MCO
-
Posts
299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by MCO
-
-
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.
-
12 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:
I know for a fact that it's a problem in AFSOC, can't speak to other commands so maybe it's better other places. I've heard second and third hand that it's becoming a problem in other commands but I have no evidence of that.
To your point on leadership "understanding" opt outs, that's probably a pretty tough thing to make happen with any regularity unless attitudes about leadership and what it means to serve change in the AF. O-6 assignments are handled in a separate system from the rest of the rank and file. Believe it or not, a lot of O-6s that are thinking about getting out don't show their cards until they have to, just like the guys on line. I would imagine that telling a guy like Slife or his most probable successor (CAT 5) that you're opting out of command but want to continue serving isn't going to go very well. Guys like that have serious difficulty processing that someone wouldn't want a command opportunity; the risk of vindictiveness through a shitty deal or assignment is simply too high for a lot of O-6s to be long term honest brokers about their goals/intentions.
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.
-
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.
Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss
in General Discussion
Posted
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.