Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Masks are just the prop.

It's about publicly enumerating who is vaccine compliant.

Can’t disagree there…but the memo even states that leadership shouldn’t ask people if they’ve had the shot or not.  Though I am interested in seeing if commanders attempt to take admin/disciplinary action against those who haven’t had the shot and stop wearing masks…it will open up an even bigger can of worms.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, they made a paper about you guys!

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250123

If you go far enough back in time you can even read the prequels:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678397/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597904/#!po=1.08696

Or we can give mommy Facebook groups and 4chan all the credit and totally ignore the fact that authority figures have an impact on common opinions. That works too.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, they made a paper about you guys!
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250123
If you go far enough back in time you can even read the prequels:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597904/#!po=1.08696
Or we can give mommy Facebook groups and 4chan all the credit and totally ignore the fact that authority figures have an impact on common opinions. That works too.

Image1621185758.591499.jpg
Nice work creating an account just to troll the entire forum with broad baseless attacks at everyone with “links to science” as your background while getting into your defensive egg anytime someone has a valid critique.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can’t disagree there…but the memo even states that leadership shouldn’t ask people if they’ve had the shot or not.  Though I am interested in seeing if commanders attempt to take admin/disciplinary action against those who haven’t had the shot and stop wearing masks…it will open up an even bigger can of worms.


Leadership doesn’t need to ask. A commander can get the list of fully, partially, and non-vaccinated individuals without violating HIPAA. There is a readiness need, as some sunny locations allow fully vaccinated people to skip ROM.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 10:36 AM, HeloDude said:

Can’t disagree there…but the memo even states that leadership shouldn’t ask people if they’ve had the shot or not.  Though I am interested in seeing if commanders attempt to take admin/disciplinary action against those who haven’t had the shot and stop wearing masks…it will open up an even bigger can of worms.

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 2
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

jesus christ

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

Glad you’re not a commander.  

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

Effective leadership. 

FC8DACAD-7196-497D-AC5B-3E9E1005C9D6.jpeg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, holding people accountable for violating SECDEF orders.  The horror! 

Dude. Listen to yourself. Article 15 for not wearing a mask?

“Yes Major ###, your career is done because you didn’t wear a mask thus putting yourself at a .0008% risk of being unable to accomplish the mission.”




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Oh no, holding people accountable for violating SECDEF orders.  The horror! 

 

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

Would you have also given someone an Article 15 if that person 2 weeks ago was in the squadron and not wearing a mask?  (not in a room by themselves, closed door, blah blah blah).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

Make sure you watch for dudes not wearing seatbelts too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, holding people accountable for violating SECDEF orders.  The horror! 

We’re you an MP/SF in another life?

This just strikes me as the kind of blatant ridiculousness of arresting people for doing 5MPH in a 3MPH zone at KAF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


We’re you an MP/SF in another life?

This just strikes me as the kind of blatant ridiculousness of arresting people for doing 5MPH in a 3MPH zone at KAF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Worse, because it’s a vindictive sting operation; if you’re a commander and you’ve got enough time to do THAT much note taking on things that don’t make your squadron run… your focus may be off.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, di1630 said:


Dude. Listen to yourself. Article 15 for not wearing a mask?

“Yes Major ###, your career is done because you didn’t wear a mask thus putting yourself at a .0008% risk of being unable to accomplish the mission.”




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Sounds like this commander from my friend’s unit.  He called everyone in his unit “selfish” and “inconsiderate” if they don’t get the vaccine.  Also implied that they would probably lie about their vaccine status.

image.png.d58e73a9d375605336cad0a57b20024c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To clarify, people like pawnman aren’t actually bothered by unvaccinated people not wearing masks because it’s unsafe or putting their health at risk.  They’re bothered by the act of disobedience.  

They are “following the rules,” and others aren’t.  ...And the others are oftentimes “getting away with it.”  And that pisses them off.

It is the EXACT same nonsense we’ve all seen with reflective belts downrange.  Idiotic mandates to wear them in places/conditions that make no sense (day time, etc.) — and people wearing them simply so they don’t get ‘Chief'd.’

It is not about safety/health.  It’s about compliance.  And the ones that are most outraged, most vocal, and most willing to elevate the issue are the same ones that are reflective belt nazis:  the tools/douches that don’t have anything better to do, or the careerists that are eager to demonstrate their obedience.

This is exactly why pawnman framed it the way he did.  He didn’t pose it as someone who lied about their vaccination status and infected someone.... causing illness, long-term health complications or perhaps even death.  No, ...it was about ‘showing red on IMR’ and ‘Violating SECDEF orders.’

Edited by SpeedOfHeat
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tiger said:

Sounds like this commander from my friend’s unit.  He called everyone in his unit “selfish” and “inconsiderate” if they don’t get the vaccine.  Also implied that they would probably lie about their vaccine status.

 

Recommend a moderator remove this post until it can be reposted without the individuals name/email addresses put on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

To clarify, people like pawnman aren’t actually bothered by unvaccinated people not wearing masks because it’s unsafe or putting their health at risk.  They’re bothered by the act of disobedience.  

They are “following the rules,” and others aren’t.  ...And the others are oftentimes “getting away with it.”  And that pisses them off.

It is the EXACT same nonsense we’ve all seen with reflective belts downrange.  Idiotic mandates to wear them in places/conditions that make no sense (day time, etc.) — and people wearing them simply so they don’t get ‘Chief'd.’

It is not about safety/health.  It’s about compliance.  And the ones that are most outraged, most vocal, and most willing to elevate the issue are the same ones that are reflective belt nazis:  the tools/douches that don’t have anything better to do, or the careerists that are eager to demonstrate their obedience.

This is exactly why pawnman framed it the way he did.  He didn’t pose it as someone who lied about their vaccination status and infected someone.... causing illness, long-term health complications or perhaps even death.  No, ...it was about ‘showing red on IMR’ and ‘Violating SECDEF orders.’

Dude spot on.  I’ve often considered the analogy between mask nonsense and the reflective belt nonsense of 2004-8.  Worth noting, sometime about 10 years ago people just got sick of the psycho belt enforcement and quit wearing them…. Action which resulted in ZERO rise in cases of people being run over by vehicles.  We had Nazi level belt compliance enforcement (not hyperbole) for years based on the idea that leadership had to save us from ourselves in the name of safety.  We quit doing it, and data proved there was never any “there” there.  The belts prevented no accidents, because no statistically significant amount happened when they disappeared.  It was just all bullshit.

Anyway, great observation.  Since I have nothing to add I your point, I’ll post an article instead about C19: Origin   worth the quick read.  Several good threads; curious one side of our government (DOD) is acutely focused on China as a bad actor and suspicious (with good reason) of their actions.  Another side (NIH) is deeply protective of the relationships they’ve developed with China and willfully stopped inquiry into China’s C19 role. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pawnman said:

Oh no, holding people accountable for violating SECDEF orders.  The horror! 

What would be your course of action for those who contracted the disease—verifiable via medical records—and deduced that natural immunity (which a significant body of science supports) is more than sufficient to prevent further spread, yet they did not wear a mask? If you punish them, are you truly “following the science” which purportedly undergirds the mask/no mask guidelines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do agree pawnman's response is heavy handed for a blanket approach, I do see where he's coming from. Agree or disagree with wearing masks, the DoD policy is to wear a mask until you're fully vaccinated. Don't think auto article 15 is the right answer though.

You can't force your sq to get the vaccine, but you can enforce wearing a mask. And if it comes to light that unvaccinated individuals aren't wearing a mask like they are supposed to, the easiest solution is to just require the entire sq to mask (standard making everyone wear diapers for the mistakes of a few). It's dumb, but tracking who has to mask and who doesn't is too time intensive and detracts from the attention on mission. And if you do nothing, others will take it as you, as the cc, disregarding policy and erode trust.

Plus, the latest memo (https://www.whs.mil/Portals/75/Coronavirus/UPDATED%20MASK%20GUIDELINES%20FOR%20VACCINATED%20PERSONS%20OSD004376-21%20FOD%20Final.pdf?ver=Kx-Isf58hQ-LKMNrvCZDjA%3d%3d) about masking doesn't say commanders can't ask about vaccination status, only that they can't use vaccination status to determine who teleworks and who comes into the office (is you can't make a policy saying non vaccinated people telework while vaccinated people return to the office). This seems to avoid pressuring people to get the vaccine due to potential career impacts (if you're teleworking because you elected not to get the vaccine while most people aren't, you might be out of sight, out of mind)

So how do you (as the hypothetical sq/cc) deal with a person that blatantly violates policy? What about if they tested positive and still knowingly came to work without a mask?

Even if an airman catches a mild case of COVID with no lasting impacts, at best they are still out for about 2 weeks, and potentially could knock out coworkers as well for a couple weeks due to quarantine requirements due to known exposure. So even if you don't believe COVID to be serious, the practical effect on personnel availability can have a significant mission impact.

It's similar to the occasional norovirus outbreak. I've seen norovirus destroy a UPT class due to the faip scheduler pushing the studs to get cleared for sims to stay on/ahead of timeline (and flight med being liberal with not putting people on quarters when they are infectious), and had half the class out for several days to illness and required a couple weeks to catch up. Haven't seen it be as bad deployed, but those docs seen to be more willing to put people on quarters for communicable disease.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be your course of action for those who contracted the disease—verifiable via medical records—and deduced that natural immunity (which a significant body of science supports) is more than sufficient to prevent further spread, yet they did not wear a mask? If you punish them, are you truly “following the science” which purportedly undergirds the mask/no mask guidelines?
You'd be punishing them for failure to follow orders/good order and discipline. Policy is still to wear a mask unless fully vaccinated.

No different than punishing a person for not shaving or having a haircut in standards (no real basis for those besides "image" and what the policy is). Likely verbal correction at first, but repeat offenders may get more serious punishments.
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

What about if they tested positive and still knowingly came to work without a mask?

Even if an airman catches a mild case of COVID with no lasting impacts, at best they are still out for about 2 weeks, and potentially could knock out coworkers as well for a couple weeks due to quarantine requirements due to known exposure. So even if you don't believe COVID to be serious, the practical effect on personnel availability can have a significant mission impact.

It's similar to the occasional norovirus outbreak. I've seen norovirus destroy a UPT class due to the faip scheduler pushing the studs to get cleared for sims to stay on/ahead of timeline (and flight med being liberal with not putting people on quarters when they are infectious), and had half the class out for several days to illness and required a couple weeks to catch up. Haven't seen it be as bad deployed, but those docs seen to be more willing to put people on quarters for communicable disease.

Knowingly coming to work while positive is different than not donning a mask when one has natural immunity. Folks like to assert that vaccines are a known quantity, which is true, but when they cite 94% effectiveness, they fail to understand that the effectiveness is at the population level, not individual level. Vaccine effectiveness is derived stochastically. It cannot be translated to a deterministic chance for the individual. Context matters.

I agree with your readiness argument, but again, that is different than the issue over someone who recovered and does not wear a mask. At best, one can make the good order and discipline argument, as you did, and perhaps that is the only rationale needed. However, how does that line of logic square with CSAF guidance to stop doing dumb things that are inherently regulation and instruction based? Who becomes the arbiter?

But to point to public health concerns for those who recovered and do not wear a mask ignores the scientific data extant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



At best, one can make the good order and discipline argument, as you did, and perhaps that is the only rationale needed. However, how does that line of logic square with CSAF guidance to stop doing dumb things that are inherently regulation and instruction based? Who becomes the arbiter?
But to point to public health concerns for those who recovered and do not wear a mask ignores the scientific data extant.


Well, the arbiter is the commander, given their positional authority.

The CC takes the praise and blame for how they implement it and how much risk they are willing to accept. If they are liberal with enforcing mask wearing, it's not a problem until someone catches it and brings it to work, at which point there can be real mission impacts. But that risk may never be realized either, and masks just get viewed as the new reflective belt. Not an enviable position to be in, especially when it seems like a lot of this just gets delegated to the sq/cc to figure out.

I agree there's a lot of nuance to it. The easiest answer (organizationally) is to just follow the letter of the policy, which was based on CDC's recommendation (following the science). In other words, defer to the people who are working to do the science, and take their recommendations and tailor them to the mission.

Sure, there's cases where following the letter of the policy isn't "following the science." If you just recovered from COVID, you're considered immune for 90 days after, assuming no new symptoms. Do they just not wear a mask for 90 days, then resume wearing a mask until vaccinated? What if you've recovered and got one vaccination? Lots of different situations, and that gets hard to manage/communicate to on a public scale. Vaccinations provide a simple line in the sand that covers most situations.

My guess on the change in policy to let fully vaccinated people go without masks? Likely mostly science based, though there's still concerns about newer variants that break through. But just as (or maybe more) importantly, it also provides a personal/individual incentive (beyond just medical/scientific reasons) to get vaccinated: personal convenience and comfort of not wearing a mask. People that got vaccinated because they are concerned about getting COVID likely already got vaccinated. So now you have to reach the rest of the population. Letting vaccinated people not wear masks trades the small chance of catching/spreading a new strain with encouraging more people to get vaccinated and protect against more common strains, without having to expand testing and quarantine requirements (in other words, much cheaper for the same effect).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

To clarify, people like pawnman aren’t actually bothered by unvaccinated people not wearing masks because it’s unsafe or putting their health at risk.  They’re bothered by the act of disobedience.  

They are “following the rules,” and others aren’t.  ...And the others are oftentimes “getting away with it.”  And that pisses them off.

It is the EXACT same nonsense we’ve all seen with reflective belts downrange.  Idiotic mandates to wear them in places/conditions that make no sense (day time, etc.) — and people wearing them simply so they don’t get ‘Chief'd.’

It is not about safety/health.  It’s about compliance.  And the ones that are most outraged, most vocal, and most willing to elevate the issue are the same ones that are reflective belt nazis:  the tools/douches that don’t have anything better to do, or the careerists that are eager to demonstrate their obedience.

This is exactly why pawnman framed it the way he did.  He didn’t pose it as someone who lied about their vaccination status and infected someone.... causing illness, long-term health complications or perhaps even death.  No, ...it was about ‘showing red on IMR’ and ‘Violating SECDEF orders.’

Yeah..no.  But I can see defending myself won't go well.

Y'all do whatever you want, I guess, since we're no longer listening to CDC and SECDEF guidance.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...