COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[Harambe]

57 minutes ago, di1630 said:

Why aren’t we seeing this virus decimate the third world which has less sanitization and healthcare?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Because it’s basically just the flu. 

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, di1630 said:

Why aren’t we seeing this virus decimate the third world which has less sanitization and healthcare?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Same reason it’s not decimating the homeless population in US.  I wish we could have civil discussions about this but unfortunately civil discussion has broken down in our society.

[FLEA]

https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2021/02/05/fauci-first-lady-military-leaders-urge-dubious-military-families-to-get-the-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine/

 

Only about half of military families intend to get vaccine. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by FLEA

[Homestar]

1 out of every 5 Capitol storming insurrectionists had military ties. Why am I not surprised that a high number of their families are anti-vaxers?

[HossHarris]

9 hours ago, di1630 said:

Why aren’t we seeing this virus decimate the third world which has less sanitization and healthcare?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Probably because you don’t see a lot of really elderly folks.  What’s the baseline life expectancy in a third world shithole?

also fairly hard to linger on with serious underlying conditions (co-morbidities for you epidemiologists at home) in a third world shithole. 

[jazzdude]

1 out of every 5 Capitol storming insurrectionists had military ties. Why am I not surprised that a high number of their families are anti-vaxers?

Military skews conservative, and conservatives seem to skew towards being skeptical of the rapid vaccine development.

I'd bet more of the military (and dependents) declining the vaccine is along the lines of "don't be the first to volunteer" and taking a wait and see approach.

Plus there's say least some level of distrust of the military and vaccines (early 2000's anthrax shots, gulf war syndrome), which probably also contributes to the wait and see approach.

Military also tends to run younger, and may feel since they are young they can just power through if they get sick, and the evidence so far seems to favor that (barring underlying conditions). I'm sure many of us felt pretty invincible in our twenties.

So I wouldn't say they are anti-vaxxers, but cautious (maybe overly so) regarding a new vaccine using new methodologies. I'd wager there'd be less concern if the vaccine was a more traditional dead virus vaccine.

[FLEA]

Rumors that SECDEF will announce new guidance prohibiting OCONUS leave travel this week. I want to be outraged but I'm honestly not sure it changes anything. Even if you could manage to find a way to get here right now, everything is closed and hotels won't let you make a reservation unless you can prove you have a business purpose. Some countries I work in have curfews as well. 

I guess what Im really hoping to see is another extension to the SLA benefit from last year. Last year didn't go far enough to protect leave and as I've been unable to travel all year I'm still accrueing leave. 

 

[pawnman]

3 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Rumors that SECDEF will announce new guidance prohibiting OCONUS leave travel this week. I want to be outraged but I'm honestly not sure it changes anything. Even if you could manage to find a way to get here right now, everything is closed and hotels won't let you make a reservation unless you can prove you have a business purpose. Some countries I work in have curfews as well. 

I guess what Im really hoping to see is another extension to the SLA benefit from last year. Last year didn't go far enough to protect leave and as I've been unable to travel all year I'm still accrueing leave. 

 

Same.  I don't know what the hell I'm going to do with 30 days this year.  Not like I can go anywhere.  

I'd settle for being able to sell back my 30 days this year.  A one-time exception to let people actually cash out their leave NOT in conjunction with separation from the service.

[FLEA]

Just now, pawnman said:

Same.  I don't know what the hell I'm going to do with 30 days this year.  Not like I can go anywhere.  

I'd settle for being able to sell back my 30 days this year.  A one-time exception to let people actually cash out their leave NOT in conjunction with separation from the service.

Yeah, I agree this is the best idea and I've seen it flouted before. It needs congressional approval but it's a good idea. 

The problem with just letting people accrue is you can't just let everyone take off 4 months one year. 

Either that, or create a mechanism where people get the leave but can only use it in conjunction with their terminal. The advantage to this situation is you can still accrue time/days toward retirements/etc... 

 

 

 

[pawnman]

Just now, FLEA said:

Yeah, I agree this is the best idea and I've seen it flouted before. It needs congressional approval but it's a good idea. 

The problem with just letting people accrue is you can't just let everyone take off 4 months one year. 

Either that, or create a mechanism where people get the leave but can only use it in conjunction with their terminal. The advantage to this situation is you can still accrue time/days toward retirements/etc... 

 

 

 

Could be fun.  I'm already at 83 days.  I could take my whole last year of Active Duty as terminal at this rate.

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Could be fun.  I'm already at 83 days.  I could take my whole last year of Active Duty as terminal at this rate.

My aunt retired from 40 years at the IRS and took two years of accrued terminal sick/vacation leave. 

[Scooter14]

My aunt retired from 40 years at the IRS and took two years of accrued terminal sick/vacation leave. 

She realized the dream of every federal employee I know. Good for her.

[JimNtexas]

This notion that conservatives are more likely to be anti-faxers is not supported by facts.  It is the left that hates ‘big pharma’ and the organtic granola nutcases who won’t get their kids vacinated.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/02/conservatives-and-liberals-hold-anti-science-views-anti-vaxxers-are-a-bipartisan-problem.html

[uhhello]

22 minutes ago, JimNtexas said:

This notion that conservatives are more likely to be anti-faxers is not supported by facts.  It is the left that hates ‘big pharma’ and the organtic granola nutcases who won’t get their kids vacinated.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/02/conservatives-and-liberals-hold-anti-science-views-anti-vaxxers-are-a-bipartisan-problem.html

How about we try not placing giant swaths of the population into a box just because it's convenient 

[Negatory]

38 minutes ago, JimNtexas said:

This notion that conservatives are more likely to be anti-faxers is not supported by facts.  It is the left that hates ‘big pharma’ and the organtic granola nutcases who won’t get their kids vacinated.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/02/conservatives-and-liberals-hold-anti-science-views-anti-vaxxers-are-a-bipartisan-problem.html

In this case, you’re source is outdated (2015).

While this is generally true absent external factors, it’s not true now. As of this year, an “R” next to your name means you’re significantly less likely to get vaccinated, and it’s necessary to recognize this and understand why.

Root cause: politicization of COVID-19.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Negatory

[Negatory]

18 minutes ago, MyCS said:

BS.. I'm an independent. Has nothing to do with politics. Has everything to do with distrust in big government and big pharmaceutical. Every African American knows about the Tuskegee experiment. Nothing else needs to be said about that particular group as to why we aren't lining up.

Explain the significant difference in political willingness to take the vaccine, then.

Is your point that Republicans don’t trust the government more often? Because that still means that there is a political likelihood to vaccinate.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Negatory

[Negatory]

The hypothesis was that Republicans and Democrats have a difference in the likelihood to be vaccinated. JimNTexas accurately showed that historically, as recently as 2015, there’s been little difference.

Unfortunately, polls this year show that this is no longer the case. Republicans are clearly less likely to say they’ll get vaccinated for COVID-19.

You show up and say that this is meaningless because they didn’t ask every American why they answered a specific question, ignoring the fact that that is entirely unrelated to the debate:

[pawnman]

34 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Do you have a poll of every American and the reasons why they are declining? That's a start. Every resident in each state is a bit different. I highly doubt people are going to say it's because they are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Americans are just different.

History is a mofo. Yet, we forget about what Americans have done in the past.  Everyone doesn't receive the flu vaccine either. Has nothing to do with politics. We're forced to have it in the military. When my fiancee told me she has never received a flu shot in her life, I was shocked. But that's typical unless you're in the military.

Again...you don't need to interview every single American to build statistical models that represent the population.

[pawnman]

8 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Polls are not always accurate. It all depends on who is collecting the data and the type of people you're asking the questions. Based on the recent election, CA should be bursting at the seams to vaccinate. It's not even remotely the case. 

I think the "number of people who decline the vaccine" will be the smallest factor until we have enough doses to vaccinate everyone who does want it.

[Negatory]

I think we’re being baited. Masterfully.

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

I think we’re being baited. Masterfully.

By a master debater.

[busdriver]

I doubt anti-vax theories running wild in the Republican base is solid theory for the disparity.  More likely in my mind is a general difference in the perceived level of risk of the actual virus and a good dose of tribal politics on top of that.  

"The risk is overblown by left wing media" turns into "the risk is actually very low."

The left was jumping up and down about how getting a vaccine out anytime soon was impossible not three or four months ago.  So now that they're pushing it, the tribal instinct is to fight back regardless of the logic or illogic behind it.  

I'm actually curious what the narrative would be if Trump had actually won the election.

[JimNtexas]

“Again...you don't need to interview every single American to build statistical models that represent the population.”

 

Of course polls are scientific.   Just ask President  Hillary.  Or ask 538 what happened to the 2020 Blue Wave in the congressional election.

Edited February 9, 2021 by JimNtexas
clarification

[jazzdude]

“Again...you don't need to interview every single American to build statistical models that represent the population.”
 
Of course polls are scientific.   Just ask President  Hillary.  Or ask 538 what happened to the 2020 Blue Wave in the congressional election.

Not all polls are scientific/rigorous or representative of the population at large. But there are many statistical and experiment design techniques to increase how well a poll represents the population. And they are based on probabilities, and reality can fall at the extremes of those fancy bell curves.

Election polls build a model for the election results itself. But the model is only as good as the data put into it (garbage in, garbage out), and you have to keep in mind rule #1 of modeling: all models are wrong, but some are useful. The trick is making sure the poll is useful. Many exit polls really are just entertainment, they aren't rigorous polls.

The other thing that gets people in trouble is using a descriptive model to do predictions-they are designed differently, and models tend to break down quickly when you extrapolate if they weren't designed to do that.

And finally, yes, in a sense you're right: the only way to find the truth regarding an issue in a population is to ask every person, and no statistical model is the "truth". That's a fact. And it's the underlying principle behind a direct democracy. But it's very hard to do that in a realistic or timely manner, and an exact truth may not be needed when an approximate truth is acceptable or sufficient.

But even our government is not set up like that-it's too difficult to scale up direct votes on a national level. So we select representatives to do most of our voting for us. Our representatives are nothing but a small sample of our population, selected in a particular way (geographical representation), and in theory they represent the opinions of the population at large. So a democratic republic attempts to model the "will of the people" through electing a democratically selected sample of the population to decide issues.

That's why things like gerrymandering are so dangerous, it games the model to produce a biased outcome.

It's also why political parties are so dangerous, as the representatives may decide (and increasingly seem to) represent their party's interests instead of their constituency (which is defined geographically, not politically).

[Alpharatz]

As I recall...the US Army has had an office just for spotting pathogens like this Covid virus among others...warning the big system and starting response and prevention.  Gotta wonder if they spotted this bug at the start and what the response was.