UPT-hopeful

That’s a video game recreation.

That was a video from a “rape protest” or something (staged for the internet), not actual footage from today.

Bid periods are how many bid periods are in a calendar year. Assume 12, but every contract is different. percentage can be used for whatever you want - if you wanted to include 401k (16-18%) then make it say 1.16

WSEP*

The photo the article used is from the 2017 ejection at EFD, not this particular accident.

Have they? Until they do, it’s a moot point. SecDef has only instructed that Fully FDA Licensed shots can be “forced.” Until there is one in hand, a service member must volunteer to take an EUA. I won’t argue your hypothetical as in this case it is a false dilemma.

Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines? Comirnaty has the same formulation as the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna current as of 10/20/21 “safety and effectiveness the same” but still “legally distinct”

Standing by for discharge papers, but just like a fully FDA licensed shot, they haven’t appeared.

Except this isn’t a generic vs name brand battle. You’re misunderstanding, which is okay. Emergency Use Authorization vs FDA Fully Licensed The SecDef memo isn’t just words on a sheet, the actual instruction piece is only one sentence. Summarized: “mandatory vaccinations will use FDA fully licensed shots” ”SMs can volunteer to take EUA shots”

Words mean things. Semantics are important when dealing with legal ramifications of volunteering for a shot vs being legally ordered to receive a shot.

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?

The FDA labels them legally distinct. They may be chemically similar (or even the same), but there is more to full FDA licensure than chemicals: manufacture, storage, transportation. Legally distinct.

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.

Unless you have a bunch of them in the air at once, you’ll run into a problem with the intercept timeline. An AT-6 can’t go from one side of the TFR to the other fast enough. If you expand the TFR to give more time, you just make the problem worse. I suppose you could have 4 in the CAP at once all 90 out from each other, but now you’re somewhat defeating the purpose of cost benefits depending on what the replacement cost is.