Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

Why do we get a flu shot every year? 

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

I think you really only need to look at the USS Theodore Roosevelt to invalidate almost all of these arguments. They can just apply the lessons learned from that experience to basically any potential combat scenario and, bam, everyone in the military must be vaccinated.

In this case, does nuance of one's opinion really matter?

[Mark1]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Ah, the old go off on an enraged strawman tirade move. I have no questions on which group you’re in.

I wouldn't expect you to have questions.  I made it clear which group I belonged to in the first word of my first post.

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective. 

Is this Bizarro World?  A lot of people disagree?  Do any of them have CSAF appended to their name?  I wasn't aware that mliitary command structure had shifted to anarchism where everybody just issues their own personal orders based on what they think is prudent.

A person with the authority to determine military necessity has made that call.  Opinions on the validity of that determination from subordinates are meaningless.

I am not, and would not, call anyone a snowflake over a difference of opinion.  Feel free to think whatever you'd like about the order.  I actually hold a person in higher regard who disagrees with an order and carries it out faithfully in service to their duty anyway.  It's when someone disobeys an order based on selfish motives because they think they're entitled to not experience psycological discomfort that they become a snowflake.

I assume that you've told all the E-3s under your command that since you don't understand the nuance of their perspective on showing up to work on a daily basis, that if they personally disagree with the expectation of a 5 day work week, they can just work a few hours here or there as they see fit?

Edited December 5, 2021 by Mark1

[FLEA]

13 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I think you really only need to look at the USS Theodore Roosevelt to invalidate almost all of these arguments. They can just apply the lessons learned from that experience to basically any potential combat scenario and, bam, everyone in the military must be vaccinated.

In this case, does nuance of one's opinion really matter?

Haha that's my case example. The official statement from the DoD is the Roosevelt was never at a state of reduced readiness and could continue to execute it's important mission in the Pacific at all times. Then they fired the guy that said there was an issue. What are we supposed to make of that? 

[FLEA]

37 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

I wouldn't expect you to have questions.  I made it clear which group I belonged to in the first word of my first post.

Is this Bizarro World?  A lot of people disagree?  Do any of them have CSAF appended to their name?  I wasn't aware that mliitary command structure had shifted to anarchism where everybody just issues their own personal orders based on what they think is prudent.

A person with the authority to determine military necessity has made that call.  Opinions on the validity of that determination from subordinates are meaningless.

I am not, and would not, call anyone a snowflake over a difference of opinion.  Feel free to think whatever you'd like about the order.  I actually hold a person in higher regard who disagrees with an order and carries it out faithfully in service to their duty anyway.  It's when someone disobeys an order based on selfish motives because they think they're entitled to not experience psycological discomfort that they become a snowflake.

I assume that you've told all the E-3s under your command that since you don't understand the nuance of their perspective on showing up to work on a daily basis, that if they personally disagree with the expectation of a 5 day work week, they can just work a few hours here or there as they see fit?

Unfortunately I just understand this better than you sorry. 

Orders must be lawful, period. If someone doubts the lawfulness it's their right to litigate it, case example US Navy SEALS vs Lloyd Austin and The State of Oklahoma vs Lloyd Austin. 

You can hate that as much as you want but you still have an ethical responsibility to do the right thing when you're in uniform, regardless of what you were ordered. 

[arg]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Why do we get a flu shot every year? 

The answer would be follow the money.

How many times have you had the flu while getting the shot every year?

I'll bet you a beer that if the flu shot went away it wouldn't change the amount of people that got sick.

My experience has been getting the flu about twice a year. Once because of the shot and once in the off season, for about 23 years. I've been retired 21 years, no flu shot since. Been sick with what may have been the flu twice. My experience, YMMV.

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, arg said:

The answer would be follow the money.

How many times have you had the flu while getting the shot every year?

I'll bet you a beer that if the flu shot went away it wouldn't change the amount of people that got sick.

My experience has been getting the flu about twice a year. Once because of the shot and once in the off season, for about 23 years. I've been retired 21 years, no flu shot since. Been sick with what may have been the flu twice. My experience, YMMV.

I mean fuck, even Trevor Noah is starting to recognize that all of these pharma CEOs keep recommending more products that cost more money. Weird right? 

[SurelySerious]

I mean , even Trevor Noah is starting to recognize that all of these pharma CEOs keep recommending more products that cost more money. Weird right? 

Once the government starts footing the bill, gotta keep the gravy train rolling. Every time the quarterly reports are about to hit investors, have a press conference recommending more boosters.

[Mark1]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Unfortunately I just understand this better than you sorry. 

Orders must be lawful, period. If someone doubts the lawfulness it's their right to litigate it, case example US Navy SEALS vs Lloyd Austin and The State of Oklahoma vs Lloyd Austin. 

You can hate that as much as you want but you still have an ethical responsibility to do the right thing when you're in uniform, regardless of what you were ordered. 

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires.

Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

[SurelySerious]

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires.
Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

^also in the holds a grudge when someone separates after their ADSC camp instead of staying beholden to the needs of the Air Force forever

[MCO]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

Unfortunately I just understand this better than you sorry.

Lol. And this is why no one will win this argument.

[glockenspiel]

5 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires.

Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

So is there any order you would refuse? I am interested in your perspective as some of my leadership was very much of this camp. I had a hard time understanding why he thought that every order was legal. I think most people who are “snowflakes” know that the order is likely illegal (there is a legal difference between Comirnaty vs Pfizer, which is being litigated ), and that big pharma has captured the DoD (i.e. the shot is not for your health), so in order to continue to serve they are using a religious accommodation.
 

The risk we should accept are the necessary ones on behalf of the AF mission, no? Do we need jet fuel, then we risk adverse affects from human chemical interaction. Do  people on the ground need support— then we risk pilots lives. Do we need to defend bases— then we risk security forces lives. If the risk is not aligned with the mission, why are we taking it? Seems like we missed the mark on the vaccine mandate.
 

Maybe the fundamental disagreement is that you think the vaccine has overwhelming safety and efficacy data? So any risk of taking the shot is worth it because it’s good for everyone’s health (and thereby the health of the military)?
 

The Oklahoma NG is not against the vaccine, I think the AG is triple vaxxed. Seems that they are strongly against the policy behind it. They will be forced to can a decent chunk of their service members, which will affect their readiness. 

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, arg said:

The answer would be follow the money.

How many times have you had the flu while getting the shot every year?

I'll bet you a beer that if the flu shot went away it wouldn't change the amount of people that got sick.

My experience has been getting the flu about twice a year. Once because of the shot and once in the off season, for about 23 years. I've been retired 21 years, no flu shot since. Been sick with what may have been the flu twice. My experience, YMMV.

So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?

Seems like an argument FOR the flu vaccine.

But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid? 

Edited December 5, 2021 by pawnman

[MCO]

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?

Seems like an argument FOR the flue vaccine.

But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid? 

Politics

[pawnman]

35 minutes ago, MCO said:

Politics

Bingo. I wonder if the same people would be protesting if Trump had been re-elected. Considering the vaccines were developed under Trump.

[brickhistory]

You seem to be incapable of fathoming a simple fact for many who are hesitant to get the Kung flu prophylaxis.

I will spell it out for you:

The vaccine, for a virus that isn't species-threatening, is inefficient at best.  

It hasn't been tested rigourisly (sp?) and the data can only capture in the short-term at present.  It is a literal unknown of any long-term effects these shots will have.

The variety of, and number of, side-effects are larger than they should be for a well-tested and deployed vaccine.

For me, having had Covid, the natural anti-bodies produced suffice for my risk mitigation assessment.

You may not like my decision, but that's on you.  I'm not against you getting as many 'vaccines' and boosters as you desire.  Same thing for any children you may have.  You knock yourself out.

Leave me the fcuk alone.  I am quite capable of making my own decisions.

And Trump didn't institute mandates that have cost people their jobs.  Imagine the sturm and drang if he had've.

But dementia Joe, with his "I've got a plan to stop the virus," can't seem to do much at all.  Even his kindly, knows what's best for me get a inefficient vaccine is getting slammed in multiple levels of courts and states that aren't cowering seem to be doing pretty well.

Color me shocked.

As for a military order, it is supposed to be lawful.  Takes a lot of courage to fight an order that one considers unlawful so most don't - lack of financial resources to survive, to fight, etc.  But some do.  If they lose, those folks will face administrative and judicial punishment.  Again, takes a lot of guts to push back.

They should've never been put in that position.  The pool of eligibles isn't that big.  Despite the diversity push, this order probably discourages a not insignificant number of people to not raise their right hand.  It will be interesting to see how many currently serving, but refusing this order, are actually punished/discharged.

 

[pawnman]

16 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

You seem to be incapable of fathoming a simple fact for many who are hesitant to get the Kung flu prophylaxis.

I will spell it out for you:

The vaccine, for a virus that isn't species-threatening, is inefficient at best.  

It hasn't been tested rigourisly (sp?) and the data can only capture in the short-term at present.  It is a literal unknown of any long-term effects these shots will have.

The variety of, and number of, side-effects are larger than they should be for a well-tested and deployed vaccine.

For me, having had Covid, the natural anti-bodies produced suffice for my risk mitigation assessment.

You may not like my decision, but that's on you.  I'm not against you getting as many 'vaccines' and boosters as you desire.  Same thing for any children you may have.  You knock yourself out.

Leave me the fcuk alone.  I am quite capable of making my own decisions.

And Trump didn't institute mandates that have cost people their jobs.  Imagine the sturm and drang if he had've.

But dementia Joe, with his "I've got a plan to stop the virus," can't seem to do much at all.  Even his kindly, knows what's best for me get a inefficient vaccine is getting slammed in multiple levels of courts and states that aren't cowering seem to be doing pretty well.

Color me shocked.

As for a military order, it is supposed to be lawful.  Takes a lot of courage to fight an order that one considers unlawful so most don't - lack of financial resources to survive, to fight, etc.  But some do.  If they lose, those folks will face administrative and judicial punishment.  Again, takes a lot of guts to push back.

They should've never been put in that position.  The pool of eligibles isn't that big.  Despite the diversity push, this order probably discourages a not insignificant number of people to not raise their right hand.  It will be interesting to see how many currently serving, but refusing this order, are actually punished/discharged.

 

You don't think we'd have had the same mandates under Trump?  I do.  

Again...would you call influenza "species-threatening"?  How about measles?  Rubella?  If "species-threatening" is your bar for vaccine mandates, then surely you're in the streets protesting against all the vaccines required before kids can attend schools, right?

Here's another question for you - which vaccines have exhibited long-term harms that didn't show up short-term?  Which vaccines at any time in our past had zero side effects for 10 years then suddenly manifested something a decade later?

Do you have an issue with the fact that flu vaccines are reformulated every year, so we don't have ten years worth of data on each new one?  Or is it sufficient for you that we have data on the component parts of the vaccines?

What would you rate as an "efficient" vaccine?

[RASH]

So in 23 years of getting the shot, you only got the flu twice?
Seems like an argument FOR the flu vaccine.
But regardless of the motives for the flu shot...did you stand up and scream about bodily autonomy, pharmaceutical company profits, legality...or did you go get the flu shot? And if you think the flu shot isn't a military readiness issue... why were you willing to get that shot but not Covid? 

Read it again, Pawn. For comprehension this time…


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[FLEA]

55 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You don't think we'd have had the same mandates under Trump?  I do.  

Again...would you call influenza "species-threatening"?  How about measles?  Rubella?  If "species-threatening" is your bar for vaccine mandates, then surely you're in the streets protesting against all the vaccines required before kids can attend schools, right?

Here's another question for you - which vaccines have exhibited long-term harms that didn't show up short-term?  Which vaccines at any time in our past had zero side effects for 10 years then suddenly manifested something a decade later?

Do you have an issue with the fact that flu vaccines are reformulated every year, so we don't have ten years worth of data on each new one?  Or is it sufficient for you that we have data on the component parts of the vaccines?

What would you rate as an "efficient" vaccine?

There isnt a political aspect to it. It's a cultural aspect; in regards to the culture war between democrats and republicans. Culturally, Republicans are generally more skeptical of authoritarianism, government, institutions and subversion of individual rights. 

If Trump were President, there could have been a minor effect but that would have been more due to a hard line republican generally trusting another republican slightly more than a democrat. Otherwise I think the data would be very close. As it is Trump has publicly endorsed the vaccine on several occasions but had little effect. 

So I think your understanding to what is happening in regards to hesitance is mistaken. A general every day person/republican has nothing to gain by bucking Biden's mandate. The vast majority of the country is already vaccinated. 

In regards to your later questions, there is no data on an mRNA vaccine causing long term effects because there's never been a study on the long term effects of an mRNA vaccine. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by FLEA

[Mark1]

4 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

I think most people who are “snowflakes” know that the order is likely illegal (there is a legal difference between Comirnaty vs Pfizer, which is being litigated ), and that big pharma has captured the DoD (i.e. the shot is not for your health), so in order to continue to serve they are using a religious accommodation.

Yep.  The legal filings are totally in good faith, and not a litigious stall tactic that skirts the actual issue.  And since they imply that even the plaintiffs agree the order is lawful in principle, as long as Comirnaty labeled doses are offered, I would pay large money to see the government show up to court with nurses ready to administer shots to the plaintiffs out of vials with that divine piece of paper stuck to them that makes all the difference.  It'd be a sight to see that courtroom clear as if somebody fumbled a live grenade onto the floor.  Mere seconds before nothing but the dignity of the plaintiffs was left behind.

4 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

Maybe the fundamental disagreement is that you think the vaccine has overwhelming safety and efficacy data? So any risk of taking the shot is worth it because it’s good for everyone’s health (and thereby the health of the military)?

Outside of stating that I oppose public mandates, I've made no mention of the vaccine.  This has nothing to do with a vaccine and everything to do with a group of people that has made clear they only follow orders when it serves them personally.  That's a cancerous thing in military command structure, and if they don't have the integrity to self-eliminate from the service, then they should be forcibly removed.

4 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

^also in the holds a grudge when someone separates after their ADSC camp instead of staying beholden to the needs of the Air Force forever

Interesting take given I'm in that group.  Damn, I'm like a self-hating black man.  Always wondered how that dissonance could develop and now I'm living it.  You got me.

[MCO]

11 hours ago, FLEA said:

There isnt a political aspect to it. It's a cultural aspect; in regards to the culture war between democrats and republicans. Culturally, Republicans are generally more skeptical of authoritarianism, government, institutions and subversion of individual rights. 

If Trump were President, there could have been a minor effect but that would have been more due to a hard line republican generally trusting another republican slightly more than a democrat. Otherwise I think the data would be very close. As it is Trump has publicly endorsed the vaccine on several occasions but had little effect. 

So I think your understanding to what is happening in regards to hesitance is mistaken. A general every day person/republican has nothing to gain by bucking Biden's mandate. The vast majority of the country is already vaccinated. 

In regards to your later questions, there is no data on an mRNA vaccine causing long term effects because there's never been a study on the long term effects of an mRNA vaccine. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

You can make that case for every flu shot every year since it’s always new. If everyone had been up on arms about having to take an unproven vaccine every year since they joined the military for a low success vaccine against a disease that doesn’t kill lots of people of military age this would all make more sense to me.

And this is because republicans are for pro liberty and individual rights like allowing families to personally make the call on abortion?To be clear, I’m against mandates and abortion personally I just understand how politics help form our opinions and make us all slight hypocrites, good or bad.

I’m for your choice to do what you want. It just seems like some people, not everyone, are only against the vaccine to prove they can be. I’m for businesses making their own rules and not having authoritarian restrictions, but I bet most people who are anti vaccine and face mask immediately drop the mask even if the business says no masks for vaccinated. I’m for your right to choose, I just hope you don’t choose to be a dick. Follow what the businesses ask or just don’t give them your business if you are that angered.

I got the vaccine not for me but because I hoped to limit the spread so I didn’t accidentally kill someone’s grandma. For some of you your health is more important then your buddies grandma, which is fine but that’s where some of the differences come from. And I don’t mean that as a shot, I understand the reasoning. Part of this is from knowing a few people, some our age that weren’t fat, that died of COVID.

Finally, I don’t think there is anything illegal about the military making you get a vaccine. Tons of precedent for it. Even if the virus doesn’t kill you, keeping whole units from going down at the same time from an illness I think is a reasonable argument for readiness whether you agree or not, IE the flu shot. BIG jump to illegal order. I can understand not liking it and disagreeing with it but I don’t understand how it’s illegal.

Edited December 6, 2021 by MCO

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Yep.  The legal filings are totally in good faith, and not a litigious stall tactic that skirts the actual issue.  And since they imply that even the plaintiffs agree the order is lawful in principle, as long as Comirnaty labeled doses are offered, I would pay large money to see the government show up to court with nurses ready to administer shots to the plaintiffs out of vials with that divine piece of paper stuck to them that makes all the difference.  It'd be a sight to see that courtroom clear as if somebody fumbled a live grenade onto the floor.  Mere seconds before nothing but the dignity of the plaintiffs was left behind.

Outside of stating that I oppose public mandates, I've made no mention of the vaccine.  This has nothing to do with a vaccine and everything to do with a group of people that has made clear they only follow orders when it serves them personally.  That's a cancerous thing in military command structure, and if they don't have the integrity to self-eliminate from the service, then they should be forcibly removed.

Interesting take given I'm in that group.  Damn, I'm like a self-hating black man.  Always wondered how that dissonance could develop and now I'm living it.  You got me.

Ive known several people refuse orders in the military and litigate it. Sometimes it cost them, many times they were successful. Regardless of whether it is a stall tactic or not, the government still has an obligation to prove the order is lawful. Just because you are in the military does not mean you forfeit your personal interest. If the government is going to violate you interest it must demonstrate it is doing so lawfully. This is a basic tenant of rule of law. We should all respect this. 

And for the record I'm not against the vaccine. On dose 3 myself. I just have enough empathy that I can see where people who are afraid of it are coming from. Ive gone through my own crises of mortality that I don't care to discuss any further. Just recognize these are good people but they legitimately no longer believe their commanders, government or the American people have their interest at heart. That is a problem.

That said, full circle, the DoD does have an obligation now to recompense any health problems that emerge from the vaccine now or forever. I do think that substantially weakens most of their cases. 

 

[SpeedOfHeat]

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

What would you rate as an "efficient" vaccine?

One that doesn't require you to wear a face mask to protect you from the virus that you just got 3 inoculations against?

I mean, really think about that.  They're telling people with 3 shots over 7 months to wear a mask and social distance.  That's insane.

They're saying the vaccines are great and provide amazing protection, but also that vaccinated people have to keep following the emergency public health protocols that were being stressed before a vaccine was avaliable.  How could a reasonable person not see the disconnect there?

I know we've become inured and desensitized to mask wearing, but imagine telling your 2019 self that there's a pandemic on the way, and you'll soon be told to take 3 vaccinations and still mandated to wear a face mask. 

Hearing that, your 2019 self would assume that the vaccination had extremely low efficacy and/or the pathogen must be like the ones portrayed in the movies Outbreak or Contagion, where the premise was that exposure to the virus was a death sentence (involving pustulating sores, convulsions, foaming at the mouth, and death within 48 hours).

But neither of those is true of Covid.  The vaccines are highly efficacious and Covid is highly survivable.

Any reasonably intelligent person in 2019, shown the data we have now, and told about that messaging disconnect, would be thoroughly confused about the ongoing farce. 

As others have said, get as many shots as you want.  Tripple mask,  ...and don't forget the face shield.  Celebrate the holidays with family via Zoom chat.  Go nuts.  After all, the hardest part of 14 days to flatten the curve is the first 2 years.

My family and I will pass, thanks.

Edited December 5, 2021 by SpeedOfHeat

[passingtime69]

So basically, you're fine with poor risk decisions about your kids as long as you get to make them. 
No wonder this pandemic is drawing out so long. 

No wonder it’s drawing out so long? Laughable man…. Had everyone just got a vaccine like ya wanted day one, covid would be eliminated. You should replace Fauci.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

One that doesn't require you to wear a face mask to protect you from the virus that you just got 3 inoculations against?

I mean, really think about that.  They're telling people with 3 shots over 7 months to wear a mask and social distance.  That's insane.

They're saying the vaccines are great and provide amazing protection, but also that vaccinated people have to keep following the emergency public health protocols that were being stressed before a vaccine was avaliable.  How could a reasonable person not see the disconnect there?

I know we've become inured and desensitized to mask wearing, but imagine telling your 2019 self that there's a pandemic on the way, and you'll soon be told to take 3 vaccinations and still mandated to wear a face mask. 

Hearing that, your 2019 self would assume that the vaccination had extremely low efficacy and/or the pathogen must be like the ones portrayed in the movies Outbreak or Contagion, where the premise was that exposure to the virus was a death sentence (involving pustulating sores, convulsions, foaming at the mouth, and death within 48 hours).

But neither of those is true of Covid.  The vaccines are highly efficacious and Covid is highly survivable.

Any reasonably intelligent person in 2019, shown the data we have now, and told about that messaging disconnect, would be thoroughly confused about the ongoing farce. 

As others have said, get as many shots as you want.  Tripple mask,  ...and don't forget the face shield.  Celebrate the holidays with family via Zoom chat.  Go nuts.  After all, the hardest part of 14 days to flatten the curve is the first 2 years.

My family and I will pass, thanks.

So your problem is with the masks, not the vaccines. 

Or...if everyone had gotten vaccinated, we wouldn't be wearing masks right now.