Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

I find it ironic that a lot of the same anti-vaxxers willing to claim "my-body-my-right" are against abortion. Isn't it the same concept or are their exceptions in the bible thumping universe?

Without resorting to bible thumping, do you not recognize or understand that a pregnant woman is two separate (albeit connected) beings with different DNA? A person can be charged with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman. At the very least, we can at least agree that our laws are schizophrenic on the issue (at best).

Conflating these two issues is a stretch. And throwing the "bible" poop at the wall in an attempt to relegate the view to a simple-minded, and/or limited to religious objection is side-stepping the actual issue. My gut tells me that abortion is wrong - at the very least becomes more wrong the further into a pregnancy a woman gets. I don't need to appeal to any book or religion to arrive at that conclusion. Yours is the same argument anti-gun nuts make when they "ok" gun use for hunting or sporting. Which, sorry to say, is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

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

8 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

I find it ironic that a lot of the same anti-vaxxers willing to claim "my-body-my-right" are against abortion. Isn't it the same concept or are their exceptions in the bible thumping universe?

Concept is indeed the same.. so is it valid or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Feature Article: Long-term Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccine? What We Know.

https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine

Interesting quote from the article: 

According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, professional anti-vaccine activists organized a meeting in the fall of 2020 to create messaging that would decrease acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines once available. These organized efforts aim to move people to extreme positions about vaccines — that is to say, from having legitimate questions about vaccines to becoming “anti-vaccine,” refusing all vaccines and believing conspiracy theories and false narratives. In some cases, individuals in these groups do not believe the science, and in other cases, they are seeking to profit from this hesitancy by encouraging the use of other products to “protect” against COVID-19.

Actual footage of the professional anti-vaccine activists.  (professionals mind you, not amateur anti-vaccine activists).

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

I find it ironic that a lot of the same anti-vaxxers willing to claim "my-body-my-right" are against abortion. Isn't it the same concept or are there exceptions in the bible thumping universe?
 

Irony is a two-way street: lots of people wearing pussy hats and screaming about a women’s right to make her own choices regarding abortion (despite what the father thinks) who are now 100% good forcing an injection into women concerned about second order fertility effects.  Disgusting.

I like the red herring spear at bible thumpers.  As if they had anything to do with this conversation.  Some people just love tyranny, and hate debate.  

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Irony is a two-way street: lots of people wearing pussy hats and screaming about a women’s right to make her own choices regarding abortion (despite what the father thinks) who are now 100% good forcing an injection into women concerned about second order fertility effects.  Disgusting.

I like the red herring spear at bible thumpers.  As if they had anything to do with this conversation.  Some people just love tyranny, and hate debate.  

Who is 100% good forcing a vaccine on anyone? Honest question. There are a lot of us that believe the only way out of this pandemic on anything resembling an acceptable timeline is through mass vaccination. Doesn’t mean I’m for government mandated vaccines. Military is a different story. As mentioned by an earlier poster, regardless of any efficacy argument, if I’m senior leadership I want my military population as close to 100% vaccinated if only for the simple fact that it will make global deployment and travel that much easier. What I absolutely do support is any employer’s right to require their workers to be vaccinated. That is backed up by the law and a completely different animal than government mandated jabs. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

I like the red herring spear at bible thumpers.  As if they had anything to do with this conversation.

This brings up something I’ve noticed for years.  In today’s day and age, nearly all demographics or groups of people are protected.  You know the whole social justice warrior culture.  We’ve got racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.   There are words used to describe malice towards religious people as well like islamophobia and anti-Semitic.  

Christians are fair game though.  Nobody blinks an eye when someone like @TheNewGazmo overtly denigrates Christians.  It certainly shows what kind of person you are dealing with. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Who is 100% good forcing a vaccine on anyone? Honest question. There are a lot of us that believe the only way out of this pandemic on anything resembling an acceptable timeline is through mass vaccination. Doesn’t mean I’m for government mandated vaccines. Military is a different story. As mentioned by an earlier poster, regardless of any efficacy argument, if I’m senior leadership I want my military population as close to 100% vaccinated if only for the simple fact that it will make global deployment and travel that much easier. What I absolutely do support is any employer’s right to require their workers to be vaccinated. That is backed up by the law and a completely different animal than government mandated jabs. 

The military is the government; and the bureaucracy should stop pretending those within the military don’t have rights. You’d want your troops forcibly injected against their consent, without knowledge of long-term effects, because it’s easier to deploy or travel? What other rights of other humans are you willing to trash for convenience’s sake? (And for WHOSE convenience?)
What nation’s interests are you really wanting to serve? Because it doesn’t sound like those of the U.S.A. Your troops are getting out someday, and I imagine some would want to know they won’t have complications that arise from this experimental drug. Giving up rights to the government doesn’t usually play out well for the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

This brings up something I’ve noticed for years.  In today’s day and age, nearly all demographics or groups of people are protected.  You know the whole social justice warrior culture.  We’ve got racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.   There are words used to describe malice towards religious people as well like islamophobia and anti-Semitic.  

Christians are fair game though.  Nobody blinks an eye when someone like @TheNewGazmo overtly denigrates Christians.  It certainly shows what kind of person you are dealing with. 

It’s almost like there’s a coordinated agenda or something to hate Christians, White people, or European culture.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The military is the government; and the bureaucracy should stop pretending those within the military don’t have rights. You’d want your troops forcibly injected against their consent, without knowledge of long-term effects, because it’s easier to deploy or travel? What other rights of other humans are you willing to trash for convenience’s sake? (And for WHOSE convenience?)
What nation’s interests are you really wanting to serve? Because it doesn’t sound like those of the U.S.A. Your troops are getting out someday, and I imagine some would want to know they won’t have complications that arise from this experimental drug. Giving up rights to the government doesn’t usually play out well for the people.

I think most of us fully realized when we signed up to serve that many of the rights we enjoyed as civilians were either shelved or significantly limited. Sorry you didn’t get the memo. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think most of us fully realized when we signed up to serve that many of the rights we enjoyed as civilians were either shelved or significantly limited. Sorry you didn’t get the memo. 

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dogfish78 said:

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

I think you’ll find the UCMJ supports your commanders’ decisions to ensure your vaccination record is current and complete. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would result if individual service members were allowed to pick and choose what mobility requirements applied to them? 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think you’ll find the UCMJ supports your commanders’ decisions to ensure your vaccination record is current and complete. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would result if individual service members were allowed to pick and choose what mobility requirements applied to them? 

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

I'm with you in theory, but there is established precedent for vaccination being required for people in the military. Anyone in the military today knows this.

That said, "experimental" vaccines are probably an open question - in my legal opinion (which isn't worth shit, btw). J&J ok. Phizer/Moderna, you may have a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

What he means is that you don't automatically give up every right you have. He leaves room, though, for some rights to have been "given up."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

I disagree (surprise). I wish you the best but I don’t think you’re going to win this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

Anthrax showed different. 

Also, Indiana University won a lawsuit over the requirement for every faculty member, employee, and student on campus to be vaccinated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

It’s almost like there’s a coordinated agenda or something to hate Christians, White people, or European culture.

Coordinated agenda to hate Christians, White people, or European culture? Please! How about religion has no place in politics or how our government runs our country?  I've got no issues with whatever religion one practices.  Just don't try to make policy with it.  There's a lot of people out there that think believing in God or whatever higher power you may believe in is about as crazy as believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, but yet there are people trying to make policy with religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/U_S_ v_ Washington.htm

"As the Supreme Court has emphasized, "[t]he essence of military service 'is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.'" Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986)(quoting Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 92 (1953))."

"The requirement to place the needs of the nation above a servicemember's personal welfare applies in peacetime as well as in war. "[I]t is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight should the occasion arise." United States v. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17 (1955)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much fun as this highly productive conversation is.. I'm still waiting for a single shred of reputable scientific evidence that points to the vaccine being unsafe in any way. 
 

We've heard an awful lot of anecdotal and hypothetical concerns with precisely zero evidence to back any of it up. You guys keep saying you've poured over the data and made highly personal risk/reward calculations which led you not to get the vaccine. Except not a single one of you can cite data on these risks you keep talking about. 
 

The only hard stats anyone seems to have is the endlessly repeating "I'm not in the vulnerable demographic" argument. But that isn't how you do a risk analysis. You're forgetting about the whole other side of the equation where there's an extremely low risk mitigation measure (the vaccine) which can reduce whatever covid risk you do have by 90+ percent.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

The military is the government; and the bureaucracy should stop pretending those within the military don’t have rights. You’d want your troops forcibly injected against their consent, without knowledge of long-term effects, because it’s easier to deploy or travel?

"Forcibly injected against their consent?"

You know it's an all-volunteer force, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm still waiting for a single shred of reputable scientific evidence that points to the vaccine being unsafe in any way. 

There are snippets.  example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-021-01332-z

I'm not convinced they amount to much.  I'm not aware of any follow up studies to prove/disprove (common problem in the current media climate) but just listening to politifact declare everything false isn't true either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

As much fun as this highly productive conversation is.. I'm still waiting for a single shred of reputable scientific evidence that points to the vaccine being unsafe in any way. 

We've heard an awful lot of anecdotal and hypothetical concerns with precisely zero evidence to back any of it up. You guys keep saying you've poured over the data and made highly personal risk/reward calculations which led you not to get the vaccine. Except not a single one of you can cite data on these risks you keep talking about. 

The only hard stats anyone seems to have is the endlessly repeating "I'm not in the vulnerable demographic" argument. But that isn't how you do a risk analysis. You're forgetting about the whole other side of the equation where there's an extremely low risk mitigation measure (the vaccine) which can reduce whatever covid risk you do have by 90+ percent.

Military: Established that you need to take vaccines. Experimental vaccines, open question.

Civilian: Doesn't matter if it's a sugar pill. Can't make anyone take it for any reason whatsoever.

  • Upvote 1
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...