ViperMan

Douchebags often serve an important roll in our society. Here's one saying the emperor has no clothes, and even though it's offensive and uncouth, it does a great job highlighting the lengths to which the rest of the establishment is failing to hold power accountable and failing to have important conversations. But yeah, it's probably more important that we all just continue playing our violins.

Dude, this is the prototype of an ill-formed hypothetical, meaning: it has to intentionally side-step and ignore other 2nd and 3rd order things that would happen in such a situation in order to produce its "point." Ok, so in your construction here, you posit a virus that will kill 320M Americans? Meaning it is going to both infect, AND kill EVERYONE? Ok, I can roll with that. Mandates still aren't required. If such a disease arrived on set, you'd have people locking themselves down, and killing each other to get the vaccine. You think you'd need to mandate it at that point? Lol. Move down the continuum from there, and people's collective behavior appropriately balances it all out. No one is "accepting" any excess deaths.

I guess, but not really? I was really just making a point about how people love to discredit a person or a group of people vs. engaging with the idea and addressing it directly - something I think you were doing by referencing that website. Boy cries wolf. Broken clock is right twice per day. The emperor is wearing no clothes. Whatever. Plenty of allegories illuminate our tendency to miss the truth intentionally or accidentally. Either way, I think a better way to engage is to look at the object, vs look at what someone else is saying about the object because no matter what, you're taking it through their filter. Honestly, I think we have all lost the thread of what we're talking about. What are we all even arguing about anymore? People are right/wrong about different things to varying degrees. Bottom line, proof is proof. Calling it "extraordinary" is much more a statement knowledge state of an individual, rather than a statement about the evidence itself. Plenty of good pilots have crashed good airplanes - you know this. Does that make them bad pilots, or people who made a mistake? Again, it's just better to address the topic rather than the person/group.

I know nothing of the CCCA, but if we're attacking organizations based on who they are vs what they're saying, we are probably masking a weak position. Remember, the WHO is not allowed to acknowledge that Taiwan is an independent nation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM). That in and of itself means they have at least some level of inside political discourse - which indicates their positions and policies are beholden to those same politics. I suppose that discredits them in your eyes, right?

Note, you can start that discussion any time you like - and there is also a law (can't remember what it's called) that says you don't have to disprove bullshit, or convince stupid people that they're dumb. So don't worry about it. The Alex Jones and Berenson types can generally be ignored. Also, I'm not about to defend any of these stupid videos of soldiers "standing up" to the PTB and demanding answers to questions. I think they are grossly misguided, as a rule, and I don't think I would have made a good Marine. In any case, I think it's worth continuing the discussion on this point in particular. On this point, my personal belief is that there should be zero religious exemptions for anything in the military. Like, there shouldn't be regulatory guidance that governs religious exemptions. The only thing they do is put military leaders in the impossible situation of determining what "sincerely held" means - which is not a determination that can be made, unfortunately - and then arbitrarily granting and denying them based on that determination. This undermines their roles as leaders, because it does, in actuality, force their decisions to be arbitrary. But in any case, since religious exemptions are a thing, it matters. I looked for, but could not find, a historical example of a religious exemption for a vaccine in the military. That said, I have a feeling that they're out there, and that they have been approved in the past. Taking that admitted assumption as the case, it was made clear to us as the ramp up to the vaccine being released that "religious exemptions" would not be a thing for the COVID vaccine. Well, ok, cool - not that I particularly care - but why was this message pushed out so clearly, and with such certainty? That occurrence strongly suggests to me that this is an "unofficially official" policy that there will not be any religious exemptions to this vaccine. The idea was floated at the highest levels of our government, and it was made absolutely, crystal clear, that there will not, under any circumstance, be exceptions to this policy - history and our present reality reflects that. Why is that important? Because it adds to my suspicion that this is all theater. And every day that passes, I become more and more convinced that it actually is. We locked down when this thing first began, and at its absolute worst, we were seeing ~250K/ cases per day with ~3-4K deaths per day (if you subscribe to the notion that COVID was the sole cause of death, which I do not; https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html). Now, you're telling me that this thing is going to imminently peak not only to that level, but at a rate (mathematical certainty) that will top it by 4X!!! Are you kidding me? And all we get from #1 is a statement that if your vaxxed, you can go on vacation, but if you're not, you're gonna die??? Mkay. I don't believe you. I don't believe that these people actually think we're heading to a space where 12,000-16,000 people are going to be dying every day. I don't believe they believe that. If they did, they'd be taking different steps. It's fear porn in order to justify expediency that there is otherwise no appetite for. If they do believe that, and that's all they're doing, then they're even more cynical people than I already think.

I'm not traditionally religious, but do you really think this? IMO all humans are religious - see the new religion of wokism taking root. Some people know what they're religion is called...man other 'enlightened' ones think they're above it. Like it or not, something in your life is functionally equivalent to religion, you just may not know what it is. The religious instinct runs much, much deeper than thinking a dude does or doesn't live in the sky.

Yeah, max the Roth TSP, then if you can dump more money into the traditional if you want. I think we're on the same page. I interpret this to mean that you're not allowed to exceed $19,500 in the Roth TSP under any circumstance: "The Elective deferral limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For members of the uniformed services, it includes all traditional and Roth contributions from taxable basic pay, incentive pay, special pay and bonus pay but does not apply to traditional contributions made from tax-exempt pay earned in a combat zone." Key phrase "traditional contributions." TRADITIONAL contributions... Are you saying you can add more than the 19.5 to the roth TSP? Because if so, I haven't seen a source that backs that up.

Comments like this invariably need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

For comparison's sake, in Texas (where I could find numbers), COVID has "killed" approximately 2200 vaccinated individuals from Jan to Oct this year (https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf). In 2019 (in Texas), the flu/pneumonia killed ~3100 people (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/flu_pneumonia_mortality/flu_pneumonia.htm). There's your numbers. Get the vaccine or don't. It's your choice. I don't care. The pandemic is over. I'm going back to normal.

A couple things. First, society is in a constant state of creative destruction, and that has to be guarded against at all times, and in all places. If you think any previous epoch in history achieved "stasis" I think you need to pick up a history book. Which is to say this, if you think mandating people to do things - any things - against their will is going to lead to a more stable society, I think you need to re-evaluate some assumptions about people. And second, yes, all golden ages have had their contrarians, and they tend to be the people who are most celebrated in our history books: Plato, Galileo, Copernicus, Gandhi, Jesus. I guarantee you, guarantee you, most people had the opinion that those people were assholes. And don't forget the most important, and underlying, point: a dynamic society - a society that is capable of inventing vaccines like the ones we have - enables assholes, tolerates assholes, and makes room for assholes. In fact, it's a lot of these assholes who are responsible for some of the greatest things we have in our lives. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certain people will always be stupid and will make stupid decisions - let them. This is a can of worms, but in short, I would say that COVID was a "contributing factor" in that approximate number of deaths. The root cause? I don't buy that for one second. Remember, the medical establishment is a self-interested bureaucracy just like any other. For instance, see how skin biopsies and excisions from medicare fee-for-service recipients doubled over the 13 year period from 2004 to 2017, with the death rate remaining constant (hint: over-diagnosis for $$$)...which leads me back to my fundamental point - you should be the one choosing what goes in your body, not anyone else. I'm baffled by how that has somehow become a controversial statement. What we have successfully done, is miss an opportunity to honestly address the ongoing health crisis in this country with respect to obesity and our collective lifestyles. Voices early on in the pandemic were identifying obesity as a major co-morbidity with this disease, but no one wanted to hear that. Now, lo and behold, we see articles that are saying exactly that - fat tissue is targeted by the virus. Look at the morbidity of places like Japan, where obesity is not a thing - waaaaaaaay less. So I would invite you to peel back the onion beyond the one thin layer you seem content with and get closer to the root causes of this crisis.

I don't think it will surprise us, but that's like, my opinion. I think it is an unknown, and that people's strongly held positions on these matters is unfounded. I mean people are certain - certain - that there is not going to be a latent side affect. That's cool, and that's the camp I'm mostly in, but I'm not about to say I guarantee there won't be, or that these mRNA vaccines are so similar to other vaccines that we can even begin to say that. The bottom line is that we don't know, and had we been so certain of this technology before this pandemic struck, we'd have already had a spread of mRNA vaccines on the street - but we all know we didn't, and arguments to the contrary beg the question. These vaccines are the first in their category. All that is to say this: I think arguments that rest on someone else's dictate about a medical treatment you should get are null right out the gate. You are the only person that gets to determine medical treatments for you. So all the back-and-forth I read on this thread about Dr. X or M.D. Quaqmire having the opinion that I "should" or "must" get the vaccine I really just roll my eyes at. In my world, spite is a perfectly acceptable reason for not taking a vaccine, and it requires no justification beyond, or even to that standard. Don't want to get it because you're a contrarian? Fine by me. Just don't come hat in hand when you get COVID and wind up dying. Anyway, that's my position on civilian mandates. If you're in the military, you don't get a say. Take the shot or get out. I don't think there should be exceptions for individuals in the military for anything, including religious reasons.

Confirm all those previous studies cited are in reference to mRNA vaccines / therapeutics? Oh, they aren't? So we're applying a meta analysis of apples to oranges. Ok 👍. Just so I'm clear.

This is categorically false. I agree with the theme of your post, but are you serious with this? Dude, there is no set time limit regarding when a latent effect may or may not show up and under what circumstances or conditions or sub populations. That's not to say it's not a poor excuse to avoid the vaccine (in the military), but it is a valid concern nonetheless.

*can* have massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread. Not will. *can*. It depends on the model and the other parameters. There is usually a point of no return where the model will trip into one phase from another. Incremental changes within one phase or the other won't change the outcome. The same incremental change that bridges the divide between said phases will result in drastically different outcomes.

Comparing percentages is fraught, but from the study - the actual study, not the article written about it - they indicate that the 25% number had a confidence interval of 18-33 (15% spread) while the 38% number had a confidence interval of 24-53 (29% spread) - double the uncertainty, with substantial overlap. Hence, there is decent uncertainty regarding what the actual probability of spread is given someone's vaccination status. In any case, it makes more sense to look at the numbers themselves, rather than attempting to ratio apples to oranges. To me, this study doesn't indicate very much because there is no indication as to what the relative likelihoods are between people being asymptomatic with the vaccine vs. without it. What's one of the best ways to avoid getting sick? Avoiding someone who you know is sick. If the vaccine makes it much more likely that asymptomatic spread takes place, then the 25% number could be much worse than the 38%. It's like being spiked vs not being spiked. It's helpful to know you're being shot at. Also, see the replication crisis, an ongoing issue within the broader scientific/research realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. Biologists are at the higher end of those scientists who are unable to reproduce each others' research.

Juicy is served. I'll admit I'm surprised. I guess I'm that cynical. Maybe we're not as bad off as I thought. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-verdict-alleged-hate-crime-hoax-trial https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/jussie-smollett-trial-verdict-watch-12-09-21/index.html This is truly peak 2021: Jussie thought his fake hate-crime story was going to be an apt metaphor describing the state of the United States. Plot twist? The actual truth is a much better metaphor as to where we are socially.

I apologize, because I can't get into deep specifics regarding what happens in your situation. My knowledge is wide, but generally shallow. https://militarybenefits.info/thrift-savings-plan-contribution-limits/ "The Elective deferral limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For members of the uniformed services, it includes all traditional and Roth contributions from taxable basic pay, incentive pay, special pay and bonus pay but does not apply to traditional contributions made from tax-exempt pay earned in a combat zone." "Service members cannot contribute $20,500 to each program. The limit indicates the amount you can contribute to one or both." There is also this thing called the "annual" limit (i.e. where you see $61,000 referenced). This refers to all dollars added to your account - think of this as the contribution from your employer - which for us is bupkis. //Break// Put as much faith in this as how much you paid for it: I think the TSP is supposed to *fix* any errors you make regarding contributions. If you add too much, they just return the money to you. So if your goal is to max perform it, just pull as hard as you can and let HAL figure it out. Note: I have not ops-tested this game plan. https://www.tsp.gov/making-contributions/contribution-limits/ Elective deferral limit: "This limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For uniformed services members, this does not apply to traditional contributions from combat-zone pay." To me, that sounds like you should contribute 100% of combat-zone pay to your traditional TSP, but only *if* you're going to reach the $19,500 hard-stop limit for 2021. If you can't - even with 100% of the rest of your pay going to TSP this year - I would just contribute all of it to the Roth TSP. No sense in paying taxes on tax-free income.

Yeah, not to be a jerk, but you're not understanding it correctly. Married people are the benefactors in our current tax paradigm because they can make more income subject to a lower tax rate. i.e. a single person starts paying 35% as soon as they trip $216K. A married couple doesn't pay 35% until they make double that. The benefit to filing jointly is that it allows a couple with basically one bread winner to pay less taxes. If a married couple so chose (as some may because they are equal earners, etc), they could both file as single people and avoid the so-called penalty which you identify. Bottom line, a married couple can choose whichever path suits them best. No such choice is available for someone who's not married. Also, this is really how it has always been, under Rs or Ds.

Dude, not trying to intentionally be snarky, but these questions are easily, and I mean easily, answered with a little bit of googling. Just sayin there's probably a more direct way to get the information you seek, because it's pretty basic.

Yeah, duh. Surprised you didn't know that. Same as when all the Ds were roaming NYC decrying the corona virus. Man, the difference a month can make!

It highlights a potential blind spot. The PTB in the force, the people who run the show and set the tone, absolutely favor the sort of nonsense that centralizes the trivial relative to the significant. It's all about what someone looks like - the diversity article is the prototype of that theme. Whether it has something in actuality to do with the murder article is unproven, but there is something to what I'm saying above.

Guard, now. After a long time on AD. Yeah, I've also heard the "I don't vote" thing from officers based on that same line of reasoning. Don't agree with that one. Just think it's awkward for a member of congress to be taking orders from someone in the military. Gets a little weird with "who's in charge of this thing" (for me).

Probably the same reason I have an issue with boys in girls' bathrooms, even if they're just wearing different skirts at different times. There's something fundamental about military service, and there is something fundamental about congressional service. The differences don't vanish when you're done with your duty day - in either case. One of those positions requires you to publicly buck the system when necessary. The other requires you to shut up and take orders from your masters. These values are good in the broader system that is America, but when you co-locate things like this which are inherently conflicting, things just get icky. There are other differences as well, but it just feels to me like you should go serve in congress once you separate or retire. Representation is good and sorely needed, but for the same reason we don't need government contractors running the defense department, we don't need the military running congress or vice versa.

When I really stop and think about this, I do have a problem with someone currently wearing the uniform being in congress. Just feels incongruent to me.

I don't disagree with anything you're pointing out. I'm only saying that the inflation that we're experiencing is artificial, and if we left the economy to its own devices (i.e. natural forces), we'd be experiencing deflation.