Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[Mustache Sally]

I just received word from my leadership that my religious exemption for the C-19 vax was disapproved today by AFRC/CC.  I have 72 hours to appeal and will do so.

The purge is here.  Reach out to me via PM if any of you need help fighting this.  

 

 

[HeloDude]

Unfortunately the joke is on everyone who applied for a religious exemption, as I’m definitely not surprised.  Big blue never had any intention of seriously looking at each individual case for valid concerns, if they did, we would be hearing about quite a few getting approved, and instead, I have yet to hear of a single one (though here might be a handful that I’m just not aware?).

That being said, I’m not a fan of religious exemptions for anything when it comes to the government, even if I’m for or against the directive…that goes for head wear, shaving, etc.  If the mission calls for X, then we should all have to comply or no one should have to comply.  Likewise I think it’s interesting that in this culture of “equality”, why can’t men have the exact same grooming/uniform standards as women?  How does it hurt the mission to allow men to have long hair, earrings, etc?  

Edited November 8, 2021 by HeloDude

[Muscle2002]

9 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Unfortunately the joke is on everyone who applied for a religious exemption, as I’m definitely not surprised.  Big blue never had any intention of seriously looking at each individual case for valid concerns, if they did, we would be hearing about quite a few getting approved, and instead, I have yet to hear of a single one (though here might be a handful that I’m just not aware?).

 

As of last week, zero religious accommodations have been granted.

[Muscle2002]

14 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Likewise I think it’s interesting that in this culture of “equality”, why can’t men have the exact same grooming/uniform standards as women?  How does it hurt the mission to allow men to have long hair, earrings, etc?  

You raise a good point. It seems that "tradition" and status quo preclude making allowances if the reason for deviating is based solely on personal preference. Perhaps the only accommodations should be for valid medical reasons.

[Alpharatz]

50 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Unfortunately the joke is on everyone who applied for a religious exemption, as I’m definitely not surprised.  Big blue never had any intention of seriously looking at each individual case for valid concerns, if they did, we would be hearing about quite a few getting approved, and instead, I have yet to hear of a single one (though here might be a handful that I’m just not aware?).

That being said, I’m not a fan of religious exemptions for anything when it comes to the government, even if I’m for or against the directive…that goes for head wear, shaving, etc.  If the mission calls for X, then we should all have to comply or no one should have to comply.  Likewise I think it’s interesting that in this culture of “equality”, why can’t men have the exact same grooming/uniform standards as women?  How does it hurt the mission to allow men to have long hair, earrings, etc?  

You may get a chance to find out...The grade skool where my wife works has at least two boys showing up in drag...with one "pink BOa"?..(i don't want to know )..The principle and gym teacher are..."that way".   It's all the rage..coming to a recruiter near you...

[HeloDude]

44 minutes ago, Muscle2002 said:

You raise a good point. It seems that "tradition" and status quo preclude making allowances if the reason for deviating is based solely on personal preference. Perhaps the only accommodations should be for valid medical reasons.

If tradition goes against anything even possibly labeled as offensive, unequal, hurts someone’s feelings, etc then it’s being, or soon to be, squashed.  We’ve gone from righting our past wrongs (which needed to happen) to agreeing with almost everything the woke progressive left desires.  So with that being the case, why are we still having separate standards for men and women?  Can anyone honestly give me a non-emotional/pissed off answer?

[Pooter]

38 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

If tradition goes against anything even possibly labeled as offensive, unequal, hurts someone’s feelings, etc then it’s being, or soon to be, squashed.  We’ve gone from righting our past wrongs (which needed to happen) to agreeing with almost everything the woke progressive left desires.  So with that being the case, why are we still having separate standards for men and women?  Can anyone honestly give me a non-emotional/pissed off answer?

Because societal norms still exist and the woke brigade is only interested in dumpstering the norms that don't serve their interests. Letting white dudes grow beards earns you precisely zero intersectional brownie points. 

[bennynova]

11 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

As of last week, zero religious accommodations have been granted.

The comment above is similar to the following comment.  
“There’s is zero data that shows there are long term effects of the vaccine” 

 

I am guessing near zero religious accommodations are approved yet is because they aren’t that far along in the process.

ive done all of my paperwork and meetings within the first day allowed, and my package is still with the RRT

 

 

[FUSEPLUG]

13 hours ago, Mustache Sally said:

I just received word from my leadership that my religious exemption for the C-19 vax was disapproved today by AFRC/CC.  I have 72 hours to appeal and will do so.

The purge is here.  Reach out to me via PM if any of you need help fighting this.  

Sorry to hear this, bro. My medical exemption request was just shot down by the base flight doc. He wouldn’t even take the time to look at my EXTENSIVE medical record and discuss my concerns.  To me that’s highly indicative of how this process was supposed to work. 

To be perfectly honest it’s a huge weight off my shoulders now that it’s out of my hands. I haven’t slept this well in months. 

Good luck to everyone going through this. Stay strong. 

[Muscle2002]

1 hour ago, bennynova said:

The comment above is similar to the following comment.  
“There’s is zero data that shows there are long term effects of the vaccine” 

 

I am guessing near zero religious accommodations are approved yet is because they aren’t that far along in the process.

ive done all of my paperwork and meetings within the first day allowed, and my package is still with the RRT

 

 

Don’t get me wrong. I do not approve of how the system has basically removed any reason or logic in order to display fealty to the current agenda. Just sharing an article indicating where things stood. 

[Buddy Spike]

14 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Unfortunately the joke is on everyone who applied for a religious exemption, as I’m definitely not surprised.  Big blue never had any intention of seriously looking at each individual case for valid concerns, if they did, we would be hearing about quite a few getting approved, and instead, I have yet to hear of a single one (though here might be a handful that I’m just not aware?).

That being said, I’m not a fan of religious exemptions for anything when it comes to the government, even if I’m for or against the directive…that goes for head wear, shaving, etc.  If the mission calls for X, then we should all have to comply or no one should have to comply.  Likewise I think it’s interesting that in this culture of “equality”, why can’t men have the exact same grooming/uniform standards as women?  How does it hurt the mission to allow men to have long hair, earrings, etc?  

Don't forget PT tests.  There should be one standard.

[JackWhite]

I've got my vaccine recently and I'll say that everything is ok with me. Unfortunately forsed to do that, but at the end feel nothing really special to be honest. Seems like my health is good and can take this amount of virus easily. 

[WAG]

[bennynova]

12 hours ago, JackWhite said:

I've got my vaccine recently and I'll say that everything is ok with me. Unfortunately forsed to do that, but at the end feel nothing really special to be honest. Seems like my health is good and can take this amount of virus easily. 

People that are holdouts, are not doing so because they are afraid of short term issues.     It’s the 5 to 10 year issues that are wildly unknown at this point.  
 

 

glad you are doing OK!

[JackWhite]

10 hours ago, bennynova said:

People that are holdouts, are not doing so because they are afraid of short term issues.     It’s the 5 to 10 year issues that are wildly unknown at this point.  
 

 

glad you are doing OK!

Thank you! Yes, that's the point. Short term issues are not that bad like long term. I wish everyone health but they should be more responsible about themselves. If you can take easily COVID-19 its self then you'll easily take a vaccine. 

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, bennynova said:

People that are holdouts, are not doing so because they are afraid of short term issues.     It’s the 5 to 10 year issues that are wildly unknown at this point.  
 

 

glad you are doing OK!

So in five years, no one will fight getting the vaccine? 

[Guardian]

Pot boiling slowly frog

[tac airlifter]

52 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So in five years, no one will fight getting the vaccine? 

In 5 years there will no longer be a C19 vaccine mandate for the military.  Bet a bottle of scotch?

[Negatory]

41 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

In 5 years there will no longer be a C19 vaccine mandate for the military.  Bet a bottle of scotch?

I bet there will be a Covid vaccine, maybe not C19, but I don’t see this thing just disappearing

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

In 5 years there will no longer be a C19 vaccine mandate for the military.  Bet a bottle of scotch?

I'll take that bet.  I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an annual requirement like the flu shot.

[WAG]

Now Germany and France…

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/amp/

 

Just shut up and take the shot!

[glockenspiel]

1 hour ago, WAG said:

Now Germany and France…

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/amp/

 

Just shut up and take the shot!

Stop spreading vaccine hesitancy. Big pharma are the good guys! Praise be to Fauci. All hail Tony. All hail the infallible CDC and FDA.  EVERY knee shall bow. Haven’t you heard the good news— the experts have settled the science. Yay! 
 

I wonder where this burning train of naïve “scientific” assumptions crashes?

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, WAG said:

Now Germany and France…

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/amp/

 

Just shut up and take the shot!

From further into article:

"None of the studies cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness or the benefits they bring by safeguarding against Covid-19 and studies suggest the risks of heart inflammation are substantially higher in those infected with Covid-19."

from the linked study:

Myocarditis rate among young men who contracted covid: 450 per million

Myocarditis rate among young men after vaccination: 77 per million

In summary, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is 5.9 times higher than the risk from the vaccine.  And if you want to minimize risk even further, just get Pfizer instead of moderna.

Weird, It's almost like when you dig into the details the clickbait headline doesn't tell the whole story.

[Pooter]

This is what we're talking about with you guys continuously posting and making life choices based on dumpster-tier information. So Forbes is saying that the Germans are saying that scientists are saying something? Cool. If you're such an independent thinker go find the study and see for yourself. 
 

You saw a headline you agreed with and posted it without looking into the associated data whatsoever. 
 

This tells me:

a) you aren't actually concerned about myocarditis

and 

b) apparently a MSM headline can be taken as gospel, but only when it conveniently aligns with your pre-existing biases. 

[glockenspiel]

35 minutes ago, Pooter said:

From further into article:

"None of the studies cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness or the benefits they bring by safeguarding against Covid-19 and studies suggest the risks of heart inflammation are substantially higher in those infected with Covid-19."

from the linked study:

Myocarditis rate among young men who contracted covid: 450 per million

Myocarditis rate among young men after vaccination: 77 per million

In summary, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is 5.9 times higher than the risk from the vaccine.  And if you want to minimize risk even further, just get Pfizer instead of moderna.

Weird, It's almost like when you dig into the details the clickbait headline doesn't tell the whole story.

Chances of contracting covid≠ 100%. 

chances of being vaccinated if you are vaccinated = 100%. 

Doesn’t seem like you are talking apples to apples. Not trying to do a gotcha or defending the article. It’s kind of like when people say 80% of patients who died in X hospital were vaccinated/unvaccinated without at minimum providing the population vaccination rate which that hospital serves. It doesn’t really mean anything.