Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[TheNewGazmo]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-admin-barred-from-firing-unvaccinated-employees-after-dc-judge-issues-injunction/ar-AAQ5Atz?ocid=msedgntp

So if I am reading this correctly, this is just active duty military who have tried to submit a religious exemption?  Not just for any old person who refuses to get it.

[busdriver]

Once a member submits a religious exception request, their status should be changed to "admin refusal" and they are no longer bound to the current requirement timeline. The exception process from start to finish takes about 6 calendar months, including an opportunity to appeal AF surgeon general if denied at majcom level.

Ref:
AFI 52-201, 48-110
DoDI 1300.17

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[chris99]

On 10/20/2021 at 2:44 PM, ClearedHot said:

Here is how poorly the mandate is being managed...in the words of the folks I talked to at Robins AFB, it has turned into a witch hunt. 

They are actively mandating EVERYONE get the vaccine regardless of circumstance including those with established December and January separation dates.  Take the shot or be extended, subject to UCMJ and change class of discharge.

Numerous other retiring folks at Robins with established terminal dates starting within the next few days have been told, get the jab or retirement is delayed, UCMJ and change class of discharge. 

I've been vaccinated but don't believe in mandates....this is pure lunacy going after these folks.

I work in PACAF, so I don't know what Robins AFB is doing, but today the A3 was briefed that if you are retiring (I assume those separating will be included as well) before 01 April 2022, you will not be required to take the vaccine. This is new information as of this week and applies to the Air Force specifically.

[TheNewGazmo]

35 minutes ago, chris99 said:

I work in PACAF, so I don't know what Robins AFB is doing, but today the A3 was briefed that if you are retiring (I assume those separating will be included as well) before 01 April 2022, you will not be required to take the vaccine. This is new information as of this week and applies to the Air Force specifically.

Looks like the powers that be are slowly pulling their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and coming to their senses.

[FUSEPLUG]

15 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Looks like the powers that be are slowly pulling their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and coming to their senses.

This coming week is going to be very telling as the AD deadline passes. 

[streak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/10/28/vaccine-mandate-air-force/

 

no religious exemptions for vaccines in The Navy in seven years?  
 

[bennynova]

8 hours ago, streak said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/10/28/vaccine-mandate-air-force/

 

no religious exemptions for vaccines in The Navy in seven years?  
 

It’s propaganda.   Just like the news tries telling us 78% of 12 and up are Vaxxed.    Trying to pressure people into being sheep and following the masses, even if it’s fake news

[tac airlifter]

I’m already hearing talk of mandatory booster shots.  The authoritarian aspect of pandemic response is gaining momentum even as the pandemic itself is largely over.  

[Waingro]

8 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m already hearing talk of mandatory booster shots.  The authoritarian aspect of pandemic response is gaining momentum even as the pandemic itself is largely over.  

"I'm hearing talk of..."

"A lot of good people are saying..."

"It's been said that..."

I was hoping this mealy-mouthed bullshít had said farewell, but it's clearly parasitic. 

So, go on, where did you hear about mandatory booster shots, and from whom?

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, Waingro said:

"I'm hearing talk of..."

"A lot of good people are saying..."

"It's been said that..."

I was hoping this mealy-mouthed bullshít had said farewell, but it's clearly parasitic. 

So, go on, where did you hear about mandatory booster shots, and from whom?

Sure- our Wing has said if the CDC changes the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include booster shots (which is under discussion), they will be mandatory.  We don’t know if that’s going to happen, but the question was asked due to reporting that the definition will change.

Here’s a hospital already mandating it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10148459/New-Jersey-hospital-mandate-BOOSTER-shots-workers-J-J-single-dose-vaccine.html

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by tac airlifter

[bennynova]

6 hours ago, Waingro said:

"I'm hearing talk of..."

"A lot of good people are saying..."

"It's been said that..."

I was hoping this mealy-mouthed bullshít had said farewell, but it's clearly parasitic. 

So, go on, where did you hear about mandatory booster shots, and from whom?

His comments of RUMORS is what has you most worked up about this situation?    

[Blue]

8 hours ago, Waingro said:

"I'm hearing talk of..."

"A lot of good people are saying..."

"It's been said that..."

I was hoping this mealy-mouthed bullshít had said farewell, but it's clearly parasitic. 

You're right.

Throughout this entire "pandemic," messaging has been consistently fluid, with constantly shifting goalposts.  To quote Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis from a couple days ago: "We’ve gone from 15 days to slow the spread, to 3 jabs to keep your job. If you don’t give resistance to this, they’re going to absolutely do more."

When trying to gauge the reaction to your messaging, it's a pretty well-honed technique to float "trial balloons" to the masses, and then gauge the reaction.  It seems like that's exactly what's happening here regarding "booster shots."  You don't see any solid info regarding booster shots, just a bunch of rumors and hearsay.

Wait and see what happens over the next six months though.  Bet the messaging gets a lot more solid.

[Mark1]

18 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m already hearing talk of mandatory booster shots.  The authoritarian aspect of pandemic response is gaining momentum even as the pandemic itself is largely over.  

This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.  The "authoritarian aspect"?  What did you think you were getting into when you joined the military?  The whole concept is one of authoritarianism.  Your commissioning oath literally contains a sentence dedicated to your voluntary submission to authoritarian control.

Objection to vaccine mandates in all walks of life is a defensible position (one that I share).  But there's one exception: the military.  If it's a lawful order, which it is, your personal opinion on the matter is meaningless.

[tac airlifter]

51 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.  The "authoritarian aspect"?  What did you think you were getting into when you joined the military?  The whole concept is one of authoritarianism.  Your commissioning oath literally contains a sentence dedicated to your voluntary submission to authoritarian control.

Objection to vaccine mandates in all walks of life is a defensible position (one that I share).  But there's one exception: the military.  If it's a lawful order, which it is, your personal opinion on the matter is meaningless.

Where in the comment you quoted did I mention this was constrained to the military?  Your response assumes a lot.
 

Regarding personal opinions, you’re right they are meaningless when it comes to following military orders but you know where they aren’t meaningless?  A discussion board designed to share personal opinions.  
 

Some of you guys are high strung. 

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

 

Some of you guys are high strung. 

People committed to a position they didn't personally verify based on the assurances of experts (if the word has any meaning left), then called the people who challenged their position idiots, paranoid, viscously uncaring, and hysterical.

 

Now reality is quite obviously different than it was portrayed, and they look a bit stupid in retrospect. That's a frustrating position to be in.

 

I've been hearing a lot of "well you couldn't have known that at the time so really my position made more sense." Sure, except we knew about the susceptibility of old and fat people, the impact of good ventilation, the nearly-perfect immunity of young children, the airborne nature of covid spread, the Wuhan lab connection, and the rapidly mutating nature of coronaviruses back in May of last year. Couple that with a general understanding of basic human nature and it was not at all "shooting in the dark" to take the positions that deviated from the "expert" consensus. 

 

But as with everything these days, being wrong is never an option for politicians and bureaucrats, so we will be gaslit into believing that the skeptics were just lucky guessers and they were gambling with people's lives.

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, Blue said:

You're right.

Throughout this entire "pandemic," messaging has been consistently fluid, with constantly shifting goalposts.  To quote Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis from a couple days ago: "We’ve gone from 15 days to slow the spread, to 3 jabs to keep your job. If you don’t give resistance to this, they’re going to absolutely do more."

When trying to gauge the reaction to your messaging, it's a pretty well-honed technique to float "trial balloons" to the masses, and then gauge the reaction.  It seems like that's exactly what's happening here regarding "booster shots."  You don't see any solid info regarding booster shots, just a bunch of rumors and hearsay.

Wait and see what happens over the next six months though.  Bet the messaging gets a lot more solid.

I really don't get this argument. The messaging changed over time and that's somehow a bad thing?

Mountains of new information on the virus and treatments have come to light since spring of 2020 when "15 days to slow the spread" was basically the best way we knew to slow down a thing we knew almost nothing about.  We have vaccines now. We have almost two years of global data on the transmission and effects of this disease.  There are a host of new variants that didn't exist two years ago. Two years ago people were Lysol-ing their groceries.
 

So why in the world would the messaging stay the same? 

[glockenspiel]

1 hour ago, Mark1 said:

This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.  The "authoritarian aspect"?  What did you think you were getting into when you joined the military?  The whole concept is one of authoritarianism.  Your commissioning oath literally contains a sentence dedicated to your voluntary submission to authoritarian control.

Objection to vaccine mandates in all walks of life is a defensible position (one that I share).  But there's one exception: the military.  If it's a lawful order, which it is, your personal opinion on the matter is meaningless.

What part of the oath says something about submission? 

I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution Of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and domestic, that I bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me
God. 

You swear to support and defend a document. Albeit an amazing document, but nothing more. You will have faith and allegiance to the same (i.e. the Constitution of the United States) and you do so willingly. If it were not willingly, I could see that being authoritarian. 

Am I missing the submission part somewhere?

Also, the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not the same a the EUA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and in the FDAs words is “legally distinct”. And the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not available anywhere… How is this a legal order?

 

[bennynova]

It NOT a lawful order.  UCMJ for not getting the jab is absurd.  
 

 

our leaders are pussies

[Pooter]

36 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:

What part of the oath says something about submission? 

I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution Of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and domestic, that I bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me
God. 

You swear to support and defend a document. Albeit an amazing document, but nothing more. You will have faith and allegiance to the same (i.e. the Constitution of the United States) and you do so willingly. If it were not willingly, I could see that being authoritarian. 

Am I missing the submission part somewhere?

Also, the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not the same a the EUA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and in the FDAs words is “legally distinct”. And the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not available anywhere… How is this a legal order?

 

Yes, the submission part is clear in the phrase "true faith and allegiance." 
 

The thing is that the constitution is a rather long and involved document and it has parts in it outlining exactly who has authority (read: authoritarian control) over the military.

 

Article 2 section 2: makes the president the commander in chief of the military. 
 

Article 1 section 8: provides the basis for congress's establishment of the UCMJ. 

 

So it isn't quite as simple as swearing to support a piece of paper. Because that piece of paper says the president can tell you what to do, and so can congress through the UCMJ.  
 

The comirnaty/FDA semantics will get hashed out in court but the basis for the fed to make military members do something they don't necessarily agree with is absolutely there, and you voluntarily submitted to that control by taking the oath.

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Pooter

[Prozac]

1 minute ago, bennynova said:

It NOT a lawful order.  UCMJ for not getting the jab is absurd.  
 

 

our leaders are pussies

Round and round with some of you guys. What do you think would happen to you if you refused any other vaccine? It’s absolutely a legal order & regardless of your wider views on civil mandates, I expect members of the United States military services to follow the legal orders of the officers appointed over them. If you can’t do that, GTF out or suffer the consequences. Don’t expect me or anyone else to have any sympathy or listen to your lame bullshit excuses. 

[Prozac]

39 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:

Also, the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not the same a the EUA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and in the FDAs words is “legally distinct”. And the licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not available anywhere… How is this a legal order?

KIO with this bullshit. You’re focusing on semantics and legalese that don’t mean shit. The Pfizer vaccine is approved and no longer experimental. Period. Dot. Quit acting like a toddler. If you don’t want the vaccine, fine. But man up and accept the consequences instead of being a whiny bitch. 

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Round and round with some of you guys. What do you think would happen to you if you refused any other vaccine? It’s absolutely a legal order & regardless of your wider views on civil mandates, I expect members of the United States military services to follow the legal orders of the officers appointed over them. If you can’t do that, GTF out or suffer the consequences. Don’t expect me or anyone else to have any sympathy or listen to your lame bullshit excuses. 

My only modification to what you said would be to ensure that members can quit without repercussion. I think in matters of wide social disagreement, tie goes to freedom. So members unwilling to participate in the military mandate should be allowed to leave. Of course, if they have any bonuses or other financial obligations they would also be required to pay those back.

 

Covid isn't a threat to military readiness, and the numbers bear that out. Old and fat. Everybody has an anecdotal story about a military member who got sick, but it does not represent a wide scale threat to operations. 

 

And as with all things human nature, the choice isn't between readiness issues stemming from a lack of vaccination and a mandate that eliminates COVID hospitalizations and deaths. The choice is between readiness issues stemming from a lack of vaccination vs readiness issues stemming from a minority rebellion to a poorly-justified mandate. A similar false choice was presented with masks and lockdowns. Universal compliance was never a realistic option.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[tac airlifter]

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

KIO with this bullshit. You’re focusing on semantics and legalese that don’t mean shit. The Pfizer vaccine is approved and no longer experimental. Period. Dot. Quit acting like a toddler. If you don’t want the vaccine, fine. But man up and accept the consequences instead of being a whiny bitch. 

If “semantics and legalese don’t mean shit” then why didn’t the FDA simply approve Pfizer?  Instead they approved Comirnaty, which the manufacturer tells us is chemically identical.  Ok.  But why not start making Comirnaty here?  

It’s one of several bizarre decisions that don't make sense to a casual observer… so we’re discussing it.  On a discussion board.  Yet here you are pissed off about people having a discussion.  You are literally taking time to write on a discussion board that people should shut up and stop discussing😂 I don’t find your approach very convincing!

 

[Prozac]

26 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

My only modification to what you said would be to ensure that members can quit without repercussion. I think in matters of wide social disagreement, tie goes to freedom. So members unwilling to participate in the military mandate should be allowed to leave. Of course, if they have any bonuses or other financial obligations they would also be required to pay those back.

 

Covid isn't a threat to military readiness, and the numbers bear that out. Old and fat. Everybody has an anecdotal story about a military member who got sick, but it does not represent a wide scale threat to operations. 

 

And as with all things human nature, the choice isn't between readiness issues stemming from a lack of vaccination and a mandate that eliminates COVID hospitalizations and deaths. The choice is between readiness issues stemming from a lack of vaccination vs readiness issues stemming from a minority rebellion to a poorly-justified mandate. A similar false choice was presented with masks and lockdowns. Universal compliance was never a realistic option.

Disagree on both counts. Military members should be able to cut their enlistments/commitments short because of “social disagreement”? So nobody had to go to Iraq? If I recall there might’ve been just a bit of “social disagreement” over that one. Sorry, if you’re willing to lay down your life for your country, rolling up your sleeve shouldn’t be that big a hardship. 

To your second point, covid is ABSOLUTELY a readiness issue. It can directly affect a unit, as we saw when a whole CVN crew was beached early on in the pandemic. Even when it’s not sweeping rampantly through the ranks, vaccination status can mean the difference between quickly and easily deploying personnel where they’re needed.

Bottom line: this is part of what a military member signs up for. Suck it up or suffer the consequences. The whiners and foot stompers are part of the sniveling snowflake (to borrow a favorite conservative term) culture that is the last thing we want in our military. Good riddance to them. 

[pawnman]

45 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

If “semantics and legalese don’t mean shit” then why didn’t the FDA simply approve Pfizer?  Instead they approved Comirnaty, which the manufacturer tells us is chemically identical.  Ok.  But why not start making Comirnaty here?  

It’s one of several bizarre decisions that don't make sense to a casual observer… so we’re discussing it.  On a discussion board.  Yet here you are pissed off about people having a discussion.  You are literally taking time to write on a discussion board that people should shut up and stop discussing😂 I don’t find your approach very convincing!

 

We do make Comirnaty here. It's the same drug.  I guess Pfizer could have just printed a few million stickers for the existing batches of vaccine...but then I'm sure someone would claim that THAT was also somehow a cover-up.