Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

very good post pawnman!

i think most americans are closer in agreement then MSNBC or FOXNEWS tries to portray. i appreciate your thoughtful reply

When people tell or show you who they are, believe them.

The appearance was positively giddy about 10,000 self-inflicted subtractions from our military forces

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

Court: Pilot, attendant will suffer under vaccine mandate (msn.com)

Quote

A pilot and a flight attendant for United Airlines will suffer “irreparable harm” under the airline’s COVID-19 policy that makes them choose between getting vaccinated in violation of their religious objections or going on unpaid leave, a divided federal appeals court panel in New Orleans ruled Thursday.

Air Force can’t compel Christian officer to get Covid shot, judge rules (msn.com)

 

Quote

 

Afederal judge in Georgia has temporarily blocked the U.S. military from enforcing its Covid-19 vaccine mandate against an Air Force officer seeking a religious exemption. 

The order was handed down a month after the unnamed officer, who is a Christian, filed a lawsuit alleging that the mandate violates her religious beliefs.

...

Self noted that the Air Force has rejected 99.76 percent of all religious accommodation requests. It had denied all of them up until the last two weeks when it approved nine, he said. 

“With such a marked record disfavoring religious accommodation requests, the Court easily finds that the Air Force’s process to protect religious rights is both illusory and insincere,” he wrote. “In short, it’s just ‘theater.’”

 

 

Edited by brickhistory
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“It’s just theater”… unlike the thousands of people who suddenly had a Paul on the road to Damascus moment with this vaccine. Quite the religious awakening. 
 

I think this whole vaccination thing is BS but people trying the religious route when it’s total crap really pisses me off. Totally undermines folks that have legitimate religious beliefs. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

But Dod's near blanket denial of any religious exceptions was yet another own goal to this bad, possibly illegal IMO, order.

DoD took/is taking nearly 10,000 casualty equivalents over a policy, not hard science.  

In a time when the percentage of eligibles to join is ever decreasing.

How many of those 10,000 would recommend joining?  How many people that know those 10,000 would recommend or consider joining themselves?  

Many of us here are 2, 3, or more generations of serving.  I wouldn't recommend anyone to enlist or commission.  Would you?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a good question. 3rd generation (WW2 Merchant Marine, Vietnam 2 x DFC aviator, my bitch ass) and I’ve got 3 kids. I don’t think I would actively dissuade service because I love this country and I think military service has many benefits but there’s definitely some serious rot in the force. And it ain’t with the Joe’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Agreed.

But Dod's near blanket denial of any religious exceptions was yet another own goal to this bad, possibly illegal IMO, order.

DoD took/is taking nearly 10,000 casualty equivalents over a policy, not hard science.  

In a time when the percentage of eligibles to join is ever decreasing.

How many of those 10,000 would recommend joining?  How many people that know those 10,000 would recommend or consider joining themselves?  

Many of us here are 2, 3, or more generations of serving.  I wouldn't recommend anyone to enlist or commission.  Would you?

There are 2 parts to a religious accommodation. The first is do you have a sincerely held belief, which actually has been yes more than people think. The second is can the service accommodate it without risking others or negatively impacting service. With the vaccine that part is what is getting denied. Not having it risks those around you and makes you non deployable from big AF perspective. The few approved are mostly people on terminal or teleworking prior to terminal.

Not saying it’s right or wrong but for SA.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MCO said:

There are 2 parts to a religious accommodation. The first is do you have a sincerely held belief, which actually has been yes more than people think. The second is can the service accommodate it without risking others or negatively impacting service. With the vaccine that part is what is getting denied. Not having it risks those around you and makes you non deployable from big AF perspective. The few approved are mostly people on terminal or teleworking prior to terminal.

Not saying it’s right or wrong but for SA.

Some additional context, what really shot the DoD in the foot on these lawsuits was they did grant medical exemptions. So the law says they have to provide a reasonable accommodation to a religious issue unless no reasonable accommodation exist. The plaintiffs argued before the court that a reasonable accommodation did exist because the DoD didn't have the same concerns about deployment of mobility for medically exempted personal and they could simply accommodate religious members similarly. 

The DoD by and large never tried to deny a religious exemption based on the sincerity of the belief. In nearly every denial (at least everyone I've seen) the DoD recognized the belief as sincere. In fact the organizations that I've been following who are helping to litigate it have reviewed thousands of denials and in every case the religious convictions were agreed to be sincere. 

Because of that, it painted the DoD in a corner. Now they can no longer say the belief is not sincere, because they already agreed it was and new evidence hasn't been presented to say it wasn't. The DoD also can no longer say a reasonable accommodation does not exist because they did grant a reasonable accommodation to people who were medically waivered. What the courts are interested in and what the DoD is failing to make a case in is why would a medically exempt service member deserve an accomodation but a religious member doesn't. Unfortunately the only conclusion easy to reach with that is senior leadership in the DoD discriminated against religious members by failing to treat them on equal standing as those unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2021 at 11:49 PM, Negatory said:

We’ll just have to wait and see on cases. I am certain we’ll hit 1.0M, although many of those cases won’t be tested. Probably see 600-700k confirmed cases a day is my bet, with 40-60% not detected due to either being asymptomatic or mild.

In the spirit of keeping up with the science, preliminary data used in studies shows that while Omicron is super contagious, it is significantly less bad from an individual outcome perspective. Maybe this will be a blessing to finally get everyone immunity, whether you want it or not.

https://mynorthwest.com/3289906/uw-modelers-project-3-billion-new-covid-19-cases-by-february/

UW researchers said the omicron hospitalization rate is between 4 and 10% that of delta, and that the fatality rate is 1 to 3% that of delta.”

Also, rates like that - up to 10-20 times less likely to be hospitalized or 30-100 times less likely to die - make it almost false reporting to even call this disease COVID. Because it is not very similar to Delta.

Legitimately, if these estimates turn out to be true, it will be significantly less bad for an individual than the flu. Only question is, will the hospital system in America be able to deal with 60-140M people getting “the flu” in the next few months?

Hey @ViperMan, your quotes for me from 25 Dec onwards were trying to make it seem like I was insinuating the death rate of omicron was gonna be be 5-15% for certain portions of the population. Just wondering why you misrepresented my actual points on this forum? Is this a perception error because you aren’t actually reading what I’m saying? Or is it an execution error in that you’re arguing fallaciously?

Did you miss two days prior where I said exactly what you’re arguing I didn’t say?

Did you not understand that the estimates you quoted (5-15%) were in reference to historical data under an entirely different pretext? We were talking about what we would have done differently with foresight of historical data. The historical data - which is true - is for delta/previous variants.

How can I make my opinions more clear so that you can stop misrepresenting them?

I don’t need to engage in this echo chamber where you can only see it as simply you vs my entirely opposite views. I am glad that my predictions on 23 Dec (that the disease would have significantly lower hospitalizations and fatalities) based on scientific evidence (that I was the first to present on this forum) came true. I know you guys want to hate on people like me, pawnman, Prozac, etc. and find the bogeyman, but it’s not productive. I’m good not engaging with you in the future, as you’ve proven not to want to engage in a good faith discussion. Godspeed.

Edited by Negatory
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I think this whole vaccination thing is BS but people trying the religious route when it’s total crap really pisses me off. Totally undermines folks that have legitimate religious beliefs. 

When the government gets to decide what is a “sincerely held religious belief” and what is not, and who can have them/not have them…then we have problems.

I am anti-religious exemptions for anything when it comes to the government, and this includes vaccines. If an atheist doesn’t want a vaccine then that should hold no more/no less sway vs someone who doesn’t want one for personal religious reasons.

Edited by HeloDude
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Hey @ViperMan, your quotes for me from 25 Dec onwards were trying to make it seem like I was insinuating the death rate of omicron was gonna be be 5-15% for certain portions of the population. Just wondering why you misrepresented my actual points on this forum? Is this a perception error because you aren’t actually reading what I’m saying? Or is it an execution error in that you’re arguing fallaciously?

What's up @Negatory. I guess it's a perception error, but you honestly came across like that. So, no, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. In our discussion (back then) it was pretty clear to me that what was being implied was that there was going to be mass death right around the corner. I stated that I did not buy that BS for a variety of reasons. Also, you could have, you know, responded with what you actually meant four days ago if I "misrepresented" you. Instead you waited until now to figure out that's not what you meant back then??? You can see how I'm (still) confused. How about you explain what you meant by 15% (or 30% as you quoted), and what this other pretext was. In any case, I'm not arguing fallaciously, and you are welcome to clarify.

If you had been context switching between Omicron infecting a million people a day and then back to vanilla COVID morting 5-15%, then I missed the fact that there were two separate and distinct points being made - so yeah, that's my perception problem. But I will admit that I went back and read the stuff from just prior to Christmas, and it is not clear that you were talking about two different bugs. That said, you did recognize that the data showed Omicron was highly infectious, but not as deadly - so I'll take that one.

Anyway, here's the big picture I take away from our previous conversation after having been removed from it for a while:

  1. There is one group (you, et al) who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the PTB re: COVID measures.
  2. There's another group (includes me) who is done with the charade and all things "unserious."

I mean you have people that are fine with measures being taken that were known (or thought) to be ineffective simply as a means to "do" something (I'm one who thinks masks have a limited personal effect; zero societal effect). Many people, including me, think forcing people to do things for show is anti-American. That's where I'm coming from. And besides that philosophical point, I'll say it's worth a moment's consideration to think about the implication of having the perception that something works, even though it actually doesn't, and then implementing it as policy. Do you think those types of misconceptions will lead people to take more or less appropriate risks? What will then be the actual real-world outcome of that policy? More or less infection? Seems clear to me what the answer is, but yet...

On 12/30/2021 at 12:05 PM, Prozac said:

Wearing a mask on an airplane for instance. While I may find it slightly annoying, the real and yes, perceived, effects of wearing one are a small inconvenience if it means the airline industry can remain whole. Even if you believe it’s mostly theater, potting a piece of cloth over your face for a couple hours is a pretty “easy” measure.

Others accept at face value that "COVID" is "killing" 20x more Americans than in other nations. Apparently you need to be some kind of "expert" to notice that is an odd thing and to raise it as a question. Or perhaps this, the fact that in California (of all places) they held the Super Bowl mostly mask-less (https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2022/02/face-masks-were-handed-out-at-the-super-bowl-but-few-fans-wore-them.html). Where was the enforcement? Why was this acceptable? My bet is that it was cool because there was a lot of money involved in it for CA. I would like to be a fly on the wall during some of the conversations between NFL executives and the CA government (https://www.wtok.com/2022/01/05/nfl-looks-contingency-sites-super-bowl-amid-covid-19/).

Anyway, it was these sorts of arguments that were (and still are) being made. My point now is the same as what it was then: This is now mostly about signaling/control, Omicron wasn't (isn't) going to kill everyone, and it's time to stop panicking and go back to (actual) normal. Stop the fear-based arguments and justifications for normalizing restrictions, lack of freedom, and unquestioned acceptance of authority. We are creating a generation of young children who are scared shitless of COVID though they are not at risk whatsoever, and are going to grow up more neurotic than they already were going to be.

Edited by ViperMan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

What's up @Negatory. I guess it's a perception error, but you honestly came across like that. So, no, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. In our discussion (back then) it was pretty clear to me that what was being implied was that there was going to be mass death right around the corner. I stated that I did not buy that BS for a variety of reasons. Also, you could have, you know, responded with what you actually meant four days ago if I "misrepresented" you. Instead you waited until now to figure out that's not what you meant back then??? You can see how I'm (still) confused. How about you explain what you meant by 15% (or 30% as you quoted), and what this other pretext was. In any case, I'm not arguing fallaciously, and you are welcome to clarify.

If you had been context switching between Omicron infecting a million people a day and then back to vanilla COVID morting 5-15%, then I missed the fact that there were two separate and distinct points being made - so yeah, that's my perception problem. But I will admit that I went back and read the stuff from just prior to Christmas, and it is not clear that you were talking about two different bugs. That said, you did recognize that the data showed Omicron was highly infectious, but not as deadly - so I'll take that one.

Anyway, here's the big picture I take away from our previous conversation after having been removed from it for a while:

  1. There is one group (you, et al) who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the PTB re: COVID measures.
  2. There's another group (includes me) who is done with the charade and all things "unserious."

I mean you have people that are fine with measures being taken that were known (or thought) to be ineffective simply as a means to "do" something (I'm one who thinks masks have a limited personal effect; zero societal effect). Many people, including me, think forcing people to do things for show is anti-American. That's where I'm coming from. And besides that philosophical point, I'll say it's worth a moment's consideration to think about the implication of having the perception that something works, even though it actually doesn't, and then implementing it as policy. Do you think those types of misconceptions will lead people to take more or less appropriate risks? What will then be the actual real-world outcome of that policy? More or less infection? Seems clear to me what the answer is, but yet...

Others accept at face value that "COVID" is "killing" 20x more Americans than in other nations. Apparently you need to be some kind of "expert" to notice that is an odd thing and to raise it as a question. Or perhaps this, the fact that in California (of all places) they held the Super Bowl mostly mask-less (https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2022/02/face-masks-were-handed-out-at-the-super-bowl-but-few-fans-wore-them.html). Where was the enforcement? Why was this acceptable? My bet is that it was cool because there was a lot of money involved in it for CA. I would like to be a fly on the wall during some of the conversations between NFL executives and the CA government (https://www.wtok.com/2022/01/05/nfl-looks-contingency-sites-super-bowl-amid-covid-19/).

Anyway, it was these sorts of arguments that were (and still are) being made. My point now is the same as what it was then: This is now mostly about signaling/control, Omicron wasn't (isn't) going to kill everyone, and it's time to stop panicking and go back to (actual) normal. Stop the fear-based arguments and justifications for normalizing restrictions, lack of freedom, and unquestioned acceptance of authority. We are creating a generation of young children who are scared shitless of COVID though they are not at risk whatsoever, and are going to grow up more neurotic than they already were going to be.

We have different vaccines than most of the world.

 

we also don’t let drs prescribe certain medicines that might help.   Ivermectin, for one.   
 

 

these things might account for a 20x morality rate.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bennynova said:

We have different vaccines than most of the world.

we also don’t let drs prescribe certain medicines that might help.   Ivermectin, for one.   

these things might account for a 20x morality rate.   

So our vaccines are worse, then? I've been reliably told that we have the best vaccines and boosters. Because COVID is killing us at 20x that of South Korea and Japan...that not strange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

So our vaccines are worse, then? I've been reliably told that we have the best vaccines and boosters. Because COVID is killing us at 20x that of South Korea and Japan...that not strange?

That has nothing to do with the vaccine and everything to do with obesity rates.

 

It's not strange at all, really.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I think this whole vaccination thing is BS but people trying the religious route when it’s total crap really pisses me off. Totally undermines folks that have legitimate religious beliefs. 

Will be interesting to see if SCOTUS steps in.

Could the Supreme Court strike down the military’s vaccination mandate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Will be interesting to see if SCOTUS steps in.

Could the Supreme Court strike down the military’s vaccination mandate?

Personally I would like to see some protections instilled to allow more people to do public service while still maintaining moral congruency with their religion. I was a supporter of turbans and beards as well. I don't understand this mentality that you give up constitutional rights when you join the service. The supreme court has repeatedly struck down that argument and said as much. 

And while I realize the military wants to make arguments in favor of uniformity and esprit de corps, very hard to do that when you make a very public ad campaign that "diversity is our strength."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ViperMan said:

So our vaccines are worse, then? I've been reliably told that we have the best vaccines and boosters. Because COVID is killing us at 20x that of South Korea and Japan...that not strange?

Yea.  The best vaccine for covid is a dead virus, or having had covid.   The mRNA stuff messes with your body’s ability to make a true antibody.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That has nothing to do with the vaccine and everything to do with obesity rates.

 

It's not strange at all, really.

Interesting how much cancer and myocarditis and miscarriages have risen in the military demographic.   Which isn’t as obese as the rest of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am genuinely shocked and dismayed at the government reactions from governments I considered democratic and more liberal than us.

Namely, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and somewhat the UK.  I simply could not imagine the measures they've implemented at government whim, not population voting.

I have always been supportive of the Second Amendment as one area where I can enjoy basic God-given rights, but I begin to understand the Founder's intent in specifically enumerating this right, perhaps.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2022 at 4:27 PM, bennynova said:

Interesting how much cancer and myocarditis and miscarriages have risen in the military demographic.   Which isn’t as obese as the rest of the USA.

Also not particularly interesting. Myocarditis is a well-established side effect of covid, both naturally occurring and vaccine-induced. In fact the only studies comparing it to the vaccine show that there is a higher rate of myocarditis in people who get the actual disease versus the vaccine.

 

Now, we don't have any information showing whether myocarditis from the omicron variant is more pervasive than myocarditis from the vaccine. It's very possible that the vaccine is taking the lead, given the dramatic reduction in severity of omicron.

 

Miscarriages wouldn't surprise me, I thought it was pretty crazy that they were recommending pregnant women get the vaccine. I certainly wouldn't want anyone in my family getting it while pregnant. I've seen zero data that suggests cancer is somehow connected to covid or the vaccine.

 

But to the original point, there is a direct and established correlation between obesity and covid severity, second only to age. And we have so many obese disgusting old people in America it actually seems normal to see some jiggly old corpse bumbling around the grocery store. So comparisons between countries with minuscule obesity rates and ours are going to be contaminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

I am genuinely shocked and dismayed at the government reactions from governments I considered democratic and more liberal than us.

Namely, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and somewhat the UK.  I simply could not imagine the measures they've implemented at government whim, not population voting.

I have always been supportive of the Second Amendment as one area where I can enjoy basic God-given rights, but I begin to understand the Founder's intent in specifically enumerating this right, perhaps.

I've never understood why people consider those countries to be more liberal. I suppose in the more modern progressive sense of the word, but I can't think of any country that's more liberal than the United States in the classical sense. We're still the only country with a true first amendment.

 

I still think the two best examples of why we have the second amendment are Waco and the Cliven Bundy standoff. The latter demonstrates how the second amendment can prevent government overreach, the former demonstrate how it amplifies the cost of government overreach to prevent future occurrences. I'm surprised we haven't had any good examples from the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CDC intentionally withholding COVAX data.

I’m so confused why this would be.  I thought vaccine efficacy and booster necessity was settled science.  If there’s one thing I’m 100% certain of because I’ve been told by the establishment, it’s these vaccines are safe and effective.  True you still get C19 after taking the vaccine even though they told us we wouldn’t, but I’m faithful the symptoms are more mild for vaccinated individuals.  Given all that, why aren’t the experts being completely forthright with all the data collected?  I want to prove these anti-vax science deniers wrong; if the CDC could be more open I’m sure it would reinforce their messaging.  
 

  • Like 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...