Pooter

You're mistaking the sidelines for the moderate center, which strangely enough is where all the data points to.

One of the few joys of this pandemic has been watching the pro mandate/lockdown far left bicker with the staunch anti-vax far right while not a single one of them realizes they're two sides of the same coin.. Both wildly misinterpreting the data to arrive at garbage conclusions.

Believe whatever you want. If you think I'm going to face judgement in front of god because I took a vaccine partially made through stem cell research, that's your prerogative. Just as it is my prerogative to think your beliefs are backward and silly. But at some point we need to acknowledge the reality that not all beliefs are compatible with military service.

Exactly. And the important point here is that not all ideologies are created equal. An ideology based on the scribblings of goat herders from 2000 years ago translated 690 times and then monetized for centuries is far less productive than an ideology based on basic tenets of scientific inquiry and reason.

Define irony: The guy who's going to lose his job.. because he's refusing modern medicine.. during a pandemic.. because of something a 2000 year old book told him.. lecturing everyone else on accountability.

More like red apples to green apples. It's still a treatment designed to elicit an immune response to train your body to better fight off a pathogen. It uses a different mechanic than other types of vaccines, of which there are many. Billions of doses have been administered worldwide without a statistically significant serious adverse effect manifesting in a year and a half. mRNA technology is well understood and was studied for decades which is a huge part of why we saw a vaccine hit the market in under a year. So what about any of that makes you think think specifically just the new covid shots would suddenly defy all conventional vaccine wisdom?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?