Leaderboard

A couple things. First, society is in a constant state of creative destruction, and that has to be guarded against at all times, and in all places. If you think any previous epoch in history achieved "stasis" I think you need to pick up a history book. Which is to say this, if you think mandating people to do things - any things - against their will is going to lead to a more stable society, I think you need to re-evaluate some assumptions about people. And second, yes, all golden ages have had their contrarians, and they tend to be the people who are most celebrated in our history books: Plato, Galileo, Copernicus, Gandhi, Jesus. I guarantee you, guarantee you, most people had the opinion that those people were assholes. And don't forget the most important, and underlying, point: a dynamic society - a society that is capable of inventing vaccines like the ones we have - enables assholes, tolerates assholes, and makes room for assholes. In fact, it's a lot of these assholes who are responsible for some of the greatest things we have in our lives. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certain people will always be stupid and will make stupid decisions - let them. This is a can of worms, but in short, I would say that COVID was a "contributing factor" in that approximate number of deaths. The root cause? I don't buy that for one second. Remember, the medical establishment is a self-interested bureaucracy just like any other. For instance, see how skin biopsies and excisions from medicare fee-for-service recipients doubled over the 13 year period from 2004 to 2017, with the death rate remaining constant (hint: over-diagnosis for $$$)...which leads me back to my fundamental point - you should be the one choosing what goes in your body, not anyone else. I'm baffled by how that has somehow become a controversial statement. What we have successfully done, is miss an opportunity to honestly address the ongoing health crisis in this country with respect to obesity and our collective lifestyles. Voices early on in the pandemic were identifying obesity as a major co-morbidity with this disease, but no one wanted to hear that. Now, lo and behold, we see articles that are saying exactly that - fat tissue is targeted by the virus. Look at the morbidity of places like Japan, where obesity is not a thing - waaaaaaaay less. So I would invite you to peel back the onion beyond the one thin layer you seem content with and get closer to the root causes of this crisis.

Don't take this to be patronizing, because it's not meant to be. You've more than proven yourself as a good faith debater. People wildly misunderstand the benefit of individual freedom. In this case, your post points it out perfectly. Often the false choice is given between, in this case, people refusing vaccination out of spite, and those same people getting vaccinated without any spite. I'll point out that spiteful people were very much present in the golden age, and in all likelihood they represented a larger percentage of the population. But that's not how people work. The people who would refuse to get the vaccine out of spite will get the vaccine if they're forced to, but it's not going to remove the spite. And that spite isn't just going to dissolve, it will be redirected and in all likelihood amplified. The reason we have individual freedom is because people are flawed; you can't make them altruistic, but you can recognize that when left to their own devices, they often act in a predictable and largely beneficent manner. Start telling people what to do, and you run head first into many, many, many different wants and needs of a very diverse society, and inevitably you are unable to fulfill their desires in the way they would if left to their own devices. Now you end up taking a very mildly spiteful person, or perhaps a person who's not spiteful at all, and you and engender a much greater level of spite in them. People don't like being told what to do. And they really hate when you tell them what to do with their families. This, and only this is why socialism/totalitarianism ultimately fails. We don't let people do what they want because people make the right decisions. People make the wrong decisions all the time. We give them freedom because people who are not free to make the wrong decisions tend to make much much worse decisions when their liberty is restricted. This is also why the perpetrators of totalitarianism are often quite intelligent. Intelligent people see what actions, taken collectively, would produce the most human flourishing. When they run head first into less intelligent stubborn people, it drives them mad because they see what can be while others do not. But their attempts to trade Liberty for Paradise always fail. This also ignores the history of very intelligent people failing to follow their own logical, common-good edicts. Turns out even the leaders don't tend to like the prescriptions for a utopian society. This is why people like me, fully vaccinated, support those who choose not to. Not because I give a shit about what they think about vaccines, but because I want to live in a society where most people act mostly good. And that doesn't happen when people no longer feel in control of their destiny. Cherry picking the one issue that you care more about than they do and characterizing their decision as being an asshole is disingenuous. The totality of their decisions are almost certainly largely in line with a society that promotes human flourishing. But they're not going to align 100%. Falling into the trap of thinking that someone who disagrees with you on one issue should be characterized as an asshole because of it is, simply put, being an asshole yourself. And if you're ignorant enough (I don't think you are) to think that half of the population are assholes and you just happen to be on the team of good people, then a few steps back might be required to recalibrate your perception of both "sides."

I don't think it will surprise us, but that's like, my opinion. I think it is an unknown, and that people's strongly held positions on these matters is unfounded. I mean people are certain - certain - that there is not going to be a latent side affect. That's cool, and that's the camp I'm mostly in, but I'm not about to say I guarantee there won't be, or that these mRNA vaccines are so similar to other vaccines that we can even begin to say that. The bottom line is that we don't know, and had we been so certain of this technology before this pandemic struck, we'd have already had a spread of mRNA vaccines on the street - but we all know we didn't, and arguments to the contrary beg the question. These vaccines are the first in their category. All that is to say this: I think arguments that rest on someone else's dictate about a medical treatment you should get are null right out the gate. You are the only person that gets to determine medical treatments for you. So all the back-and-forth I read on this thread about Dr. X or M.D. Quaqmire having the opinion that I "should" or "must" get the vaccine I really just roll my eyes at. In my world, spite is a perfectly acceptable reason for not taking a vaccine, and it requires no justification beyond, or even to that standard. Don't want to get it because you're a contrarian? Fine by me. Just don't come hat in hand when you get COVID and wind up dying. Anyway, that's my position on civilian mandates. If you're in the military, you don't get a say. Take the shot or get out. I don't think there should be exceptions for individuals in the military for anything, including religious reasons.

This pandemic is over.

You're failing to look at the numbers. Unbridled libertarianism implies that if only three people out of 300 million want it, then they should get it. This issue is nowhere near that imbalance. You have a pretty even split across the country of people who are pro-mandates and people who are against. Even if that split was only 33/66, you would not be anywhere near approaching the threshold for "unbridled." In the case of a pandemic, an easy threshold to use would be what people are doing on their own. People didn't need to be harassed to stay at home and wear masks back in March of 2020. The streets were empty and the masks were sold out. Yeah, you had a fringe element that had no interest in participating in any measures, but that was not representative of any meaningful portion of the population. Two weeks to stop the spread had wide bipartisan buy-in. There's your threshold for a mandate. Now, many months after those two agreed upon weeks, we have a very different debate with a very different split. Again, you are falling into the trap of choosing your belief and interpreting it was "right." Our system is designed to take these controversial topics with no clear majority (and thus no "right" answer) and put them into stasis until the natural process of societal evolution determines and outcome. Relying on the power of the state to predetermine society's decision is, and always will be, a recipe for disaster. In fact there are very few cases that call for such measures, and one could argue that the abolition of slavery might have been the only one in American history. Even then, there's a compelling argument that the tide was already turning in a very dramatic fashion, and hundreds of thousands of lives and many decades of strife could have been avoided with a little bit of patience. The obvious and understandable counter to that is one cannot have patience in regards to a matter as morally abhorrent as slavery. I lean towards the latter, but I understand the former. But the civil rights movement, women's right to vote, and gay rights in America were all politically fought well after the public perception had changed. 1% of the population that was already well within the acceptable range for "dying of old age" is not by any stretch of the imagination ad issue comparable to slavery, so no, it is absolutely not worth sacrificing liberty for those deaths. Call me when it's a bunch of kids dying.

In before the goalpost shift to religious exemption argument

The California Fire Pilots Association (CFPA) has created an updated website with much more information than previously available. Some of which is the path to a career in fire aviation. Here is a link to the careers page: Careers | California Fire Pilots Association (calfirepilots.com) Also, this season a couple of our pilots participated in an episode of the Pilot to Pilot podcast. There is a wealth of knowledge for anyone interested in the topic. CalFire- Fighting Wild Fires by Air by Pilot to Pilot - Aviation Podcast (anchor.fm) Here's a badass photo of my fellow Columbia Air Attack Base tanker pilot Ken, saving some structures near Clear Lake last summer...

Unbridled libertarian policies that prioritize individual liberty over all else sound good until you implement them. Just like socialist policies. It’s why unbridled capitalism in the 1800s HAD to be regulated, for example. I am of the opinion that there should be a balance of individualism and collectivism in an ideally functioning society. I believe your viewpoint is unrealistic for the same reason that I believe a communist viewpoint is unrealistic. If individuals are not expected, even to the smallest extent, to make sacrifices for the good of their country or countrymen - in any case - what is the point of that society? See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I know you, specifically, want COVID to be over. You can tell by how every about 3 weeks you post that you personally are over it. Cool. But you lack ability to provide a coherent fact based argument or use statistics, which significantly hurts your point. If 1 out of 100 people die in a population die due to a disease it is not a 1% death rate. It would only be 1% if 100% of the population got the disease. Currently, they’re estimating that only about 50-100M people in the US (15-35% of the population) have had COVID, which means it is more like a 3-7% death rate in that population. Incoming “Doesn’t change anything.” Tell me, what sort of mortality or long term effect is worth vaccinating society? I’d like to set the stage, before you answer. Polio has about a 1 in 200 chance of causing paralysis. In those cases 5-20% of the population dies. So the overall mortality risk for polio is less than 0.1%. Also, you probably know, we are approaching double the total casualties of WWII. Same comment. Your statistics are intentionally misleading and wrong. There’s about 212M folks in the 0-49 age range. There have been 52.8k deaths. That right there is a .024% chance of death. Oh wait, not everyone was infected, as previously talked about, so in reality it’s closer to .075-.15% chance of death. I can still buy that maybe that’s acceptable, but we’re talking you being off by a factor of at least 100. For those 50-64, there’s about 62M people. There have been 145k deaths. That is 0.2% of the population. Which means a CFR on the order of 0.6-1.2%. Population size source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ COVID deaths source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ All of your guys’ analysis also conveniently ignores the fact that over 80% of those infected by the disease have a long term symptom or side effect: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8 I am all for having a debate about whether blanket vaccine mandates are useful, or what the cutoff is. But I am not at all interested in BS statistics, lies, or just plain feelings, which is what significantly reduces both the effectiveness and credibility of the anti vaccine side’s arguments.

Thanks for proving my point for me. 1% death rate is not worth uprooting democratic norms and traditions for.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-deaths-american-older-population-cdc-data-2021-12 So we shut down the economy for a 1% death rate in the elderly and a 0.0007% death rate in under 65…..I bet the death rate of healthy people is remarkably low.

Cool. Always nice to be reminded of why society is ultimately going to fall apart. You think in the golden ages of America people said stuff like this? I’m all for people having informed opinions and not getting vaccinated, but supporting people just being assholes is stupid.

The part about mild symptoms in all vaxed and non vaxed is not meaningless. This variant is harmless.

I mean the families of the 2000 people that died of COVID today in the US might disagree, but if you mean that we may be done treating it like a pandemic and just accept a couple thousand deaths a day that may be true. i just think it’s dumb my two options according to most here and the news are to completely lockdown scared and cause everything that comes with that, or completely ignore it and claim I’m not in the target population I don’t care and cause everything that comes with that. And if you end up in the middle somewhere you are obviously in the other side of the debate and can’t think for yourself and are just a pawn for “the other side”. This is why when I see people saying “ItS NoT PoLiTiCaL” for the most part I don’t believe them.

THIS. anyone making a fuss about being worried or how threatening variants are or the spread or the efficacy of s vaccine preventing spread blah blah blah. - ing dumb. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

More like red apples to green apples. It's still a treatment designed to elicit an immune response to train your body to better fight off a pathogen. It uses a different mechanic than other types of vaccines, of which there are many. Billions of doses have been administered worldwide without a statistically significant serious adverse effect manifesting in a year and a half. mRNA technology is well understood and was studied for decades which is a huge part of why we saw a vaccine hit the market in under a year. So what about any of that makes you think think specifically just the new covid shots would suddenly defy all conventional vaccine wisdom?

Cool. 1. As a majority of the population is vaccinated, it makes sense that a majority of cases of any stripe will be among the vaccinated. Example: if 95 out of 100 people are vaccinated and 10 of that 100 get Covid, and 8 out of that 10 are fully vaccinated, what does that prove related to vaccine effectiveness? A: Jack shit. 2: Does your “evidence” factor in issues like who is actually being tested for the Omicron variant? Is it more likely to show up in populations like international travelers who are far more likely to be vaccinated in the first place? Is it more likely to show up amongst people who can be bothered to get tested vs. the “mild flu” crowd? There are literally dozens of variables that need to be accounted for before we come to the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated actually increases your chances of becoming infected. BL: The stat you posted is meaningless and stupid.

Measurably stronger. The vaccines have remained incredibly durable across variants for reducing your chances of hospitalization and death. Even if you are in the young/healthy demographic, the vaccine reduces those risks further. We are now getting close to a year removed from widespread vaccine implementation and a year and a half from the initial testing. If a statistically significant, concerning long term side effect was going to happen, it would have manifested by now. The idea of a some completely unseen side effect popping up 10 years from now after not manifesting anywhere after billions of doses, is a silly, unscientific boogeyman. I'm sure it's unpleasant to go against your "convictions" about the vaccine. But frankly, if you signed on the dotted line to serve in the military, I don't give a rats ass about your vaccine convictions. It's a lawful order and you follow it, or get out. I have lots of convictions about weed, and facial hair, and wars i don't agree with but I know what I signed up for and I don't have a conniption every time the military tells me to shut up and color. **Huge caveat: Civilian side mandates are a completely different debate, and generally speaking, I think they're wrong.

Nah, it's got d.ck to do with age. Privately they don't believe in any of this sh!t either. They know all it takes to meet stated FY production goals is to re-open and staff a single additional former UPT base, and we're doneski here. But they also know that's not in the cards for the SECAF. So as conniving but ultimately rational actors, they play dumb regurgitating that "psychology of learning" disingenuous sophistry at the expense of the perennially revolving door of "f-- ck it I'm going to the airlines" burnt out rank and file instructor cadre, who they consider expendable and uncommitted for holding said sentiments in the first place. All the while retaining access for their post-retirement NoVA consultant six fig grift. Nothing new under the sun. The problem with the GO in question is he exhibits a penchant for grudge holding and narcissism above and beyond that of the average GO. The enterprise is certainly worse off for it. But this too shall pass. Yes, some kids are getting burned as casualties of the experiment. But everybody who signed on the dotted line knew they were in for a f$cking at some point or another. Not condoning it, just reiterating the 3 axioms of military life.

Trump was routinely calling for (correctly) NATO partner nations to get off their collective asses and use their economic capability to fund a viable military parity to the threat they were all facing… He was lambasted in the press for that while they stroked themselves off to Justin Trudeau’s wearing socks with the NATO flag on it. The PM of Canada… Canada that NATO partner that still lacks a viable front line fighter to contribute because JT campaigned on canceling F-35, and start a years long delayed fly off competition that might have them still buy F-35s a decade later…. Merkle’s legacy should be leaving the strongest economic power in Europe with a military so devoid of ready capable forces. You hear zero criticisms of that that kind of thing. But plenty of shade over the last 4 years any time Trump did or said anything about NATO. Now the chips are actually needing to be played, the guy in the seat responsible for our a foreign Policy is punting on decision making to an organization given a free pass at floundering for years, and not a criticism at it from our friends in the media. Yeah… I’m sure Trump would be receiving the same kind of friendly take on saying something along the lines of “it’s NATOs problem to decide.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump has been constantly anti-quagmire for years. It would have been shocking if he suddenly wanted a shooting war with Russia. Of course it is highly unlikely that Putin would be putting on this show if Trump was still President.

What I hear is that you traded your convictions for a paycheck.