Pooter
-
Posts
625 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Pooter
-
-
2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:
A paycheck that keeps his family fed. Tough situation for anyone to be in.
Do you think our military is stronger or weaker now that we’ve forced our members to do this?
Measurably stronger. The vaccines have remained incredibly durable across variants for reducing your chances of hospitalization and death. Even if you are in the young/healthy demographic, the vaccine reduces those risks further.
We are now getting close to a year removed from widespread vaccine implementation and a year and a half from the initial testing. If a statistically significant, concerning long term side effect was going to happen, it would have manifested by now. The idea of a some completely unseen side effect popping up 10 years from now after not manifesting anywhere after billions of doses, is a silly, unscientific boogeyman.
I'm sure it's unpleasant to go against your "convictions" about the vaccine. But frankly, if you signed on the dotted line to serve in the military, I don't give a rats ass about your vaccine convictions. It's a lawful order and you follow it, or get out. I have lots of convictions about weed, and facial hair, and wars i don't agree with but I know what I signed up for and I don't have a conniption every time the military tells me to shut up and color.
**Huge caveat: Civilian side mandates are a completely different debate, and generally speaking, I think they're wrong.
-
6
-
-
4 hours ago, glockenspiel said:
when some people dissent from social norm the rest of the flock will say “Politics” regardless of the reason for dissent.
what can ya do? Here’s to another 50 pages lol
Actually, we've heard the reasons and they're hot garbage. So all that's left is to assume you're buying into the current political food fight and hanging your hat on whatever the reason of the day is.
But go ahead and keep thinking you're some kind of edgy free thinker. You and *statistically speaking* about 100 million of the least educated people in the country.
-
2 hours ago, FLEA said:
This doesn't make it political though. You've listed symptoms not causes and you seem to be jumping to a conclusion based on an internal bias. You're not even understanding the facts you stated correctly. The Cominarty argument is not new. I posted about it back in September. There is an existing class action law suit against Austin on it. The fact that you just woke up to the realization that this has been ongoing does not mean people migrated, it means YOU weren't paying attention.
As said before, the fact that the majority of people against the jab are conservative is a correlation but its not causation. Most republican voters are generally more cautious of authority. Additionally, conservative Protestants are usually Republican voters. So that comes as no surprise either. This goes deeper than politics but if you are going to hang up on that than just admit you don't care and move on with your life.
Oh don't worry we are all well aware you guys have been banging the comirnaty drum since September. It's actually become ridiculously tiresome. And no matter how many times the literal people who made the vaccine say it's chemically and effectively identical that's simply not good enough for you. Oh and don't forget the best part.. that this is likely the first medicine in your life you've ever given a shit about the branding. Weird how that happens..
But yes, you're right. Nothing about your specific vaccine refusal overtly points to politics. It's more of a deduction that I made for the following reasons:
a) none of your reasons for refusal make any sense
b) it's a white hot political food fight culture war issue right now
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, FLEA said:
Can you explain how this is political? People keep parroting that without demonstrating what political victory comes out of this? I realize there is a divide in political affiliation between people who got the vaccine and didn't, but correlation does not mean causation. I think you are just searching for a rational reason to justify this without following that thought all the way through.
It's blatantly political because each time the quoted "reason" for not getting the shot falls flat on its face, or becomes invalidated, the whole crowd migrates to a new reason.
Now we're stuck on "EUA vs comirnaty" despite them being completely identical from a chemical, safety, and effectiveness perspective. The fact that people are hanging their hat on branding semantics and the specific wordings of military orders tells me their vaccine refusal is grounded completely in ideology.
I would bet everything I own that the moment appropriately branded "comirnaty" shots become widely available, people will have magically found a new reason not to get it.
And anecdotally, everyone I know refusing the shot were the annoying social media right wing political crusader "gubment can't tell me what to do" blowhard types before all of this started. But maybe you're right and they all suddenly found Jesus and/or became a FDA branding experts in the last few months purely by coincidence.
-
First it was "I'm waiting on FDA approval" then it was a religious exemption, and now it's marketing name brand semantics. It has become clear this is 100% political and nothing will ever be good enough for these people. They're doing a bad job of hiding the ball, and it's fun to watch the Air Force call them on it.
A big part joining the military is putting duty above political affiliation. But some of you have gotten so wrapped up in this vaccine debate that it's become a part of your political identity, and by extension, your personal identity. At that point you are putting your political priors ahead of duty and country, so I won't lose a wink of sleep when the military shows you the door.
-
6
-
-
9 hours ago, brabus said:
Over the course of the last year, the vaccines have reduced the death rate by 0.16% (averaged over all age groups/total US population).
2. The vaccines have hardly moved the needle, despite what the MSM, gov reps, and Pharma say. Last 30 days death rate is only 0.16% less than the day prior to EUA.
What are you talking about dude? Why are we comparing a single cherry-picked time interval from 2020 to our current 30 day rolling average? Let's look at the charts.
EUA was issued on Dec 11 2020
Current 7 day rolling average
Weird.. Because the 7 day rolling average looks like a decrease of over 50 percent. Well, we'd better expand that to 30 days to encompass more of the 2020 trough and more of the 2021 spike. Isn't data fun?!
This methodology makes no sense because comparing two brief snippets in time tells you basically nothing.
If we want to determine how well the vaccines prevent death, what if we compared the.. oh I don't know...
DEATH RATES BETWEEN VAXED AND UNVAXED PEOPLE??
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282
Turns out, you're 11 times more likely to die from delta if you're unvaccinated. It's almost like you're ignoring the obvious data and doing calendar fuckery to come up with a reason to hate the vaccine.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, FLEA said:
I would say your social circle is by far an outlier than and you all should probably take social distancing measures more seriously than lol. Either way, the argument still stands that the risk of myocarditis is about the same in either population sample.
Why would my social circle be the outlier if it much more closely aligns with the CDCs total case estimate?
But fair enough, you did your risk analysis and made your decision. I don't think your methodology is sound (taking 1 day's risk level and extrapolating over 3 years) but let's assume for the sake of argument your estimate is correct and myocarditis risk is roughly equivalent.
Wouldn't that still favor the vaccine? If it's basically a wash on the myocarditis front, you're getting the added protection from the vaccine with no net loss.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, FLEA said:
Woah are we actually debating this again? Baseops crashed for 48 hours and I thought we all went through a day where we felt lost and helpless, followed by another day where we reconnected with our families and remembered there was a life outside of BO.net and arguing on the internet.
I've posted this before but 19andMe has done one of the leading calculators for estimating cumulated risk of contracting COVID-19 based on a meta analysis of dozens of studies followed by a pretty impressive mathematical model.
I ran the model for a 26 year old slightly healthier than average male in my zip code, unvaccinated, but taking basic social distance precautions based on the current local measures we had in place. This represents the average US Armed Forces enlisted service member.
Since the calculator only predicts risk in a 24 hour window, I had to accumulate that risk over a period of 1,095 event occurences to build a 3 year risk model.
https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/
To your other point, I do not believe the occurrence rate will approach 100% as that is not what historically happens with viruses. There is a mathematical model that explains the waves and valleys of virus transmission and even during some of the most infectious pandemics in human history, the vast majority went without ever being exposed.
Edit: rereading your post your method is flawed for several reasons. 1.) If the CDC estimate is really so far under you would then need to extrapolate that reduced risk to your remaining risk because people who are not reporting COVID-19 are not doing so because they do not have symptoms, hence, no problems. 2.) I don't think your risk is correct. If we just estimate 44% is ~1/2, bro, I've only known of like 6 people with COVID the whole pandemic. That's my whole base population since anytime there is a positive case here we shut down literally half the base and it's rather obvious. Do you really know that many people dropping off left and right that this passed your common sense test?
Yeah the data passes the common sense test for me. I think most people know way more than 6 people who have had covid. I can name six in my squadron alone, and multiple in my immediate family.
That is a cool risk calculator though. Haven't seen one with that much granularity before. I don't think sampling one day of risk and multiplying it by 1000 is going to be super accurate because community spread levels fluctuate massively. You could skew your risk estimate a lot in either direction by picking a day on a crest vs a trough and it's hard to know what a "standard day" if you will.. of covid risk really is.
-
1
-
-
On 11/10/2021 at 11:41 AM, glockenspiel said:
Chances of contracting covid≠ 100%.
chances of being vaccinated if you are vaccinated = 100%.
Doesn’t seem like you are talking apples to apples. Not trying to do a gotcha or defending the article. It’s kind of like when people say 80% of patients who died in X hospital were vaccinated/unvaccinated without at minimum providing the population vaccination rate which that hospital serves. It doesn’t really mean anything.
Your chances of contracting the virus will absolutely approach 100% over time. Especially when most of the vaccine hold outs choose to intentionally disregard the other mitigation measures as well.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 11/10/2021 at 11:44 AM, FLEA said:
Actually the risk is exactly the same, 76 million vs 77 million. You forgot to multiply 450 time .17 to account for the fact that you have less than a 1/5 chance of actually getting COVID over a 3 year period.
Where are you getting that 1/5 number in a 3 year period? If it's going off confirmed cases it is likely a gross underestimate of your actual risk because of reporting problems. The CDC estimates only 1 in 4 infections are reported which puts the total case estimate at 146 million infections from February 2020 to September 2021.
Based on my rough math that puts your chance of getting it around 44% for the last 1.5 year period, keeping in mind the majority of that timeframe was before the more contagious delta variant was the dominant strain.
So to your point, yes you do need to multiply those risk numbers by your odds of contracting the virus. But your odds are a significant under-estimation. If we're already at 44% penetration in a year and a half, we can safely assume your risk of getting covid over a 3 year period would be well over 50%. Meaning the myocarditis risk calculation still falls well in favor of the vaccine.
-
1
-
1
-
-
This is what we're talking about with you guys continuously posting and making life choices based on dumpster-tier information. So Forbes is saying that the Germans are saying that scientists are saying something? Cool. If you're such an independent thinker go find the study and see for yourself.
You saw a headline you agreed with and posted it without looking into the associated data whatsoever.
This tells me:
a) you aren't actually concerned about myocarditis
and
b) apparently a MSM headline can be taken as gospel, but only when it conveniently aligns with your pre-existing biases.
-
2 hours ago, WAG said:
Now Germany and France…
Just shut up and take the shot!
From further into article:
"None of the studies cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness or the benefits they bring by safeguarding against Covid-19 and studies suggest the risks of heart inflammation are substantially higher in those infected with Covid-19."
from the linked study:
Myocarditis rate among young men who contracted covid: 450 per million
Myocarditis rate among young men after vaccination: 77 per million
In summary, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is 5.9 times higher than the risk from the vaccine. And if you want to minimize risk even further, just get Pfizer instead of moderna.
Weird, It's almost like when you dig into the details the clickbait headline doesn't tell the whole story.-
3
-
-
38 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
If tradition goes against anything even possibly labeled as offensive, unequal, hurts someone’s feelings, etc then it’s being, or soon to be, squashed. We’ve gone from righting our past wrongs (which needed to happen) to agreeing with almost everything the woke progressive left desires. So with that being the case, why are we still having separate standards for men and women? Can anyone honestly give me a non-emotional/pissed off answer?
Because societal norms still exist and the woke brigade is only interested in dumpstering the norms that don't serve their interests. Letting white dudes grow beards earns you precisely zero intersectional brownie points.
-
5
-
-
50 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:
It's hard to win when your opponent plays by an entirely difference set of rules.
That's why you should choose to not even partake in their dumb game. Eventually people will come to see your side as the one with standards and credibility. Eternally engaging in shit slinging with people who are always willing to stoop lower than you is a losing battle.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:
Like every organization in the MSM?
Yes. Which doesn't make it okay. Calling yourself "project veritas" and then exhibiting the exact same behavior as the dumpster fire MSM is exactly the problem.
If you want to hold a moral high ground over the MSM and the left in general, you actually have to conduct yourself to a higher standard than they do.
-
1
-
-
On 11/3/2021 at 2:12 PM, VMFA187 said:
Why are you pro-mandate for the military? It is one of the least at-risk populations in the world.
I'm not pro mandate for the military either. I just don't complain about it because I have the self awareness to understand that the moment I signed on the dotted line, I voluntarily gave up some autonomy regarding my medical care.
I'd also love to grow a beard and smoke pot recreationally, neither of which would impact my job performance in any way. But I don't, and I don't bitch and moan and protest about that either because it is part of the deal.. that I voluntarily agreed to.
-
10 minutes ago, Blue said:
Apologies, as I'm trying to keep up.
So, the main pro-Covid vaccine voice here now is @Prozac? The torch has been officially passed from @pawnman?
@Prozac, at the risk of stating the obvious, your stance on Covid vaccine mandate is in the minority here. Rather than talking down to people, why don't you take a moment and tell us about yourself, and why you feel so strongly about the vax?
Not to speak for @Prozac but I do want to clarify something.
You can be pro-vaccine and debate people's reasons for refusing the vax without being pro-mandate. I'm extremely anti-mandate (for the civilian population) but still think the reasons I've seen in the thread for vaccine refusal are horribly misinformed.
Honestly, refusing the vaccine simply as a middle finger to the mandates is a far better reason than the parade of semantics and copypasta I've seen here.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:
So where can you actually get Comirnaty? As in actually go receive an injection of it into your body? As in a hypodermic needle penetrating your flesh and impregnating your tissue and bloodstream with the Comirnaty ™️ juice?
Do you throw an equally large shitfit when the flight doc prescribes you generic brand ibuprofen instead of Gucci name brand Motrin, or is your outrage limited only to hot button issues where dumb semantic games conveniently align with your political biases?
Also, out of curiosity are you tracking any changes to the manufacturing, transport, and storage processes between the original EUA vaccine and comirnaty? And which ones in particular concern you? If you were actually able to get your hands on some holy grail comirnaty juice, would you take it?
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, glockenspiel said:
True faith and allegiance to the constitution ≠ Submission.
Article 2 section 2 says he’s the commander and chief. Got it. The commander in chief has rules to follow as well.
The unavailability of Comirnaty is not semantics. It isn’t only something that people don’t “necessarily agree with”, it’s not innocuous in nature. There are rules of how to vaccinate the military and we should follow the rules that are in place. Everyone, SECDEF, Pres., squad com all have pretty clear guidelines to follow and the order and implementation of this vaccine mandate was/is not lawful. Unless it’s waived by the president, an EUA drug cannot be mandated.
That’s my point. The whole trust but verify thing.
I don't know why you're so hung up on this word submission.
The point here is that you took an oath to a document. That document lays the foundation for how the military operates to include the authoritarian, hierarchical structure we call chain of command. That chain of command goes all the way up to POTUS and Congress to the extent that they make the rules in the UCMJ.
This is why you can't just ignore an order and say it's because you swore allegiance to a document. It all falls under the document.
And good luck with the comirnaty strategy. Reputable sources say they're chemically identical.. which you'd think would be a relief to the hold outs who are apparently so concerned with the nomenclature attached to FDA approval and pharmaceutical branding. Well, turns out they're the same. What a relief!
Unless.. those hold outs are just political hacks and this is the latest poop they're throwing at the wall in the hopes it sticks. First it was "I'm waiting on full FDA approval," then it was religious opposition to stem cells from decades ago, now it's brand name issues. If I didn't know better I'd almost say you'll have problems with the vaccine no matter what!
-
36 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:
What part of the oath says something about submission?
I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution Of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and domestic, that I bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me
God.
You swear to support and defend a document. Albeit an amazing document, but nothing more. You will have faith and allegiance to the same (i.e. the Constitution of the United States) and you do so willingly. If it were not willingly, I could see that being authoritarian.Am I missing the submission part somewhere?
Also, the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not the same a the EUA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and in the FDAs words is “legally distinct”. And the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not available anywhere… How is this a legal order?
Yes, the submission part is clear in the phrase "true faith and allegiance."
The thing is that the constitution is a rather long and involved document and it has parts in it outlining exactly who has authority (read: authoritarian control) over the military.
Article 2 section 2: makes the president the commander in chief of the military.
Article 1 section 8: provides the basis for congress's establishment of the UCMJ.
So it isn't quite as simple as swearing to support a piece of paper. Because that piece of paper says the president can tell you what to do, and so can congress through the UCMJ.
The comirnaty/FDA semantics will get hashed out in court but the basis for the fed to make military members do something they don't necessarily agree with is absolutely there, and you voluntarily submitted to that control by taking the oath.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Blue said:
You're right.
Throughout this entire "pandemic," messaging has been consistently fluid, with constantly shifting goalposts. To quote Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis from a couple days ago: "We’ve gone from 15 days to slow the spread, to 3 jabs to keep your job. If you don’t give resistance to this, they’re going to absolutely do more."
When trying to gauge the reaction to your messaging, it's a pretty well-honed technique to float "trial balloons" to the masses, and then gauge the reaction. It seems like that's exactly what's happening here regarding "booster shots." You don't see any solid info regarding booster shots, just a bunch of rumors and hearsay.
Wait and see what happens over the next six months though. Bet the messaging gets a lot more solid.
I really don't get this argument. The messaging changed over time and that's somehow a bad thing?
Mountains of new information on the virus and treatments have come to light since spring of 2020 when "15 days to slow the spread" was basically the best way we knew to slow down a thing we knew almost nothing about. We have vaccines now. We have almost two years of global data on the transmission and effects of this disease. There are a host of new variants that didn't exist two years ago. Two years ago people were Lysol-ing their groceries.
So why in the world would the messaging stay the same?
-
19 hours ago, brickhistory said:
My body is swimming in antibodies. My lung specialist says not to get said vaccine for at least a year as I am likely to have a severe reaction and my lungs, already now f'd because of this, wouldn't take kindly to another CCP orgy.
1) Glad you're okay.
2) Does your situation not qualify for a medical exemption? I would think a lung specialist specifically telling you it would be dangerous for you to get the shot would easily qualify. And again, I don't agree with mandates but I thought they do have provisions for extenuating medical circumstances.
-
1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:
Happens to movie/sports/rock stars all the time and no one ever bats an eyelash. In fact, the tabloids make people money off of this behavior.
Yeah dude.. it's called the paparazzi and it's the absolute dumpster basement of the journalism world. So maybe it should give you pause if you're trying to do serious political reporting and behaving like the paparazzi.
-
1
-
-
It is not surprising in the least that we deluded ourselves regarding the ANA's capabilities.
The modern US military is driven by shoe clerks with slide shows and the most important thing in the world is that the slides are green. Generals' and Colonels' next promotions depend on slides being green, not honesty or lethality.We are just as delusional about our own capabilities, if not more so.
-
3
-
Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss
in General Discussion
Posted
There actually is significant study on this particular point. BLUF: serious side effects historically manifest in the short term if at all. So the idea that a side effect would not present in the short term after billions of doses over a year and a half, and then magically spring into existence 10 years from now doesn't make much sense historically or scientifically.
"Going back at least as far as the polio vaccine, which was widely released to the public in the 1960s, we’ve never seen a vaccination with long-term side effects, meaning side effects that occur several months or years after injection.
And, in every vaccine available to us, side effects — including rare but serious side effects — develop within six to eight weeks of injection."
Source:
https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/covid-19-vaccine-long-term-side-effects