FLEA

That's not what's happening but I really can't be bothered to explain the math behind this to you. Additionally, yes, hospital visits. You are admitted to a hospital as soon as you are registered as a patient. You can be discharged the same day. ICU works differently.

Making up a majority of hospital visits still doesn't mean you're high risk though. Young people are making the majority of hospital admissions because they are predominantly less vaccinated. Your risk of being hospitalized didn't change because other people were vaccinated. So that article is a bit misleading in how it's used.

Yes but there is nuance to everything and what a lot of legal analyst are prepping for is to argue that there is no national security implication which by law the President needs. This will be a significant hurdle for the military as to date, the pandemic has not substantially slowed or halted operations and there is no place in the world requiring a COVID vaccine that does not also accept a test or have a military exemption. The irony here is the military almost shoots itself in the foot. Remember when the Roosevelt happened? That would have been a great platform for a national security implication but instead the DoD fired the commander and turned the ship back to fleet quickly. It's been in our interest to put for the image that the pandemic hasn't slowed us down or altered operations but now that very narrative will be challenged. The other thing courts will likely pay attention to is the fact that the military demographic isn't at risk for death from COVID or even severe symptoms. Like I said, this is going to be litigated for a while. Some branches only have a 50% acceptance rate for the vaccine, and there are dozens of civil rights lawyers chomping at the bit for a pro Bono case to make their name on with this. The below articles argue that military courts will likely uphold any mandatory vaccination but federal courts will Have far more scrutiny, particularly if the President isn't able to establish the national security emergency. https://www.justsecurity.org/75729/should-the-covid-19-vaccine-be-required-for-the-military/ There's also the second and third order effects of this. What is mandating the vaccine going to do for trust in leadership, retention, recruitment, etc.... Given how close FDA approval is I believe waiting on FDA approval is the best COA.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/275310917589751/permalink/339993804454795/ The discussion on medical necessity I saw a few days ago. I'll have to find it again. Basically there are lawyers already chomping at the bit for this. Regarding how to show it, the EU has been accepting a positive PCR test that is more than 14 days old as proof of immunity for up to six months. That's a good standard to start on.

The implications aren't the same. Military members are in a position of duress by nature of being in the military. (The same duress that garunteed us Miranda rights nearly a decade before Miranda vs Arizona.) Hence we cannot just refuse conditionally to our employment because we cannot end our employment on our own terms. Doe vs Rumsfield basically said that the military cannot mandate a vaccine and detain you or discipline you if you don't comply, unless the vaccine is fully FDA approved. I suppose the military could separate you, but then they would need to pay out non-voluntary separation pay to everyone they removed. That's a huge sum of money, and there are a lot of vaccine dissenters in the DoD right now. So probably not wise. Austin's best best is just to wait until FDA approval which is expected in a few weeks anyway. At that point he can mandate the Pfizer vaccine for troops who aren't otherwise vaccinated. Also interesting note, there appears to be legal ground to deny the vaccine, FDA or not, if you've recovered from COVID. The DoD can supposedly only mandate the vaccine if it provides substantial medical benefit. There is a strong argument that having recovered from COVID and possessing baseline immunities to the virus already will overshadow any substantial medical benefit garnered from the vaccine. When the vaccine is mandatory, as I expect it will be in a month or so regardless, I certain there will be several DoD members who will continue to litigate the decision. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Interesting letter from several Congress members floating around Facebook providing a legal context to dispute the lawfulness of SECDEFs order.

Just curious Pawnman, have you ever been on staff? If you were did you think you were qualified for the jobs you were asked to do and that your coworkers were competent at theirs? Being on staff was one thing that made me realize I need to maintain healthy skepticism on anything that comes from the government.

What do you anticipate your pay to go to in your second year? I know the first year in airlines is supposed to be a ball kick but they generally day 2-3 years to recover to AD pay right?

It's not just about ending the pandemic or not ending it. It's about protecting civil liberties as well, which a large amount of people are endanger of losing once we start establishing a precedent. Our constitutional checks and balances weren't written for the convenience of a peace time government, rather, they were delibertly put in there to protect individual freedoms in times of crises, as crises is most often the excuse politicians will use to erode them. I personally got the vaccine. But when people who are apprehensive to vaccines come to me about my experience, the only thing I can tell them is I didn't have side effects, and my wife possibly did. I can't tell them there are no long term side effects because we simply don't know that. Noone does. I can't tell them they will be 100% safe because I don't have the ability to guarantee that. I certainly can't tell then that getting vaccinated will means they won't have to wear a mask or get COVID tested anymore because frankly that's not true. So if those are their apprehensions to the vaccine, they are certainly entitled them as well as entitled to their freedom of bodily autonomy. But when people start pushing a narrative that we need to do this to end the pandemic and that means we need mandates, I will push back because 1.) I don't care, the pandemic can go for 100 years and I'll still stand on the side of individual liberty and 2.) Vaccination of individuals on its own will not end a pandemic. It may ease it in some cases but the only thing that ends a pandemic is viral eradication (extraordinarily hard) or waiting for the virus to mutate into an evolutionary strategy that is less fatal to humans. It will probably be a decade before either of those happen. Spanish flu took 10 years to mutate into what we know today as H1N1.

Haha I will agree with you on that one. But I think it's more the hypocrisy that exist in both sides.

I don't disagree with liberals assesment about jobs. I would love to see some more society protect to give people some breathing room enabling them to take more risk later in life. Would be great if I could just up and quit work to full time search for a potentially better opportunity.

Well if your choice is starving or getting the vaccine you aren't really free to make a choice are you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Making assumptions based on unpredicted risk is a routine part of risk calculation. There isn't a lack of scientific evidence because scientist couldn't find any. There is a lack because they haven't tried, largely inhibited by the resource (time) they need to perform such a project. You better believe that there are universities who will study control groups 10 years from now and compare to vaccinated groups to look for things like increased risk to common ailments, etc....

Negated by the fact that COVID is not event that happens with 100% certainty. If I calculated myself as an unvaccinated individual my own probability of getting COVID is only 17% in the next 3 years. That is extremely conservative as the reality is your probability decreases daily as more people either A.) get COVID or B.) get vaccinated, reducing their own transmissions. This was calculated using statistics provided by (https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/) and a simple recurring probability event formula, 1-(1-X)^L .

Yup. Maybe you should think on that a bit.

I've already had it actually.

Reference my earlier post. 20 years.

Numerous false statements in this post. Polio emerged in the 1800s and the vaccine wasnt developed until the 1950s. There was no rush on the vaccine. Furthermore your falsely eluding that COVID has as much transmissibility and morbidity as polio which it does not. Additionally, taking vaccines with certain side effects does not remove the probabilities of experiencing those side effects from other vaccines.

1.) Anthrax; over 100 years. Dozens of GAO reports still report long term and dangerous side effects from the modern version which was researched in 1955 and not forcefully administered until 1997. 2.) Polio; Over 20 years before trials on the modern solution began in 1955. Tragically trials in the 1930s killed or paralyzed dozens of people including children. 3.) COVID - 1 year of data now. Great job. You have to be trolling at this point, you use an example of two of the most dangerous and controversial vaccine programs ever administered.

Yeah no where in my oath of office do I ever agree to protect the citizens. In fact there is only one thing in all oaths of office in the US federal government we do agree to protect.

Yes but you are talking in such low probabilities right now its insignificant. Seriously, if you really cared about probabilities this low, you would be telling your Airman not to drive to work every day. Accidents still remains the #1 cause of death of young adults, pandemic or not. Furthermore, you are making an assertion that you know what is best for them and their lives. That's a very dangerous line of thinking.

Fair enough. But I'm simply addressing the assertion made earlier that vaccine-hesitant people should get the shot now to protect themselves. The shot isn't protecting them. The government will order them to get it to benefit other people. As long as we all understand that this is mainly what's happening I don't care. But lets not stand on false moral podiums that they are benefiting from this. You have no way to ascertain that and neither does anyone except those individuals. Everyone is granted a right to bodily autonomy and we are choosing to violate that for military members because our elected officials, and maybe society, believes they don't deserve that right in favor of other priorities.

Still not statistically relevant. The innovation of the vaccine didn't change the risk young adults accepted. They are still accepting the same amount of risk. Correlation does not equal causation. The reason they make up the predominance of hospital admissions now is because the distribution of vaccines across the population scheme heavily favors the elderly. Nearly all adults over 50 are vaccinated, so with a 99% efficacy their admissions will drop. Younger adults admissions stayed the same but is now higher due to the older population dropping. Attached is one of the most important data sets you can follow right now which is the UK post a 70% vaccination distribution. Notice when they lifted restrictions in early summer there was a huge spike in cases and a corresponding rise in hospitalizations. However, the rise in hospitalizations isnt nearly as high as the peak of hospitalizations in mid-winter when the UK was experiencing a similar wave of cases. Despite similar case loads, less people went to the hospital. Why? Because the people that were getting COVID at that point were younger and had better resilience to combat COVID. You need to convince vaccine hesitant military members that they are in that small bubble in the bottom right, and the fact is the vast majority of military aren't in that sub-set.

Dude, I'm telling ya there are people that will litigate this to their last separation paper. So noone is going to jump on this for a chance to not be sick for a few days.

This article doesn't have anything statistically significant to the military population in it. It broadly lumps all unvaccinated in the same category without paying attention to finer data subsets.