same shot. Its like saying you wont take advil but you’ll take ibprufin because they are different.
I think people make valid points but that one seems like such a reach to me.
-
11 hours ago, FLEA said:
There isnt a political aspect to it. It's a cultural aspect; in regards to the culture war between democrats and republicans. Culturally, Republicans are generally more skeptical of authoritarianism, government, institutions and subversion of individual rights.
If Trump were President, there could have been a minor effect but that would have been more due to a hard line republican generally trusting another republican slightly more than a democrat. Otherwise I think the data would be very close. As it is Trump has publicly endorsed the vaccine on several occasions but had little effect.
So I think your understanding to what is happening in regards to hesitance is mistaken. A general every day person/republican has nothing to gain by bucking Biden's mandate. The vast majority of the country is already vaccinated.
In regards to your later questions, there is no data on an mRNA vaccine causing long term effects because there's never been a study on the long term effects of an mRNA vaccine. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You can make that case for every flu shot every year since it’s always new. If everyone had been up on arms about having to take an unproven vaccine every year since they joined the military for a low success vaccine against a disease that doesn’t kill lots of people of military age this would all make more sense to me.
And this is because republicans are for pro liberty and individual rights like allowing families to personally make the call on abortion?To be clear, I’m against mandates and abortion personally I just understand how politics help form our opinions and make us all slight hypocrites, good or bad.
I’m for your choice to do what you want. It just seems like some people, not everyone, are only against the vaccine to prove they can be. I’m for businesses making their own rules and not having authoritarian restrictions, but I bet most people who are anti vaccine and face mask immediately drop the mask even if the business says no masks for vaccinated. I’m for your right to choose, I just hope you don’t choose to be a dick. Follow what the businesses ask or just don’t give them your business if you are that angered.
I got the vaccine not for me but because I hoped to limit the spread so I didn’t accidentally kill someone’s grandma. For some of you your health is more important then your buddies grandma, which is fine but that’s where some of the differences come from. And I don’t mean that as a shot, I understand the reasoning. Part of this is from knowing a few people, some our age that weren’t fat, that died of COVID.
Finally, I don’t think there is anything illegal about the military making you get a vaccine. Tons of precedent for it. Even if the virus doesn’t kill you, keeping whole units from going down at the same time from an illness I think is a reasonable argument for readiness whether you agree or not, IE the flu shot. BIG jump to illegal order. I can understand not liking it and disagreeing with it but I don’t understand how it’s illegal.
-
5
-
-
3 minutes ago, pawnman said:
So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?
Seems like an argument FOR the flue vaccine.
But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid?
Politics
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, FLEA said:
Unfortunately I just understand this better than you sorry.
Lol. And this is why no one will win this argument.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:
Your last two sentences capture the issue at heart I think. Leaders should not equate a lack of desire to command with something less than selfless service. After all, as you note, there are plenty of non-command jobs to fill. Some of these jobs demand a significant amount of sacrifice and are just as thankless as command (see ClearedHot's description of Pentagon assignments).
It's not an easy problem of trying to balance AF needs with individual desires, but inconsistent messaging does not help solve it.
I agree completely with lack of desire to command not equaling less than selfless service, and I think there are GOs that do equate that. There is a point though where you are going to have to force people to command if they want to stay in as an O-6 because we have to fill our command requirements. It’s why officers exist. If you really don’t want to command at the O-6 level, don’t make O-6. Otherwise the possibility is out there just due to the numbers.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:
It is interesting that you mention the difficulty some senior leaders have in understanding a desire to serve but not command. How many times have you heard senior leaders tell a group or an individual that one's service can be meaningful absent command and that not everyone will command even though there are more highly qualified people than there are positions? In effect, the message they convey is that to not command is acceptable, so long as the system makes the choice. Turn the tables, and it is anathema to suggest that someone can serve faithfully while turning down command. In short, I have sensed from some leaders a willingness to use "service before self" as a cudgel to bludgeon people whose desire to serve somehow does not comport with the other's ideal. Certainly, we need people who are willing to bear the burden of command, but I do not think forcing someone who does not want to is good for the service, the person, or the people being led.
1/4 to 1/2 of O-6 jobs are command, so if you have too many people that make O-6 with no aspiration to command, it turns into a numbers problem. Letting people not command that don’t want to is a good thing I think, but you still have to fill all the commands. Good or bad, O-6 command is also seen as a valuable experience to inform certain future jobs as an O-6, not just promotability, which also makes it tough. I think where it gets weird is how much slack do you want to give the system and how it’s messaged. Plus everyone has their own opinion when messaging.
Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)
in General Discussion
Posted
You are putting words in his mouth. He is saying some people like more money. Some people like serving. Some like both. Some prefer one over the other. Some had a different experience and aren’t as jaded. Some got screwed and are super jaded. Do whatever makes you happy. It’s weird that someone that doesn’t care as much about making more money threatens you. All he is saying is don’t judge people for making their own decisions, including taking the opportunity to go get a bunch more money or getting out and living in a 1 room shack in the woods.