COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[pawnman]

6 minutes ago, FLEA said:

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. 

 

Yeah, I guess we'll see what legal wrangling comes out of it. I have a feeling that people will experience disciplinary action for refusing, and the lawsuits they file will stretch out for years while those holdouts are separated from the service.

However, my intent in posting that story is to highlight that the military is not alone in the mandates, and that even civilians are gonna have some consequences for vaccine denials.

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

Would you please post a link? Deleted my facebook.

 

How does one show they’ve recovered from it?

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. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by FLEA

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

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

You mean the one that conveniently left out how the President can waive informed consent case law?

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2021/02/18/can-troops-be-ordered-to-take-the-covid-vaccine-a-guest-post-analyzes-the-law/

[TheNewGazmo]

I had read something before that they were only going to make it mandatory for Active Duty or ARC who are "Federally Mobilized".  Are there any more details on that or will it be 100% for all?

[Pooter]

8 hours ago, torqued said:

This and your earlier one are both good posts. This Doctor also expands on your point about COVID being similar to the flu virus in some ways. But one of his points you should consider is that vaccines are not only a poor solution, but can be dangerous. The inventor of the mRNA vaccine, Dr Robert Malone, also explains this in his recent podcast with Doctor Bret Weinstein.  Why are we seeing breakout infections among the vaccinated in the summertime? Listen:

If you believe the things he is saying are "counter-factual", here is a list of links to all of the official scientific peer-reviewed studies he references in the flash drive he provided to the board members:

https://liveandlocalacadiana.com/a-video-has-surfaced-with-real-source-data-science-from-a-school-board-meeting-in-indiana/

That's a really good video. So correct me if I'm wrong but he's basically saying vaccines don't stop spread, they just reduce symptoms. Hence that outbreak in the summer in Massachusetts among vaccinated people.  I'd be interested in more context for this board meeting but it sounds like his point is that mandating vaccines won't reduce case numbers and if that's your goal you are very mistaken.

So my follow up question is: does that make the vaccine not worth getting? Because we have a lot of data showing vaccinated people have much less severe reactions in the event they do have a breakthrough case. If it spreads the same but the symptoms are way reduced, isn't that still a win? 
 

caveat: not arguing for mandates at all.  I'm just interested in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. 

[TheNewGazmo]

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

That's a really good video. So correct me if I'm wrong but he's basically saying vaccines don't stop spread, they just reduce symptoms. Hence that outbreak in the summer in Massachusetts among vaccinated people.  I'd be interested in more context for this board meeting but it sounds like his point is that mandating vaccines won't reduce case numbers and if that's your goal you are very mistaken.

So my follow up question is: does that make the vaccine not worth getting? Because we have a lot of data showing vaccinated people have much less severe reactions in the event they do have a breakthrough case. If it spreads the same but the symptoms are way reduced, isn't that still a win? 
 

caveat: not arguing for mandates at all.  I'm just interested in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. 

But it does NOT spread the same 71% of the time.  Again, read the article below:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates

Edited August 10, 2021 by TheNewGazmo

[Pooter]

I agree with you, everything I've seen points toward the vaccine reducing both transmission and symptom severity. I was just summarizing this guy's argument.  
 

And if we accept his premise that the vaccine is only useful at preventing one of the two, would it not still not be a very good idea to get it. After all, if everyone on earth has gets covid but we all get mild to no symptoms, there isn't much to be worried about. 

[bfargin]

41 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I agree with you, everything I've seen points toward the vaccine reducing both transmission and symptom severity. I was just summarizing this guy's argument.  
 

And if we accept his premise that the vaccine is only useful at preventing one of the two, would it not still not be a very good idea to get it. After all, if everyone on earth has gets covid but we all get mild to no symptoms, there isn't much to be worried about. 

You might have listening bias ... listen to the portion of the MD's speech starting at 2:22 ... he specifically said the virus was causing errors in recipients virus response I(immune system) and causing the summer outbreaks/issues not normally seen in these type viruses. So the vaccines actually cause issues.

[FLEA]

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

You mean the one that conveniently left out how the President can waive informed consent case law?

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2021/02/18/can-troops-be-ordered-to-take-the-covid-vaccine-a-guest-post-analyzes-the-law/

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. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by FLEA

[TheNewGazmo]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

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. 

They've done it before.... they'll do it again, although this time, I find myself being able to swallow (STS) taking a COVID shot over the anthrax shot.  At least the COVID threat is somewhat real and has documented results.  Depending on what you read, using the anthrax vaccine for protection from pulmonary anthrax is still considered "off-label" usage of the shot since no real human tested was ever done to support its efficacy (and the original formula had mysteriously changed since the FDA approved the original vaccine in 1970).

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

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. 

 

You might be working from old data, there, Flea.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-people-make-up-biggest-group-of-newly-hospitalized-covid-19-patients

Quote

According to the recent CDC data, in the week ending July 24, people ages 18 to 49 are the largest demographic hospitalized for COVID-19.

This age group is currently affected far more than those ages 50–64 — and significantly more affected than the next oldest group (ages 65 and older), a trend that began in March of this year.

"But they aren't dying"...maybe, but a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the hospital is one that can't deploy...

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You might be working from old data, there, Flea.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-people-make-up-biggest-group-of-newly-hospitalized-covid-19-patients

"But they aren't dying"...maybe, but a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the hospital is one that can't deploy...

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. 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

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. 

Not "visits".  Hospitalizations.  As in, admitted to a bed.  The delta variant seems to kill less people, but it also seems to discriminate less in who gets severe symptoms.

[Standby]

Too much media bias these days to trust any sort of alleged statistic. For reference, I’m in the under 50 demographic. I have 0 friends or acquaintances that have been hospitalized (let alone died) from COVID that are in the same age group. I recently met a three star who had a little over 40k active duty troops under his command. Of those, 0 deaths and approximately 300 that required SOME form of medical care.

I’m not claiming this virus doesn’t kill people. I’m also not arguing against the effectiveness of the vaccine in potentially easing severe symptoms. I do find it odd, however, that none of my other family members or friends personally know of anybody in the typical MAM (military age male) demographic. I realize I’m one of millions, but I find it hard to believe that this is a matter of national security considering the generally short-lived nature of the virus for younger folks coupled with the lack of significant medical care required to bounce back.

As mentioned earlier, hard for me to trust statistics these days, but combing through multiples sources: less than 50 deaths in our force from COVID. Let’s not compare that to our suicide and motor vehicle accident rate though…

Edited August 10, 2021 by Standby

[TheNewGazmo]

Stop reading the news and Google medical research articles and case studies.  These are written by people getting paid trying to better the world with their medical research vs getting paid to invoke some sort of reaction out of certain groups or support certain political parties.

[gearhog]

24 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Stop reading the news and Google medical research articles and case studies.  These are written by people getting paid trying to better the world with their medical research vs getting paid to invoke some sort of reaction out of certain groups or support certain political parties.

Right. That's why I posted the Dr's speech he gave before the Mt. Vernon school board. He cited scientific research from the same organizations who are touted as being trustworthy by the pro-mandate crowd, and provided sources. The problem being, even if we restricted ourselves to medical research case studiea, there is nearly always an equal an opposite medical research study. Studies, as you said... that are paid for. How many times have we heard that alcohol/meat/butter/salt/aspirin/prescription meds are good/bad for you depending on who you listen to? Although we've made amazing progress the last century, the amount we know about our biology is likely a fraction of a percent of what can be known about our biology.

When overwhelming factual evidence is missing, inconclusive, or conflicting - all you're left with is a shouting competition of partial truths. That leaves the door wide open for those who wish to exploit the void of information for their own gains, especially if they have the capability to restrict your speech while they use a bullhorn.

Edited August 10, 2021 by torqued

[Scooter14]

Not "visits".  Hospitalizations.  As in, admitted to a bed.  The delta variant seems to kill less people, but it also seems to discriminate less in who gets severe symptoms.

I don’t know why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.

People are really stuck on “it only kills old people” and 0.000069% death rates.

I think it’s prudent to consider what having a pipe jammed down your throat whilst being in a medically induced coma for 2+ weeks or multiple organ failure due to a lack of O2 would be like.

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Scooter14 said:

 

I don’t know why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.

People are really stuck on “it only kills old people” and 0.000069% death rates.

I think it’s prudent to consider what having a pipe jammed down your throat whilst being in a medically induced coma for 2+ weeks or multiple organ failure due to a lack of O2 would be like.

That's like one of the worst things that is imagined. Just hearing those words should give one a surge of fear. Compelling fear.

[Standby]

12 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

 

I don’t know why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.

People are really stuck on “it only kills old people” and 0.000069% death rates.

I think it’s prudent to consider what having a pipe jammed down your throat whilst being in a medically induced coma for 2+ weeks or multiple organ failure due to a lack of O2 would be like.

 

It’s also prudent to consider how the average person is affected by COVID, an that is certainly not it. 

[pawnman]

52 minutes ago, Standby said:

Too much media bias these days to trust any sort of alleged statistic. For reference, I’m in the under 50 demographic. I have 0 friends or acquaintances that have been hospitalized (let alone died) from COVID that are in the same age group. I recently met a three star who had a little over 40k active duty troops under his command. Of those, 0 deaths and approximately 300 that required SOME form of medical care.

I’m not claiming this virus doesn’t kill people. I’m also not arguing against the effectiveness of the vaccine in potentially easing severe symptoms. I do find it odd, however, that none of my other family members or friends personally know of anybody in the typical MAM (military age male) demographic. I realize I’m one of millions, but I find it hard to believe that this is a matter of national security considering the generally short-lived nature of the virus for younger folks coupled with the lack of significant medical care required to bounce back.

As mentioned earlier, hard for me to trust statistics these days, but combing through multiples sources: less than 50 deaths in our force from COVID. Let’s not compare that to our suicide and motor vehicle accident rate though…

Ah, yes, the argument from anecdote. 

I don't know anyone who's been killed in a car accident. That's why I don't wear my seatbelt. It's just a lie pushed by the NHTSA to control our lives.  Probably in bed with Big Fabric to make the seatbelts.  We actually have more traffic fatalities a year now than before seatbelts were mandatory. 

[Standby]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Ah, yes, the argument from anecdote. 

I don't know anyone who's been killed in a car accident. That's why I don't wear my seatbelt. It's just a lie pushed by the NHTSA to control our lives.  Probably in bed with Big Fabric to make the seatbelts.  We actually have more traffic fatalities a year now than before seatbelts were mandatory. 

When you have medical institutions listing cause of death as COVID, when in fact it was the fall and subsequent slide off their motorcycle into a guardrail…ya, I will rely on personal experience over some sensationalized and manipulated data set. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Not "visits".  Hospitalizations.  As in, admitted to a bed.  The delta variant seems to kill less people, but it also seems to discriminate less in who gets severe symptoms.

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. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by FLEA

[Scooter14]

It’s also prudent to consider how the average person is affected by COVID, an that is certainly not it. 

It’s a roll of the dice either way right?

The average person has no ill effects from the vaccine as well.

But how do you know you’re not gonna get the ventilator or the kidney failure? Same way you really don’t know if you’ll get blood clots from the jab.

So you research, use critical thinking, numbers and data. Which risk do you consider to be higher.

I personally think there will likely be long term health problems (lung, heart, neurological, circulatory issues) for those who have been hospitalized with COVID. We are already seeing “long haulers” and folks who survive and are strapped to an O2 tank. I think that the vaccine (as it should) shows your immune system what to expect so you can fight COVID without the potential of being overrun. A sneak preview if you will.

That’s how I ran my ORM sheet. YMMV.

This whole thread reminds me of a time where I was in Moron. We had a -135 and a spare -135 with engines running to meet up with a Coronet moving west. Thunderstorms were moving in, they were outside of 5 miles but all around the field.

The primary taxied out (new AC at the helm) checked the radar, didn’t feel comfortable, called in and said he was a Wx cnx.

The spare (a more seasoned crew) took a sweep with the radar, saw a hole, called and said I think we can go, we see a way to get it done. So they went.

Each crew called upon their knowledge, research of the situation, comfort level and made a decision.

Is there a wrong answer?

Maybe if the jet that went got struck by lightning then yeah. Maybe if it was an OIR mission with troops in contact and they cancelled with no GAR, sure.

Nobody questioned either crew and their decisions were exactly 180 out from each other.

So is there a wrong answer here? Maybe if you throw a blood clot or have some reaction to the jab. Maybe if you are belly up with 80% o2 or on dialysis for the rest of your days or you lose your Class 1 because you have brain fog. Maybe you get the shot and you’re fine. Maybe you get COVID and you’re fine and now you have better antibodies than the shot can provide.

To each their own I guess.

[Scooter14]

Ah, yes, the argument from anecdote. 
I don't know anyone who's been killed in a car accident. That's why I don't wear my seatbelt. It's just a lie pushed by the NHTSA to control our lives.  Probably in bed with Big Fabric to make the seatbelts.  We actually have more traffic fatalities a year now than before seatbelts were mandatory.

Big Fabric is the devil.

[gearhog]

46 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

To each their own I guess.

 

EXACTLY.