Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts




It's not insurance. I know it's considered insurance, because it's literally titled "FICA tax" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax), but you and I both know that just because something is named something doesn't mean it is that thing. I could have car insurance my entire life and never file a single claim - or I could be hopping from claim to claim. Insurance kicks in when you need it to cover unforeseeable, rare, and catastrophic events. Getting older is literally the most predictable thing there is, and SS kicks in for everyone.
None of that seems to me unforeseeable, rare, or catastrophic. It would better be title "welfare for old people" because that's what it actually is, but we can't call things what they are, so we slap an "insurance" moniker on it. If it were to actually function like insurance, there would be some sort of need-based means testing - which we will probably have to go to at some point.


I guess it depends what you think you are insuring against.

If you see social security as insurance against getting old, then yeah, I see your point, it's not insurance and it's just welfare for the elderly.

If you look at it as insurance against losing a defined benefit (pension) retirement because your company's pension fund collapsed, the stock market crashing right before you retire and decimates your 401k account, or you have a major medical expenses requiring you to access and spend your retirement on treatment, then it starts to look a lot like insurance in how we normally view it.

Denying benefits based on an individual's wealth in retirement (needs based) was likely politically distasteful, so it allows everyone that paid in to draw a benefit. Otherwise, you'd have wealthier people lobbying to eliminate it (or be allowed to opt out) so they don't have to pay in because they get no benefit, which then puts the entire program's funding at risk (it's set up like a ponzi scheme). But I agree, we'll probably need to move to a needs based benefit for it to be viable in the future, especially as our population growth has slowed down (reducing funding for those collecting retirement now and in the future). Unless there's going to be another baby boom generation to infuse a bunch of cash into the system when you and I are reaching retirement age.

And like you mentioned earlier, if people suck at managing their money, maybe the government should force people to save for their retirement, which it has done to an extent with social security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Denying benefits based on an individual's wealth in retirement (needs based) was likely politically distasteful, so it allows everyone that paid in to draw a benefit. Otherwise, you'd have wealthier people lobbying to eliminate it (or be allowed to opt out) so they don't have to pay in because they get no benefit, which then puts the entire program's funding at risk (it's set up like a ponzi scheme). But I agree, we'll probably need to move to a needs based benefit for it to be viable in the future, especially as our population growth has slowed down (reducing funding for those collecting retirement now and in the future). Unless there's going to be another baby boom generation to infuse a bunch of cash into the system when you and I are reaching retirement age.

And like you mentioned earlier, if people suck at managing their money, maybe the government should force people to save for their retirement, which it has done to an extent with social security.

I'd rather everyone gets less to keep it going as opposed to those who have been responsible and put away savings in 401ks, real estate, etc... get shafted because they were responsible and subsequently lose all their entitlement to SS when they are older to help out others who didn't. 

Sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Why would I contribute to a 401k or invest in other areas if I knew I'd be losing all the money I am forced to contribute only to the benefit of others? 

 

***NOTE***

I wouldn't be here on a Friday evening but since dry January failed last Saturday at the ripe age of nine days, I'm trying not to drink except on Saturdays. Amazing how much extra time you find!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MyCS said:

Around 33% of 600 active duty signed up for the vaccine where I work. Our civilians is at around 63% of 600 people. 

Tells you most people don't trust Pfizer on the active duty side.

I told my commander to sign me up as soon as it's available.

I think plenty of people trust Pfizer.  They don't trust military leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurlburt Field dispensed all their allotted doses this week.  I got the 1st Moderna shot on Thursday, felt a little shitty yesterday but otherwise it wasn’t bad at all (personally thought anthrax and yellow fever were worse).

As an added bonus, post vaccine my 5G download speeds have been incredible (4K UHD streaming pornog in the middle of the range, no problem!) and an image of Bill Gates constantly pops up in my periph with helpful dining out suggestions.  Totally worth it!!

Edited by DirkDiggler
Grammer
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boomer6 said:

For those of you that have taken the vaccine already, are you having to sign a consent form saying you’re volunteering to receive the vaccine?

From what I saw being Air Guard and witnessing Army Guard get vaccinated at the same time, it looked like everyone had a DHA Form 207. On that form you either check the box that you want to receive the vaccine or that you don't. See attached (must open in Acrobat Reader to work right).

DHA Form 207 Blank.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

For those of you that have taken the vaccine already, are you having to sign a consent form saying you’re volunteering to receive the vaccine?

Yes.  There was a page long pre-screening questionnaire and part of that was consent to receive a vaccine that hasn’t been formally approved by the FDA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccine on Monday, then popped positive Tuesday with congestion, headache and loss of smell. It turns out someone I was exposed to the week prior had it and gave me the bug. 
 

So, both covid and the Moderna vaccine had a cage match in my body this last week - all things considered, the experience was pretty tame. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2021 at 2:51 PM, Sua Sponte said:

You want to go after fraud, waste, and abuse? Go after all the AFRC/ANG ARTs that double dip and take Mil-leave from their civil service status to get their GS-whatever pay and then get their military rank/allowances pay when activated under Title 10.

 

That's not F/W/A. Mil leave is a benefit for all Federal employees.  It would be no different if they were a school teacher or a lawyer in town and took leave and got paid by their civilian job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mudhen69 said:

That's not F/W/A. Mil leave is a benefit for all Federal employees.  It would be no different if they were a school teacher or a lawyer in town and took leave and got paid by their civilian job.

Except it’s more like having the same job being paid by same employer two separate ways to do the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it’s more like having the same job being paid by same employer two separate ways to do the same thing.
It's not the same job though. They are taking paid vacation from one job, while working their second job. The fact that it's the same employer means nothing, since that employer hired that person to do 2 separate jobs.

For example, if a TR takes mil leave at the same time they take PTO from their GS Treasury dept job to maximize their vacation, no one blinks an eye at them getting paid twice to do the same thing by the same employer.

What makes it all stupid (and gives an incorrect outside *appearance* of potential F/W/A) is the unfair rules piling up on ARTs over the years that blur the line between their civilian and military status. The biggest of which is tying an ART's civilian GS job to their part time TR status. They can't quit being a TR and just be a GS employee, nor can they typically quit (at will, like any other GS job that's not an ART) the GS job and stay a TR (without repercussions). The GS portion should be decoupled from the TR portion, but they won't do that because they know either no one will take the job (especially if there's a requirement to have military aviation experience in the unit's MWS), or they can't retain full time experience for cheap anymore. Part of the problem is following the AD model of using squadron pilots to fill jobs: a scheduler doesn't need to know how to fly the jet, just the scheduling and crew rest rules. Training shop just needs to understand how to read the training tables (if the A1C in SARM/HARM can do it, why do you need a GS-12+ to do it as an ART?) But all of those can be done by someone without wings for much less money. And if it's something that needs a pilot's inputs, they can get that one weekend a month from a TR assigned to the shop, or anytime from an AGR.

Much less important, but related, is forcing ARTs to wear a military uniform while in civilian status, which completely blurs the line between what status they are working in, and creates the appearance of doing *military* work when they are in fact doing *civilian* work. This appearance can lead to thinking they are paid twice for the same work: once for their military leave for their part time TR job (military job), and again for being in the office working in a military uniform they are forced to wear off duty (civilian job).

The government is utilizing them like full time AD, without paying them full time AD pay and benefits. This also gives DoD a lot more flexibility in manning, since civilians don't count against end strength, making the positions easier to create/eliminate (maybe not at the unit level) as needed, so long as funding is available. And yes, AD is the better comparison than AGR, as AGRs have limits on how they are utilized.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MyCS said:

California calls for pause of 330,000 doses, investigation after allergic reactions to Moderna vaccine batch

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/18/coronavirus-california-calls-for-pause-investigation-after-allergic-reactions-to-moderna-vaccine-batch

"An abnormally high number of people experienced anaphylactic shock, a severe allergic reaction that requires immediate medical attention, after receiving a shot of the Moderna vaccine at one San Diego vaccination site, Dr. Erica Pan said in statement Sunday. While the number was fewer than 10."

So...10 reactions out of 330,000 doses?  I'll take those odds.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MyCS said:

Charles Barkley talked about players being able to cut the vaccine line on TNT just the other day. Zero support from fans. Now the NBA commissioner is going to try it. Lol. Under some BS outreach to African Americans. 

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/30742821/nba-talking-vaccinating-players-psa

They should have to wait like everyone else. I want the high risk, elderly, and first responders taken care of first. 

I think a major part of this piss poor vaccine rollout is the logistics behind serving 1st responders and the like first. Make it first come, first served and I bet those people would make the effort to get out there. How there aren’t 24-hour clinics doing this I don’t understand. But then again, I’m not a doctor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

So...10 reactions out of 330,000 doses?  I'll take those odds.

"An abnormally high number of people experienced anaphylactic shock, a severe allergic reaction that requires immediate medical attention, after receiving a shot of the Moderna vaccine at one San Diego vaccination site, Dr. Erica Pan said in statement Sunday night. While the number was fewer than 10"

I read that as just under 10 people had that reaction at a single location that was administering the vaccine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a major part of this piss poor vaccine rollout is the logistics behind serving 1st responders and the like first. Make it first come, first served and I bet those people would make the effort to get out there. How there aren’t 24-hour clinics doing this I don’t understand. But then again, I’m not a doctor. 


That's part of the problem.

Should be preference for medical/elderly/(insert high risk group), and towards the end of the day should be available to anyone who wants it so thawed doses aren't thrown out.

Or something similar to free for all like you said, but have a fast pass line for those folks that allows them to go ahead of everyone else. That way you minimize vaccine doses thrown away at the end of the day.

I've got no problem with medical personnel getting pushed to front of the line due to their exposure risk and the importance of their job.

Either way, mandating only x group can get vaccine while y group has to wait until some undetermined point in the future leads to waste and slows down the overall effort, especially if you don't force/incentivize the priority group to hurry. Basically, don't be overly strict like NY was (to give the appearance of being fair), because it causes waste. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/nyregion/new-york-vaccine-guidelines.amp.html

Something about planning ops based on event based criteria and not time based criteria. And executing on intent vs strict, narrow interpretations on guidance.

The other part of the problem is just basic logistics. How much do you send to different locations? Have to balance a site's capacity and demand, and do so in a manner where vaccines aren't just sitting on shelves. But it can be hard to predict demand, especially at specific sites, unless you are making appointments at that site.

West Virgina seems to be doing really well with its distribution though.
https://apnews.com/article/politics-pandemics-west-virginia-coronavirus-pandemic-2e682c51172839a57ab17ca2b7b8d336

24 hour clinics means getting medical personnel to cover 24 hour ops, there just are not enough of them to do it. Only so many nurses and pharmacists out there, and the nurses have likely been in surge ops for almost a year and are needed elsewhere as well. It's probably overkill anyways, don't think you'll have people banging down the door to get a shot at 3 am. Sure there are shift workers, so maybe a night clinic every so often. Maybe if there's demand for it, but someone's got to pay the nurses and pharmacists giving the vaccine (along with their typical pay overrides for night shifts and overtime), unless you want to use military healthcare workers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2021 at 5:21 PM, MyCS said:

Charles Barkley talked about players being able to cut the vaccine line on TNT just the other day. Zero support from fans. Now the NBA commissioner is going to try it. Lol. Under some BS outreach to African Americans. 

I don't hate the idea IF it was a part of a national PR campaign. With so many people being concerned about the speed of the development of the vaccine I would invite celebrities (I don't have to know who they are) that are respected by groups that are being hesitant about receiving the vaccine. Get a Tik Tok star, some professional athletes, The Rock, and an influencer, put them on TV getting the vaccine and have them use their social media to get the word out. Maybe wait a few weeks until the 65+ age group is done but don't be afraid to give it earlier. 

This also wouldn't be the first time the US has done this, Elvis helped out with the polio vaccine: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/18/elvis-presley-polio-vaccine-confidence-448131

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

Here's the actual scientific article because, when it comes to science, mainstream news articles are basically worthless:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.18.427166v1.full

BL: It looks like it could be bad, with over 50% of natural produced antibody samples not showing immunity to this strain. They predict that folks, even if they already had COVID or got the first vaccine, will now be able to get COVID 2.0, but this is a limited evaluation. They never tested actual people that were vaccinated, and they never actually saw a secondary reinfection. They just produce evidence that points to likelihood. Time will tell. God help us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

Here's the actual scientific article because, when it comes to science, mainstream news articles are basically worthless:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.18.427166v1.full

BL: It looks like it could be bad, with over 50% of natural produced antibody samples not showing immunity to this strain. They predict that folks, even if they already had COVID or got the first vaccine, will now be able to get COVID 2.0, but this is a limited evaluation. They never tested actual people that were vaccinated, and they never actually saw a secondary reinfection. They just produce evidence that points to likelihood. Time will tell. God help us.

This is going to kill the primary campaign to vaccinate people if the public has reason to believe it's not as effective as advertised. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...