Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Waingro said:

The strange punctuation and capitalization of random words gives your post somewhat of a National Enquirer feel. Good stuff. 

Anyway, the vaccine has not been proven to lack efficacy. I'm not going to bother asking you to cite a source, because I know you can't. But in the spirit of facts, here's my source.

 

You might have a point, wanting the requirement to be dropped. But until they drop it, it's still an order, a lawful one at that. We don't get to cherry-pick which lawful orders we follow. Otherwise we could just call them suggestions. 

And in a strange turn of events, we also don't get to decide what countries we deploy to. I kept telling my last commander that we should deploy to Tahiti, but it fell on deaf ears and we ended up in Afghanistan. 

My source is every politician who has gotten COVID and then tweeted thanks for being vaxed I’m not sicker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Waingro said:

The strange punctuation and capitalization of random words gives your post somewhat of a National Enquirer feel. Good stuff. 

Anyway, the vaccine has not been proven to lack efficacy. I'm not going to bother asking you to cite a source, because I know you can't. But in the spirit of facts, here's my source.

 

You might have a point, wanting the requirement to be dropped. But until they drop it, it's still an order, a lawful one at that. We don't get to cherry-pick which lawful orders we follow. Otherwise we could just call them suggestions. 

And in a strange turn of events, we also don't get to decide what countries we deploy to. I kept telling my last commander that we should deploy to Tahiti, but it fell on deaf ears and we ended up in Afghanistan. 

Hold up... Define efficacy. Because it was once postulated that the vaccine stopped hospitalizations, deaths, and transmission. In fact when everyone was high on the nearly release vaccine euphoria, 99% effective was often cited.

 

We now know the vaccine has very limited ability to reduce transmission. And the protection against Alpha and Delta have not carried over to omicron in the same way.

 

So yeah, it works, so long as you redefine "works" in a way that no longer has much to do with military necessity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Under Secretary of def put a memo out Oct 2021 that didn’t allow tdy’s or personal leave of any service member. Just had to stay in the local area between work and home

Copy. Obviously, both of those continue to occur. I’m asking if anyone knows of bases that have put increased restrictions, other than the DoD mandates that everyone be fully vaccinated, on members based on their booster status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Hold up... Define efficacy. Because it was once postulated that the vaccine stopped hospitalizations, deaths, and transmission. In fact when everyone was high on the nearly release vaccine euphoria, 99% effective was often cited.

 

We now know the vaccine has very limited ability to reduce transmission. And the protection against Alpha and Delta have not carried over to omicron in the same way.

 

So yeah, it works, so long as you redefine "works" in a way that no longer has much to do with military necessity.

Here's the source I cited above showing vaccine efficacy. You can infer from that what you will. I never said I was in favor of vaccine mandates, only that they're pretty plainly lawful orders.

The only argument that I'm putting forth is that if you don't want to follow orders, you should be shown the door, and in this case, without prejudice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Waingro said:

Here's the source I cited above showing vaccine efficacy. You can infer from that what you will. I never said I was in favor of vaccine mandates, only that they're pretty plainly lawful orders.

The only argument that I'm putting forth is that if you don't want to follow orders, you should be shown the door, and in this case, without prejudice.

 

I agree with you entirely there. And I think it's an acceptable middle ground. I think the order is lawful, but exceptionally questionable.

 

Questionable based on the direct impact of COVID to the military demographic (minimal) and the failure of the vaccines to prevent transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Anyone else at a base that is barring TDYs unless you’re fully vaccinated and boosted?

AFROTC won't let cadets do base visits, activate scholarships, commission, or sign contracts after field training if they aren't vaccinated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Hold up... Define efficacy. 

 

So yeah, it works, so long as you redefine "works" in a way that no longer has much to do with military necessity.

Hilarious. It absolutely does not work. And it’s not your truth. 
 

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” - bill clinton. 

Edited by BashiChuni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

AFROTC won't let cadets do base visits, activate scholarships, commission, or sign contracts after field training if they aren't vaccinated. 

Yep, am tracking restrictions based on being fully vaccinated. Booster requirements/being up-to-date is specifically what I’m talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

Yep, am tracking restrictions based on being fully vaccinated. Booster requirements/being up-to-date is specifically what I’m talking about.

There is a legal prohibition on military requiring boosters.  The booster remains under an EUA unlike the FDA approved shots.  There are some commanders trying to trick their people or pressure them into getting boosters because they have requirements to deploy into locations which require boosters (I think Kuwait is an example).  But that places those commanders in an precarious position, and would not survive first contact with legal.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know of some Wg/CCs not allowing ppl to go TDY unless they’re up-to-date (vaccinated plus booster within 6mo). Just curious what other bases have the same policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

Yeah, I know of some Wg/CCs not allowing ppl to go TDY unless they’re up-to-date (vaccinated plus booster within 6mo). Just curious what other bases have the same policies.

No BS, that needs to be reported. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Standby said:

No BS, that needs to be reported. 

Lol reported to who? The IG works for the Wg/CC. An AF level IG isn’t going to go against this kind of order. A letter to a congressman/senator, even a conservative one, wouldn’t do much with a liberal administration as top cover. Regardless of what I think I’m pretty sure there’s nothing stoping a Wg/CC from preventing ppl from going TDY unless they’re boosted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I’m pretty sure there’s nothing stoping a Wg/CC from preventing ppl from going TDY unless they’re boosted. 

It’s an interesting question.  Are TDYs tied to career progression?  Is career progression tied to promotion?  
 

What would happen to a WG/CC if he told a pregnant airmen that based on her choice to become pregnant she would be denied opportunities for career development and progression?  Or what if only pilots who received elective eye surgery to forego wearing glasses could TDY, and therefore advance professionally?

Where I’m going here is that a policy of pushing elective medical procedures by attaching career impacting consequences to the choice wouldn’t withstand first contact with legal in any other context.  I copy a portion of society has gone COVID psycho, but it’s logically indefensible and unlikely to be sustained if pushed against.  Just my guess, I’m not a WG/CC.

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

10 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Where I’m going here is that a policy of pushing elective medical procedures by attaching career impacting consequences to the choice wouldn’t withstand first contact with legal in any other context.  I copy a portion of society has gone COVID psycho, but it’s logically indefensible and unlikely to be sustained if pushed against.  Just my guess, I’m not a WG/CC.

I think most of us can agree logic has went out the window with regard to the AF’s view of the vaccine. As far as the legal side goes the bobs send these declarations through legal before publishing them. Additionally, unless someone plans on suing their leadership I see an IG complaint as the only legal recourse members would have. However,  I think the only way to get movement through that route would be to submit a complaint to congress

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

I think most of us can agree logic has went out the window with regard to the AF’s view of the vaccine. As far as the legal side goes the bobs send these declarations through legal before publishing them. Additionally, unless someone plans on suing their leadership I see an IG complaint as the only legal recourse members would have. However,  I think the only way to get movement through that route would be to submit a complaint to congress

Also look into UCMJ Article 138. Once I learned about this, I now share it with everyone. Its one of the most powerful tools, you, as the member, have to hold a negligent commander accountable if they are doing something unlawful. May not be vaccine related, can be for anything. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Quote

More troubling, vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial were more likely to get severely ill with Covid than those who received a placebo. Pfizer claimed most severe cases weren’t “clinically significant,” whatever that means, but this was all the more reason that the FDA should have required a longer follow-up before authorizing the vaccine.

https://archive.ph/9AWJO#selection-4475.0-4475.342

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Which base will be the first to bring back masks this fall?

Have any bases brought them back now?  Several bases are in counties that meet the CDC's definition of "High" Community Level.  For example, Maricopa in AZ.  Anyone at Luke?

DoD policy, as far as I can find, is to match CDC Community Level recommendations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Buckley has them back now and has for a couple weeks.

 

 

And people are actually wearing them?  Even on the the Guard side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SocialD said:

 

 

And people are actually wearing them?  Even on the the Guard side?

Denver has definitely got a sizable contingent of mask zealots. I’d say Buckley participation is not nearly that zealous, but the official policy is for indoor wear. Last I saw from the Redeyes they were running around in loin cloths and throwing spears at the monster rabbits running around the back gate. Nary a mask in sight.

  • Haha 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...