Prozac

One tool in the tool box. Do you honestly expect military leaders to sit back and do NOTHING to attempt to combat a virus that severely threatens readiness? Tell me, what steps would you take if you were a member of the Joint Chiefs, a combatant commander, or even a WG/CC?

A few things here: Allowing military members to defy direct orders based on their religious beliefs will undoubtedly weaken, not strengthen our military. Another thing that will weaken, not strengthen our position in the world would be not being able to deploy forces at a moment’s notice due to host nation requirements. Yet another thing that weakens, not strengthens our military is having entire ships or combat units taken out of action due to mass illness. Suggest you check the mirror as it is you, not I who is supporting policies that will weaken our military.

No. Most people listening to a foreign language are capable of realizing they don’t understand most of it. What’s going on here is more akin to a non flying civilian perusing your dash 1 for an hour & then promptly declaring himself an expert in your weapons system.

Yes I am. I’ve always been in favor of a measured response that takes a wholistic look at how society will be affected by any mitigation measures. I have never been in favor of hard lockdowns or other draconian measures. However, if there are easy things we can do while keeping society running (Note: I realize my definition of “easy” may be different from yours), then I’m generally for them. 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. I’m almost positive you’ll disagree with my next statement, but I basically feel the same way about vaccination. Even at a “low” effectiveness rate (let’s say 40% effective at preventing disease), in a large group setting, that is orders of magnitude less spread. And while the prophylactic effect of the vaccines may be considered disappointing by some, they still do an excellent job at preventing severe illness and keeping people out of the hospital. Personally, I consider the trade off (sore arm, a day of fatigue) to be well worth the payoff for me personally and society as a whole. I do not support such severe measures as hard lockdowns, school closures, severely limiting seating in restaurants, forced small business closures, or shuttering public transportation to name a few. Fortunately we haven’t seen those kinds of measures in the United States for some time now. Some parts of the world, namely many Asian countries, appear to have lost their collective minds indefinitely. Overall, I believe the current mitigation measures in the United States are reasonable and effective given the need to balance public health and allow society to continue to run.

I think there’s a realization, a political realization, that there is only so much people will put up with. If I had to hazard a WAG it would be that the public health officials are urging more stringent measures than the current administration is willing to implement. This decision may be based on political expediency, considerations of second and third order effects of strict lockdowns, or most likely a combination of the above. In any case, it seems to me that the government is acting in an entirely expected way, which is to say they are taking data from public health, political, cultural, and economic sources and attempting to consider all of the above when creating policy.

Again, they’re being cautious by reacting but not overreacting until they have real data. Remember, the simplest answer is very often the correct one. Put yourself in the shoes of the policy maker where the whole country is on edge waiting for your decision & half of them are likely to lambast whatever policy you decide on. Now add in the fact that you might want to be re-elected someday and it’s really not that hard to understand where this (or any) administration is coming from.

Or, and here me out here, it COULD be that they are still unsure about how dangerous the variant is (yes we have preliminary data that symptoms are mild, but it takes time for real, actionable data to be verified) and are simply playing it safe until we know for sure that it is less severe. Why do we have to go straight to conspiracy when there is a far more likely, simple explanation?

Reference? That’s absolutely concerning if true, but I’d be willing to bet there’s more to it than that. I certainly could be wrong, but I hope not. I’m not in that group & am not conversant on the topic of specific medical exemptions. However, if my physician were in fact insistent that I should not receive any of the Covid vaccines, frankly, yes, I would expect a legitimate medical exemption. I’ve never argued there should be no exemptions, period dot. I do believe a vast majority of exemption requests are based on utter bullshit however.

Cool. And here are some scientists that believe in creationism: https://isgenesishistory.com/7-scientists-explain-why-they-are-creationists/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhcjz35v99AIVQwPnCh2VjwAnEAMYASAAEgKSw_D_BwE I could also point you in the direction of some pilots who believe the earth is flat, biologists who believe in Bigfoot, astronomers who believe the moon landing was faked, etc, etc. Do they have equal credibility because of their credentials? Look, I’m not saying there aren’t issues with mainstream science and/or media. But when someone is arguing outside of what is generally accepted by the mainstream, that tends to be a red flag and they better back it up with some extraordinary proof. The chances that you’ve stumbled upon some brilliant doctor on social media who spews truth and is too base for the “lame stream” are pretty slim.

Ahhh, so “public health experts have been wrong” = we should instead put our full faith in whatever “alternative” media that comes across our twitter feeds. You guys make some air tight arguments.

So your retort basically boils down to “waddabout the WHO?” and doesn’t address the shaky credibility of the organization actually in question? All while making assumptions about my own views on the WHO (which I have made zero comments on). Got it. This is how dumbed down debate has become in our society.

Ah yes, the “Canadian Covid Care Alliance”. With an innocuous name like that, they must surely be a credible organization. Or not: https://factcheck.afp.com/canadian-doctors-make-inaccurate-covid-19-claims-video

Interesting. You seem to infer that you believe the oath of office compels one to defend the concept of religion. That’s a pretty big leap. As others have stated above, you’re defending the right to choose what religion you wish to subscribe to, or to not subscribe to any. Regardless, in no case is the department of defense obligated to accommodate your religious beliefs if they are incompatible with military service. Let me ask you a question: this is a real church https://www.spaghettimonster.org (no shit). Do you believe that military members of this church should be granted accommodation from, say, working on Fridays if it violated their beliefs? I’m guessing you’d point and laugh (as would most of us), but in all honesty, what makes your religion more deserving of accommodation than theirs?

My philosophy is if a 200 year old book, a guy in a funny hat, a glass of bourbon, or a joint helps you sleep at night, more power to you. To paraphrase Dave Chapelle: We're all just humans on this earth trying to have an experience. Where I take issue is when you (royal you) try and push whatever proverbial opiate you subscribe to on me or it becomes destructive to the point of affecting other people. From a military perspective, I'd argue that destructive threshold is met when you can't live up to the obligations expected of the rest of the mil population. From a societal perspective, I think the threshold is met when religious beliefs stand in the way of known science to include flat earthers, anti-vaxers (of all stripes), and creationists, to name a few.

I don't think anyone sees you as a threat. You are probably a perfectly competent aviator. Hell, you may be Chuck Yeager for all I know. But as your belief system has grown, you may have grown incompatible with military service. What happens when the next deployment location requires US mil personnel to be fully vaccinated? Do you get a pass because of your religious beliefs? Does Lt Snuffy have to miss yet another Christmas/Kid's Birthday/Wedding/etc. so the AF can accommodate you? Why should you be accommodated if it means someone else has to suffer?

Look man, your argument has all sorts of holes in it & things are not going to work out well for you. Your argument seems to be solely based on the novelty of mRNA vaccines. While I could point out that the process you described is similar to what traditional vaccines already do, or that it is not "gene therapy", or that pretty much every advance in medical history has been opposed by people with "religious convictions", I don't have to. You have the option to take the J&J vaccine, which is not an mRNA product. So I'm really having trouble understanding your objection.

Doesn’t pretty much all modern medicine do this? Perhaps the modern world, & especially aviation isn’t your bag. After all, god didn’t give you wings….surely he doesn’t expect you to fly.

Was going to say the same thing. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeaths

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.

And herein lies a major problem in our society today. We live in a complex environment in which none of us can be experts (or even conversant) in all fields. We ALL rely upon other people who have expertise in subjects we do not. Yet when presented with evidence of the limits of our own intellect, a good chunk of us will go offensive and bemoan the “elites” for telling us what we should or shouldn’t do and insist we possess all the knowledge anyone could ever need. We are turning into a nation of 13 year-olds.

Yeah, let’s assess their military capabilities and will to fight by some kids having fun in a square……..vs: Sheesh…..some of you guys should go work for RT.

Here is a little background on Russia’s “annexation” of the Crimean peninsula: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/ I’m not sure what point you’re trying to get at. Are you arguing the Ukrainians would accept a full blown Russian invasion because they stayed in garrison when the Russians took over Crimea? I’d posit that a fight for national survival is vastly different than allowing an annexation of a region where Russia already had a large military presence and the chances of winning were essentially zero. Don’t forget that at the same time, Russian backed separatists (and probably actual Russian troops) started what is essentially an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian regulars have been fighting that movement pretty vigorously ever since. The Ukrainians most definitely do not want a Russian invasion. I’ve spent some time in places like Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, and other former Soviet states with outlooks similar to Ukraine’s. The people in these places have fresh memories of the oppression that Russian control of their governments brings. The bland, conformist, sprawling blocks of concrete construction that surround the vibrant, historic old towns of cities like Krakow, Riga, and Tbilisi stand as an ominous reminder of that very recent history. The Latvians built an excellent occupation museum in a building where the KGB (and SS before that) used to torture people. These states see a lot of value in the NATO alliance to ensure the Russians never have that kind of control again. In many ways they make far better allies than the Germans, Greeks, or Turks ever could. If there is a place in the world today where American ideals, values, and support can make a real difference, this is it (Probably along with Taiwan). This is exactly the kind of fight we want to support. Our way, messy as it is, is still the best way and we ought to stand with anyone who subscribes to our ideals in the way much of Eastern Europe recently has.

Uhhh, Ukraine has continued to fight Russian backed separatists on a daily basis since the Crimea invasion. They make use of NATO intel, weapons, and other support. They are not a full NATO member, therefore NATO troops were never a likely outcome, nor are/were they expected by the Ukrainians.