MCO
-
Posts
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by MCO
-
-
I don’t know if they are really thinking about turning opt out off but there is concerns for some career fields. Id also say I don’t think our O-6 manning is that bad, minus certain AFSCs. That can change pretty quick though. I do think leadership would love to fully understand the reasoning behind opt outs.
-
8 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:
Good question, also valid! I’d say that there are broadly two separate groups,
1.) the anti-vaxx, who truly do not want any vaccine, ever. I respect their opinions. If I was worried about risk of disease from that person I could just go get the vaccine for the disease they could be carrying and boom I should be good. If we can let Jahovas witnesses refuse blood (which some may see as self loathing or unjustified martyrdom), then we ought to respect people’s choice to not be vaccinated.
2.) those who are anti-fetal cells. There are actual many alternative vaccine products that were not developed through the use of fetal cells. Some people use sites like this to consult before getting a vaccine: https://cogforlife.org/. Also the use of fetal cells is not limited to vaccines so some will especially try to avoid products lands by Pepsi, nestle and others. If you have knowledge the cells were used as a necessary step to develop the product and you believe that is immoral, ought you not try to avoid that product?
Also I think using anti-vaxx is a disingenuous term to describe those who don’t want the CV19 vax, because it suggests that all vaccines have equal merit, which is absolutely not true. The CV19 vax in novel with new technology, and has no long term data. I think each vaccine should be evaluated on its own merits- so being “anti-vax” has many shades I guess.
i understand life is short and time is limited, but some of the people who don’t want the vaccine, haven’t written off all present and future injections to “ I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff.“ (I understand why people say this, you can’t do a deep dive into every new thing in the modern world.)However, Some people have, what I believe to be, legitimate concerns about safety and effectiveness. But our arguments fall on ears of people who “accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff”. So no argument made gains any traction. It doesn’t register because they already made their choice about all injections.
Question for you, is there any vaccine product that you wouldn’t take if the AF told you? How many boosters on will you take?
Thanks for your civility👍🏼
As long as I’m the military, I’ll take what they tell me or I’ll get out. Even on the outside I tend to trust the majority of scientists because I think most people want to do the right thing, although I think risks acceptance differs.
The military has to always be ready and we lose some freedoms when you join and I think that’s generally understood. Having a significant part of our force challenge something hurts the good order and discipline part. I think there may be a time and place for that but it would have to be pretty severe, like illegal orders. Even the military being low risk you don’t want everyone getting sick at the same time. No one had a problem with annual flu shots before, why would annual COVID shots be different?
Last thing is this forum used to be a great place to come and learn things about AF policy coming down the line and getting inside info on stuff from people in the know. Now we spend most of our time arguing a shot and politics that none of us are going to change our mind on. I think it’s true out in the force too. We just need to accept our positions, deal with the consequences of either getting or not getting the vaccine and move on to talking about policies that will affect the younger guys and we can give them advice on, like new pilot training changes, building experienced flyers, changing OPR processes and forms, career expectations without BPZ and opportunities to fly more, or take a command route if you want, IDE changes etc. not waste our time not changing each other’s mind on a vaccine. Just my opinion.
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, glockenspiel said:
No. Say someone learned of that fetal cell use after receiving even one of those vaccines. Does that automatically make them unable to stop supporting the use of those types of products? People’s knowledge changes over time. Should they be penalized for not knowing somethings years ago?
That’s fair. But are you now an anti vaxxer in general? As in don’t vaccinate your kids with any of those vaccines and take the risk? Just curious if everyone is becoming what they made fun of 2 years ago using the same arguments they made fun of 2 years ago because it’s normal now. I’m actually not judging if you are, it’s just interesting how this is going. I’m pro vaccine personally but also pro self determination in most cases. I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff.
-
2
-
-
A toast…
-
6 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:
Are you saying that the CV19 shot is good for every person? Must be nice to live in such a black and white world.
I would love if the CV19 vax, phase 2 and 3 clinical trials were well done, with blood draw during follow ups, evaluating troponin levels, using Sanger Sequencing ( not the current PCR) to confirm cases and strict short term and long term follow ups of both arms (vaxxed and unvaxxed) of the trial. If there is a “pro-cv19 vax trial” that’s similar to that, I’d consider changing my mind after review. I might even consider changing my mind if there were favorable trials in animals… oh wait, we skipped those.
sidenote: Thank you to those who are currently providing long term safety data.
Anti CV19-vax ≠ anti-vaxxer.
Not what I’m saying at all.
-
I don’t know why we keep arguing this. There is literally no evidence, regardless of how convincing, you can show an anti-vaxxer that will convince them it’s good to get the shot, and it would take something incredible happening to convince everyone else the shot is bad.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:
Wow... yeah my kids (less than 12) aren't getting the vaccine when it comes out and God help the schools if they decide to mandate it. Of course you never see headlines on the news saying you have a 175 times greater risk of dying from the covid vaccine than the flu vaccine.
Do any of the die-hard proponents of the C19 vax think this is concerning? I'd like to read your thoughts.All that says is that many people died after receiving the vaccine, not necessarily because of the vaccine… need a lot more information to learn something from those numbers. It would be nice if we had the no kidding number of deaths from the vaccine, but it’s probably hard to directly link deaths.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, O Face said:
I hope you carry this same self-righteous indignation into the election season and vote out those “callous and uncaring” bastards who can’t even wear a mask because they care about themselves more than others. Here’s just a few photographed recently: Biden, Newsom, Pelosi, Lightfoot, and Whitmer to name a few.
This is how political the vaccine has become. Just being pro vaccine means I’m obviously an extreme libtard who down ballots democrats every time. I don’t care about masks unless a business wants me to wear it, and I think vaccine mandates outside of how we mandate other vaccines treads on peoples freedoms. But I think not getting the vaccine just to make that point using the same anti vaxxer arguments you probably made fun of 2 years ago while saying sucks old and fat people are dying is kind of ridiculous. Now go ahead and burn the witch.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
The point is that it completely disrupts the very obvious narrative being pushed that "covid can get anyone." It's bullshit. A couple kids and a couple healthy people under the age of 40 die and their deaths are used as some sort of representation of why everybody is supposed to be terrified of this disease.
That's the lie. Some people, maybe you, simply can't accept the fact that others just don't care about covid. There's a vaccine, if you want to protect yourself, if you're fat, if you're old, if you have cancer, if there's any reason why you're at a higher risk, get it. So what the fuck else is there left to care about?
What exactly is the point of these articles? So and so died, this 14 year old got sick, these 30-year-olds thought they were fine and then they got covid and died, what is the point? The point is to scare people into getting the vaccine. With misrepresented statistics. The point is to say *actually you're wrong, this disease is incredibly dangerous to you if you're young and healthy, and here's a bunch of examples of how risky this whole thing is*. It's using fear to motivate a desired action. Because the truth doesn't support the mandate.
I don't know anybody that is happy that fat people or old people are dying from this disease, but the conversation isn't about covid, it's about compelled behavior, vaccine mandates. So it's relevant if they had comorbidities because their death is no longer an obvious justification for government compulsion.
I think most people accept that fact. Obvious extremists on both sides. It’s just the callousness of not caring enough about those at risk in the population to not get the shot and help limit it’s spread. I’m not for mandating it. I do think using what used to be the arguments crazy anti vaxxers used but that are now mainstream to not get a shot is caring more about yourself than others, but that’s your choice. If I’m lucky enough to live to be 70+ I hope the generations behind us care more about us than we do of our elders.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, torqued said:
No trial, no jury, just straight to the death penalty, eh? Hate to pick on you, brother, but I'm going to challenge ideas I don't agree with. Not for fun, not because I like stepping on toes and getting people worked up, but because I see things that are clearly wrong.
I can think of three instances here in the last week or so of death being the consequence of a perceived crime. Just straight up advocating for execution. One person said he'd dole out the death penalty himself because the unvaccinated didn't deserve hospital treatment. But it's not just here and actually, I think overall the people who frequent this forum are far more reasonable than the public at large.
In Snowden's case, anyone who really wanted to could start with the death of a soldier and create a cause/effect chain of events that would somehow link to Snowden. So offing that a-hole is justified, right? But what would that process look like, and could it be applied elsewhere?
Snowden did a, a caused b, b->c, d, e, f, and then people died. =Traitor. =Death.
Milley did a. a->z. =Traitor. =Death.
Biden =Traitor. =Death.
Racist =Nazi =Death.
The Unvaccinated =Murderers =Death.
Republicans, Democrats, the Rich, etc. More people are wishing death on other individuals and groups due to ideological differences, and the threshold seems to be getting lower. This doesn't end well.
This is related to the earlier vid I posted. Great stuff. Today, you likely consider the idea of "Genocide" hyperbole. At some point in your lifetime, you won't. It happens with Tyranny and the seeds are being planted.
Only one of those people committed direct treason that has historically been tried as treason. Although the death penalty isn’t the result of a treason crime anymore.
-
6 hours ago, StoleIt said:
How often do active duty guys end up in leadership positions at a Reserve wing?
Fairly common actually
-
2 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:
Can somebody block this clown?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI changed my settings so I don’t see his posts unless someone quotes him.
I’m still assuming he is MyCS/Shazam
-
3
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, dogfish78 said:
Wait a minute, you're telling me as SOON as this Afghanistan crisis started happening, the Army National Guard began posting (August 17, 2021 according to their official webpage) for seeking enlistees for Internment/Resettlement Specialists?
Yes
also Shazam, MyCS?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, uhhello said:
It's not even close to any limit. I'd put the average weight at 175 max. 670 pax.
And the weight is evenly dispersed for the most part. Just don’t throttle up to quick.
-
3 hours ago, dogfish78 said:
Move along and keep quiet, it's for your own good. Don't question, obey.
Because the inflation would immediately destroy us. And your next post just shows how much of a sheep you are
-
1
-
1
-
-
Masks for all my friends in my area… this is getting ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, ViperMan said:
Survivorship bias doesn't have anything to do with the criteria being used in an evaluation - it has to do with the "subset" of data points included in the analysis. See the small section about "missing bullet holes" in the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias. It's an interesting and counter-intuitive discussion about how our intuition works and how easily our "reasoning" can be led astray by invisible and incorrect assumptions.
In that situation, the mistake the military made was to only look at bombers that returned from combat - not bombers that didn't make it back (i.e. the ones that were shot down). That led them to draw wildly wrong conclusions about where to armor up the bomber fleet. By way of analogy, this study includes UPT graduates (bombers that "make it back") and UPT washouts (bombers that "don't make it back") - it doesn't include intel school washouts and/or AFIT graduates because that isn't going to tell you anything about graduating from UPT. It didn't make sense to include data where P-38s were or weren't getting shot up because it was a study focused on bombers.
It's not survivorship bias, you're advocating for using more dimensions of data - which is fine.
A few things. First, any prediction that is going to be made, will by definition, be "backwards looking" since there's no such thing as future data. And while there definitely may potentially be better predictor variables out there, the difficulty will be to capture them in a consistent and reliable way across a large population which is distributed across multiple communities and multiple time spans - not an easy challenge. Maybe if we could somehow capture those students who used to "bullseye womprats back on Tatooine" we could enhance our process...it's challenging to get to that level of fidelity though.
Already, the fact that > 85% of UPT candidates make it through provides a high level of confidence that UPT selection criteria are pretty good - squeezing out the last few percent becomes increasingly hard in any endeavor. Any average high school varsity basketball player is in the top 1% of all basketball players on earth. Though we all know there is an enormous difference between that kid and Michael Jordan...
And finally, this is not like saying women can't be pilots. No scientific researcher looking at that data and looking at how people were selected for pilot training back in the 80s would ever draw that conclusion. I get your point about the insight gained being limited by the data, but then so is everything else because we don't have perfect measurement for anything. In any case, all the data used in this study included women.
Correct. Though I would say the model "includes" the unsuccessful events in order to learn from them. Not emphasizes.
So is your suggestion to include people not selected for UPT and then measure how the do in UPT? Or is it to just lump random people into the study who didn't go? I'd pay to see the first executed. If you're suggesting the second, then I think all that study will conclude is that being selected for UPT is the most important data point in determining who graduates from UPT - not exactly a ground-breaking research.
The point is that a study like this is not the same as a vaccine trial. You are already selecting from a group that self-selected and there is nothing you can do as the researcher to affect the outcome you want to examine (UPT graduation) from a group of people that doesn't want to be military pilots.
Not gonna argue, you make some valid points and we could go back and forth. I’m just saying they are looking at our current selection criteria and seeing what’s best, not anything outside of it.
-
8 hours ago, Av8 said:
You are correct about the fact that the model uses previous data, but that is not survivorship bias. Survivorship bias is when you throw out the unsuccessful candidates and only use those who were successful, but this model actually emphasizes the unsuccessful events to draw insight from them. The fact about data showing women not completing training in the 80's is actually acknowledged within the article, specifically with regards to race and gender parameters, but the results still remain valid.
If we could have 94% of the studs passing UPT, compared to where we are now, that's hundreds of extra pilots through the pipeline each year that we aren't currently getting. These added efficiencies come with essentially no change, except for the selection process.
It’s not about throwing out data, it’s about not knowing the data even existed. The survivors are the ones selected for UPT. The tons of unknown data are all the ones that never went to UPT, ie the majority of the population. Granted it’s hard to find out how someone that never went to UPT would do against those who did.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Av8 said:
This was a quote that summed up the conclusions obtained. Basically, the USAF/AFR/ANG currently is performing much lower than 94% of selectees making it through SUPT by relying on AFOQT/PCSM/etc. If we can identify beforehand those who will be successful via these techniques then we can eliminate the $ and time waste of sending someone through training who washes out.
@jazzdude The data included those selected from UPT from 2010-2018 and the authors used a machine learning model to attempt to determine who would succeed and who would not. The model was 94% accurate at this. There is some other interesting reading on whether or not the SUPT process itself is working correctly, which is supplemental to the main point of the model: to determine the most efficient ways for the Air Force to choose candidates to complete SUPT.
@brabus Degree type was in fact the most significant variable. PCSM etc. were not the least (there were many more variables tested), but the PCSM and AFOQT scores were less accurate predictors of who would/would not complete SUPT.
Graph Below: This is a prospective candidate's "score" based on the model presented in the article and whether or not they completed SUPT.
Yeah but I think his point was survivorship bias. You are only deciding the best criteria for selecting students based on the criteria currently used to select students.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
I cannot wait for all the “#InsertBasePROUD” or “InsertBaseSTRONG” goes away. So cliche.
I’m a big fan of everyone using
#insertbaseReadyAF
-
On 7/19/2021 at 11:11 PM, SelfLase said:
Hey dudes,
Possible topic revival. Anyone have any recent intel or heard any rumors regarding the VLPAD program getting started back up again?
Speaking solely for the current/future pilot staffing situation, I have to bet that AFPC would be looking at every possible option to counter the post-COVID airline hiring party that is about to get started.
Thanks in advance.
You think AFPC thinks ahead?
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, brabus said:
Actually it’s an unemotional point referencing CDC data, made by a guy with a 5 page long vax record. You do you, but you look like a dip shit when you launch ad hominem attacks on someone because they have a perspective differing from yours.
Actually it was an unemotional response just pointing out that the argument you are making is like the argument anti-vaxxers make. It wasn’t an attack. Sorry I’m not sorry you’re offended there are similarities in the arguments.
Personal opinion, no one should be forced to get a vaccine, it shouldn’t be held against you before it’s fully approved, and after approval you should just have to deal with some places not being OK with you being around. Just like every other vaccination.
-
1 hour ago, brabus said:
I have a 0.014% chance of death IF I contract Covid...no logical risk management process says, “99.986% of success isn’t good enough, we need to lower the risk more!” When it comes to personal risk assessment, you do you, no judgement here. But it is quite logical to look at the numbers and say, “yeah I’m good with that chance of death and won’t be pumping more synthetic shit into my body.” I don’t have to sacrifice my body for the people who have their own personal health issues...judging those who make such a risk assessment based on the data out there is pretty illogical and misguided.
Also definitely go listen to a pod cast or two with Dr. Weinstein as said earlier...holy shit.
Sounds like a good anti-vaxxer argument.
-
9 hours ago, 14N Guy said:
Right, totally get it. Sorry, edited my post as your were responding to better flesh out my thoughts.
I know I will never get an answer from AF leadership, but I would love to hear an explanation of their thought process on when they pass over folks that have been given a DP at any level for folks that have a P.
I get your frustration but without being able to compare the entire records against one another there is no way to really know what was going on. At a glance it seems like a DP should get the nod but there is more to a record than that. There is just no way to know if you really agree with the decision without access to all of the entire records.
Commanders are dropping like flies this year
in General Discussion
Posted
I'm fairly aware of the O-6 assignments process. You can opt out of command right now and just go into the normal O-6 assignments process and for the most part it doesn't hurt you, except that some jobs want graduated commanders. But assignments at the O-6 level are all BNR so it can get weird, but you are not just looked at by 1 MAJCOM for jobs. There are even tracks at the O-6 level to take where you don't even meet the CSB and it isn't held against you except on the BG board when that box isn't checked. I don't think overall manning at the O-6 level is bad right now, but like I said is bad for specific AFSCs. For instance there was continuation offered last year, but not this year. Pretty sure COVID had a say and things can change pretty quick, but for a year or two that's where its at.