ViperMan

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.

Confirm all those previous studies cited are in reference to mRNA vaccines / therapeutics? Oh, they aren't? So we're applying a meta analysis of apples to oranges. Ok 👍. Just so I'm clear.

This is categorically false. I agree with the theme of your post, but are you serious with this? Dude, there is no set time limit regarding when a latent effect may or may not show up and under what circumstances or conditions or sub populations. That's not to say it's not a poor excuse to avoid the vaccine (in the military), but it is a valid concern nonetheless.

*can* have massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread. Not will. *can*. It depends on the model and the other parameters. There is usually a point of no return where the model will trip into one phase from another. Incremental changes within one phase or the other won't change the outcome. The same incremental change that bridges the divide between said phases will result in drastically different outcomes.

Comparing percentages is fraught, but from the study - the actual study, not the article written about it - they indicate that the 25% number had a confidence interval of 18-33 (15% spread) while the 38% number had a confidence interval of 24-53 (29% spread) - double the uncertainty, with substantial overlap. Hence, there is decent uncertainty regarding what the actual probability of spread is given someone's vaccination status. In any case, it makes more sense to look at the numbers themselves, rather than attempting to ratio apples to oranges. To me, this study doesn't indicate very much because there is no indication as to what the relative likelihoods are between people being asymptomatic with the vaccine vs. without it. What's one of the best ways to avoid getting sick? Avoiding someone who you know is sick. If the vaccine makes it much more likely that asymptomatic spread takes place, then the 25% number could be much worse than the 38%. It's like being spiked vs not being spiked. It's helpful to know you're being shot at. Also, see the replication crisis, an ongoing issue within the broader scientific/research realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. Biologists are at the higher end of those scientists who are unable to reproduce each others' research.

Juicy is served. I'll admit I'm surprised. I guess I'm that cynical. Maybe we're not as bad off as I thought. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-verdict-alleged-hate-crime-hoax-trial https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/jussie-smollett-trial-verdict-watch-12-09-21/index.html This is truly peak 2021: Jussie thought his fake hate-crime story was going to be an apt metaphor describing the state of the United States. Plot twist? The actual truth is a much better metaphor as to where we are socially.

I apologize, because I can't get into deep specifics regarding what happens in your situation. My knowledge is wide, but generally shallow. https://militarybenefits.info/thrift-savings-plan-contribution-limits/ "The Elective deferral limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For members of the uniformed services, it includes all traditional and Roth contributions from taxable basic pay, incentive pay, special pay and bonus pay but does not apply to traditional contributions made from tax-exempt pay earned in a combat zone." "Service members cannot contribute $20,500 to each program. The limit indicates the amount you can contribute to one or both." There is also this thing called the "annual" limit (i.e. where you see $61,000 referenced). This refers to all dollars added to your account - think of this as the contribution from your employer - which for us is bupkis. //Break// Put as much faith in this as how much you paid for it: I think the TSP is supposed to *fix* any errors you make regarding contributions. If you add too much, they just return the money to you. So if your goal is to max perform it, just pull as hard as you can and let HAL figure it out. Note: I have not ops-tested this game plan. https://www.tsp.gov/making-contributions/contribution-limits/ Elective deferral limit: "This limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For uniformed services members, this does not apply to traditional contributions from combat-zone pay." To me, that sounds like you should contribute 100% of combat-zone pay to your traditional TSP, but only *if* you're going to reach the $19,500 hard-stop limit for 2021. If you can't - even with 100% of the rest of your pay going to TSP this year - I would just contribute all of it to the Roth TSP. No sense in paying taxes on tax-free income.

Yeah, not to be a jerk, but you're not understanding it correctly. Married people are the benefactors in our current tax paradigm because they can make more income subject to a lower tax rate. i.e. a single person starts paying 35% as soon as they trip $216K. A married couple doesn't pay 35% until they make double that. The benefit to filing jointly is that it allows a couple with basically one bread winner to pay less taxes. If a married couple so chose (as some may because they are equal earners, etc), they could both file as single people and avoid the so-called penalty which you identify. Bottom line, a married couple can choose whichever path suits them best. No such choice is available for someone who's not married. Also, this is really how it has always been, under Rs or Ds.

Dude, not trying to intentionally be snarky, but these questions are easily, and I mean easily, answered with a little bit of googling. Just sayin there's probably a more direct way to get the information you seek, because it's pretty basic.

Yeah, duh. Surprised you didn't know that. Same as when all the Ds were roaming NYC decrying the corona virus. Man, the difference a month can make!

It highlights a potential blind spot. The PTB in the force, the people who run the show and set the tone, absolutely favor the sort of nonsense that centralizes the trivial relative to the significant. It's all about what someone looks like - the diversity article is the prototype of that theme. Whether it has something in actuality to do with the murder article is unproven, but there is something to what I'm saying above.

Guard, now. After a long time on AD. Yeah, I've also heard the "I don't vote" thing from officers based on that same line of reasoning. Don't agree with that one. Just think it's awkward for a member of congress to be taking orders from someone in the military. Gets a little weird with "who's in charge of this thing" (for me).

Probably the same reason I have an issue with boys in girls' bathrooms, even if they're just wearing different skirts at different times. There's something fundamental about military service, and there is something fundamental about congressional service. The differences don't vanish when you're done with your duty day - in either case. One of those positions requires you to publicly buck the system when necessary. The other requires you to shut up and take orders from your masters. These values are good in the broader system that is America, but when you co-locate things like this which are inherently conflicting, things just get icky. There are other differences as well, but it just feels to me like you should go serve in congress once you separate or retire. Representation is good and sorely needed, but for the same reason we don't need government contractors running the defense department, we don't need the military running congress or vice versa.

When I really stop and think about this, I do have a problem with someone currently wearing the uniform being in congress. Just feels incongruent to me.

I don't disagree with anything you're pointing out. I'm only saying that the inflation that we're experiencing is artificial, and if we left the economy to its own devices (i.e. natural forces), we'd be experiencing deflation.

Most "natural" forces in operation right now are deflationary. Technology, aging populations (people past the age of "peak spending"), globalization, etc. Why things seem inflationary right now is because governments around the world are doing everything in their power to counteract those natural forces - i.e. printing money. I'm not saying inflation isn't going to happen, just saying that if we left things alone, deflation would likely be a force to be reckoned with.

A way to answer your question is to compare death rates of vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers. That said, I don't think there are data points out there that capture that metric.

FOX 3, CLOSE!!!

Good question.

i'm having a hard time with this post. Did you get red-pilled? Or am I confusing you with someone else on this board?

What handle does your wife post under on this board?

I'd be interested to see more complete data, but I think our (American) average waistlines have increased by a similar proportion. Expect the cost of healthcare to continue to increase in proportion to how unhealthy we continue to become: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-29220000

Your perspective is interesting, because I think the incentives are there. The incentives and consequences are showing up in our massive and mounting student debt crisis. That *is* the signal. It's a signal our government is sending by virtue of providing effectively unlimited student loan debt for degrees that provide no meaningful ability to receive a higher standard of living. Individuals who attain degrees that provide massive remuneration (CS, engineering, etc) are not having a hard time paying off their student loans. The solution is to get the government out of distorting the market for these other worthless degrees. There is that there is no market for much of what colleges produce. The *only* reason these colleges get away with it is because the government provides a funding stream for what is otherwise valueless. So you're right, while the government can't *mandate* a school produce more engineers, they can certainly shape the incentive structure that these schools inherit.

Yeah, I didn't go into it in enough detail really. My point re: distortion in the system is that many people believe that there is a simple fix to the "pay your fair share" meme that has taken over our (financial) political discourse. Pointing towards the distorting effect that prop 13 has on individuals' relative property tax rates is a way to point at something that is, direct, real, and present which results in a massive differential tax rate between neighbors, but that few people see or understand. I think with as complex as our tax code is, that there are other instances like this that are replete throughout the system. Point being, I don't think it's as simple as just increasing the upper end of the tax rates to compensate for budget shortfalls and shitty planning. It's fine if that doesn't resonate with you. It does with me. My fundamental belief is that our government is the "thing" that we ALL share and participate in which helps to direct and guide our mutual lives. The problem now, is that there are massive and increasing numbers of people who only take. i.e. they participate in it, but they don't share in it. They have no skin in the game, and their only votes are for more stuff for themselves. That is not a path to a sustainable system - I don't care what philosophy says that it is - it just ain't. Plus, if we really believed that these social programs were working, why not just blanket increase taxes across the board, and then would it even matter? I mean they're paying more, but they're getting more, right? Something tells me there's more to it than that, though... Eventually, I'm concerned we will reach a breaking point, where the value of your dollar becomes so diminished that it motivates "capital" to find a different system to participate in - why do you think crypto is such a thing all of a sudden? We need to be very concerned about unwittingly destroying the thing that keeps this whole train rollin'.

You write a lot of words, and have some decent ideas. The core problem with your argument is that it doesn't effectively address people without skin in the game. No matter how much money we print, we will never be able to print enough to deal with a never ending stream of handouts. re: the "wealth" issues you address - the value of labor has declined tremendously over the past number of decades. Or perhaps a better way to couch it is the value of different labor has become wickedly differentiated. Reasons include - globalization, technology, and women entering the work force. No one wants people suffering, but there's also the reality that our country has created plenty of industries and jobs that were never designed to be able to push someone's standard of living beyond the boundaries of their parents' basements (i.e. fast food, Walmart greeter, etc). These jobs are important because they provide avenues to join the labor force that certain groups otherwise would not have. Pour onto that a massive increase in the number of people who can compete for jobs, and what you get is a decrease in the value of the commodity you provide (i.e. labor). That has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or capitalism - it is pure, uncontaminated, economic fact. Note: I don't have a great solution to this problem. There is already widespread agreement about the rich paying more than the poor - it's baked into the core of our system. See, 10% of more is greater than 10% of less. The "graduated" rates we pay as we move up are only incentives to corrupt the system. And I think we can all agree that is what we have. Forcing people to pay their actual "fair" share is a way to ensure no one is getting a free ride. And when we look at the fact that the bottom 50% of "taxpayers" in this country pay about 3% of the taxes that is where the unfairness lies and that is where the distortion is. It ain't fair that there are this many people in the country who extract vastly more than they contribute. As my favorite example of distortion, take a look at the effects of California's prop 13 - the law enacted that protects people's original tax rates back in the 1970s. It has created a class of gilded land owners who can pass their 'heritance down to their heirs. It's fucked up, no matter how you look at it (https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/#37.43748019180391,-122.1928891539574,19). There's a zoom on a random neighbor hood of SF for you. Some people pay upwards of $90,000/yr in property taxes, while their neighbors pay less than $100/yr. I'm pretty right-leaning, but I think even people on the left would think this is wildly unjust. The left's notion that all the "extraction" of value is happening at the top is complete and total bullshit. But hey, I'm sure it'll all get better as we rush to collapse our monetary system - I know of many historical precedents wherein global powers have decided to just print their way to prosperity, eat the rich, and destroy their middle class. Works every time, really.