glockenspiel Posted November 19, 2021 Posted November 19, 2021 28 minutes ago, FLEA said: This has been responded to a half dozen times in this thread. Go back and read the answers. But have you read the Kentucky study?
pawnman Posted November 19, 2021 Posted November 19, 2021 5 hours ago, FLEA said: This has been responded to a half dozen times in this thread. Go back and read the answers. I've read them. They seem to amount to "sure, I use a lot of other things developed with fetal cells, but it's a convenient way to duck this requirement".
CaptainMorgan Posted November 19, 2021 Posted November 19, 2021 No. Say someone learned of that fetal cell use after receiving even one of those vaccines. Does that automatically make them unable to stop supporting the use of those types of products? People’s knowledge changes over time. Should they be penalized for not knowing somethings years ago? I bet 99% of the people “boycotting” fetal cell developed vaccines are still comfortable taking Aspirin, Advil, and Tylenol. It’s hypocrisy at its finest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Lord Ratner Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 When did the burden of justifying mandates fall on the mandated? Vaccination does not stop the spread of Covid. I wish it did, but it does not. In light of this unfortunate news, the case for mandates fails. The virus is too transmissible and the vaccine is too short-lived. And contrary to 18 months of catastrophism, there are no longer wide-scale hospital overloads beyond what hospitals usually operate at. People shouldn't have to resort to religious or medical excuses to avoid doing something they don't want to do when it doesn't even serve the greater good. Vaccinating protects yourself. It does not offer long- or medium-term protection to others. You are either ignorant of the science or subconsciously turning this into a disciplinary fight. Because I said so... 1 3
Standby Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said: I bet 99% of the people “boycotting” fetal cell developed vaccines are still comfortable taking Aspirin, Advil, and Tylenol. It’s hypocrisy at its finest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk It’s not hypocrisy Aspirin…1899 Advil…1961 Tylenol…1955 Those are the approximate years that each of the medications you listed were developed. Fetal cell testing for developmental purposes didn’t start until late 60s. There is marked difference between developing something with fetal cells, and testing it well after creation for the novelty factor. If someone were to test the effect of aborted fetal cells being placed into a bottle of Aquafina, are we now no longer allowed to consume it based on religious beliefs? Stupid argument man. Edited November 20, 2021 by Standby 1
MCO Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 21 hours ago, glockenspiel said: No. Say someone learned of that fetal cell use after receiving even one of those vaccines. Does that automatically make them unable to stop supporting the use of those types of products? People’s knowledge changes over time. Should they be penalized for not knowing somethings years ago? That’s fair. But are you now an anti vaxxer in general? As in don’t vaccinate your kids with any of those vaccines and take the risk? Just curious if everyone is becoming what they made fun of 2 years ago using the same arguments they made fun of 2 years ago because it’s normal now. I’m actually not judging if you are, it’s just interesting how this is going. I’m pro vaccine personally but also pro self determination in most cases. I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff. 2
glockenspiel Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 2 hours ago, MCO said: That’s fair. But are you now an anti vaxxer in general? As in don’t vaccinate your kids with any of those vaccines and take the risk? Just curious if everyone is becoming what they made fun of 2 years ago using the same arguments they made fun of 2 years ago because it’s normal now. I’m actually not judging if you are, it’s just interesting how this is going. I’m pro vaccine personally but also pro self determination in most cases. I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff. Good question, also valid! I’d say that there are broadly two separate groups, 1.) the anti-vaxx, who truly do not want any vaccine, ever. I respect their opinions. If I was worried about risk of disease from that person I could just go get the vaccine for the disease they could be carrying and boom I should be good. If we can let Jahovas witnesses refuse blood (which some may see as self loathing or unjustified martyrdom), then we ought to respect people’s choice to not be vaccinated. 2.) those who are anti-fetal cells. There are actual many alternative vaccine products that were not developed through the use of fetal cells. Some people use sites like this to consult before getting a vaccine: https://cogforlife.org/. Also the use of fetal cells is not limited to vaccines so some will especially try to avoid products lands by Pepsi, nestle and others. If you have knowledge the cells were used as a necessary step to develop the product and you believe that is immoral, ought you not try to avoid that product? Also I think using anti-vaxx is a disingenuous term to describe those who don’t want the CV19 vax, because it suggests that all vaccines have equal merit, which is absolutely not true. The CV19 vax in novel with new technology, and has no long term data. I think each vaccine should be evaluated on its own merits- so being “anti-vax” has many shades I guess. i understand life is short and time is limited, but some of the people who don’t want the vaccine, haven’t written off all present and future injections to “ I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff.“ (I understand why people say this, you can’t do a deep dive into every new thing in the modern world.) However, Some people have, what I believe to be, legitimate concerns about safety and effectiveness. But our arguments fall on ears of people who “accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff”. So no argument made gains any traction. It doesn’t register because they already made their choice about all injections. Question for you, is there any vaccine product that you wouldn’t take if the AF told you? How many boosters on will you take? Thanks for your civility👍🏼 1
MCO Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 8 minutes ago, glockenspiel said: Good question, also valid! I’d say that there are broadly two separate groups, 1.) the anti-vaxx, who truly do not want any vaccine, ever. I respect their opinions. If I was worried about risk of disease from that person I could just go get the vaccine for the disease they could be carrying and boom I should be good. If we can let Jahovas witnesses refuse blood (which some may see as self loathing or unjustified martyrdom), then we ought to respect people’s choice to not be vaccinated. 2.) those who are anti-fetal cells. There are actual many alternative vaccine products that were not developed through the use of fetal cells. Some people use sites like this to consult before getting a vaccine: https://cogforlife.org/. Also the use of fetal cells is not limited to vaccines so some will especially try to avoid products lands by Pepsi, nestle and others. If you have knowledge the cells were used as a necessary step to develop the product and you believe that is immoral, ought you not try to avoid that product? Also I think using anti-vaxx is a disingenuous term to describe those who don’t want the CV19 vax, because it suggests that all vaccines have equal merit, which is absolutely not true. The CV19 vax in novel with new technology, and has no long term data. I think each vaccine should be evaluated on its own merits- so being “anti-vax” has many shades I guess. i understand life is short and time is limited, but some of the people who don’t want the vaccine, haven’t written off all present and future injections to “ I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff.“ (I understand why people say this, you can’t do a deep dive into every new thing in the modern world.) However, Some people have, what I believe to be, legitimate concerns about safety and effectiveness. But our arguments fall on ears of people who “accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff”. So no argument made gains any traction. It doesn’t register because they already made their choice about all injections. Question for you, is there any vaccine product that you wouldn’t take if the AF told you? How many boosters on will you take? Thanks for your civility👍🏼 As long as I’m the military, I’ll take what they tell me or I’ll get out. Even on the outside I tend to trust the majority of scientists because I think most people want to do the right thing, although I think risks acceptance differs. The military has to always be ready and we lose some freedoms when you join and I think that’s generally understood. Having a significant part of our force challenge something hurts the good order and discipline part. I think there may be a time and place for that but it would have to be pretty severe, like illegal orders. Even the military being low risk you don’t want everyone getting sick at the same time. No one had a problem with annual flu shots before, why would annual COVID shots be different? Last thing is this forum used to be a great place to come and learn things about AF policy coming down the line and getting inside info on stuff from people in the know. Now we spend most of our time arguing a shot and politics that none of us are going to change our mind on. I think it’s true out in the force too. We just need to accept our positions, deal with the consequences of either getting or not getting the vaccine and move on to talking about policies that will affect the younger guys and we can give them advice on, like new pilot training changes, building experienced flyers, changing OPR processes and forms, career expectations without BPZ and opportunities to fly more, or take a command route if you want, IDE changes etc. not waste our time not changing each other’s mind on a vaccine. Just my opinion. 3
pawnman Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 15 hours ago, Standby said: It’s not hypocrisy Aspirin…1899 Advil…1961 Tylenol…1955 Those are the approximate years that each of the medications you listed were developed. Fetal cell testing for developmental purposes didn’t start until late 60s. There is marked difference between developing something with fetal cells, and testing it well after creation for the novelty factor. If someone were to test the effect of aborted fetal cells being placed into a bottle of Aquafina, are we now no longer allowed to consume it based on religious beliefs? Stupid argument man. Yes... none of them has ever been updated or reformulated since.
glockenspiel Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 22 hours ago, MCO said: As long as I’m the military, I’ll take what they tell me or I’ll get out. Even on the outside I tend to trust the majority of scientists because I think most people want to do the right thing, although I think risks acceptance differs. The military has to always be ready and we lose some freedoms when you join and I think that’s generally understood. Having a significant part of our force challenge something hurts the good order and discipline part. I think there may be a time and place for that but it would have to be pretty severe, like illegal orders. Even the military being low risk you don’t want everyone getting sick at the same time. No one had a problem with annual flu shots before, why would annual COVID shots be different? Last thing is this forum used to be a great place to come and learn things about AF policy coming down the line and getting inside info on stuff from people in the know. Now we spend most of our time arguing a shot and politics that none of us are going to change our mind on. I think it’s true out in the force too. We just need to accept our positions, deal with the consequences of either getting or not getting the vaccine and move on to talking about policies that will affect the younger guys and we can give them advice on, like new pilot training changes, building experienced flyers, changing OPR processes and forms, career expectations without BPZ and opportunities to fly more, or take a command route if you want, IDE changes etc. not waste our time not changing each other’s mind on a vaccine. Just my opinion. The CV19 vaccine has way more AEs than the flu shot. These are not similar products at all. See VAERs and tell me they have a similar safety profile. How is readiness preserved if the shot doesn’t prevent transmission? Don’t comment/read this thread if you only want talk about those policies.
pawnman Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, glockenspiel said: The CV19 vaccine has way more AEs than the flu shot. These are not similar products at all. See VAERs and tell me they have a similar safety profile. How is readiness preserved if the shot doesn’t prevent transmission? Don’t comment/read this thread if you only want talk about those policies. How do you people keep arguing the "doesn't prevent transmission" angle? It's not 100%, but it certainly lowers the odds of getting Covid.
Guardian Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 If you don’t know you have covid because the vaccine helps with symptoms, then how can you say that it lowers your odds when you might not know you have it. Again, masks are for the sick or those who have been vaccinated. Not the unvaccinated. Follow the logic.
tac airlifter Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 On 11/1/2021 at 1:31 AM, Waingro said: "I'm hearing talk of..." "A lot of good people are saying..." "It's been said that..." I was hoping this mealy-mouthed bullshít had said farewell, but it's clearly parasitic. So, go on, where did you hear about mandatory booster shots, and from whom? https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-changing-definition-fully-vaccinated hey buddy, you ok? Or still a sheep bitch?
Lord Ratner Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, pawnman said: How do you people keep arguing the "doesn't prevent transmission" angle? It's not 100%, but it certainly lowers the odds of getting Covid. If you were talking about a disease that had low transmission rate, *maybe* you could justify a minor reduction as successful. But you would also have to have a massively high infection fatality rate. Covid-19 is exactly the opposite. "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus. A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time." So no, it does not meaningfully prevent transmission. Should we mandate things for "almost negligible" effects? You do have Google, right? 1 1
Sim Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 Quote Table 19 of the latest report shows that in the week beginning November 6, 773 C-19 hospitalizations were confirmed in Scotland. One hundred thirty-seven cases were among the unvaccinated, and 363 were vaccinated Quote Table 20 of the latest report shows that the week from October 30 has 136 C-19 deaths were confirmed in Scotland. Twenty-one of the cases were among the unvaccinated population, and 115 were among the vaccinated population. It's pandemic of anti-vaxers! - Said USG. 1
Negatory Posted November 21, 2021 Posted November 21, 2021 3 hours ago, Sim said: It's pandemic of anti-vaxers! - Said USG. To be clear, vaccination does reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by on the order of 90%. I mean, check out the percentage of people who are vaccinated in Scotland - virtually everyone at risk/over 60. But you end up with 30% of hospitalizations and 15% of the deaths in the unvaxxed groups - which are extremely small portions of the at risk population. It’s not like 30% of the population is unvaccinated. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58548727.amp A better argument is that we have reached the point of diminishing returns with vaccines and should stop. We have protected the at risk population - CDC reports that 99% of those 65+ are vaccinated. And as has been pointed out, transmission isn’t effectively curtailed, so getting a relatively healthy 25-50 year old to take the shot doesn’t help the population almost at all. 3
Waingro Posted November 22, 2021 Posted November 22, 2021 10 hours ago, tac airlifter said: https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-changing-definition-fully-vaccinated hey buddy, you ok? Or still a sheep bitch? So you cited something that says scientists use emerging data to refine hypotheses? As in, scientists follow the scientific method? Cool, we're in agreement. Calling someone a sheep - tell me you're a Southwest first officer, without telling me you're a Southwest first officer. Question: do you wait for the CA to go on break before you "Let's go Brandon" on guard, or just do it at the gate? 😂 2 1 5
glockenspiel Posted November 22, 2021 Posted November 22, 2021 8 hours ago, Waingro said: So you cited something that says scientists use emerging data to refine hypotheses? As in, scientists follow the scientific method? Cool, we're in agreement. Calling someone a sheep - tell me you're a Southwest first officer, without telling me you're a Southwest first officer. Question: do you wait for the CA to go on break before you "Let's go Brandon" on guard, or just do it at the gate? 😂 ThE fearless leader of ScIENceeee….
pawnman Posted November 22, 2021 Posted November 22, 2021 17 hours ago, Sim said: It's pandemic of anti-vaxers! - Said USG. What's the proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people in the population? This data is useless without knowing what the vaccination rate is. 3
brickhistory Posted November 22, 2021 Posted November 22, 2021 Shooting people for not wanting a mildly effective, yet no long term studies on side-effects or potential problems down the road for an injection that has to be repeated, apparently, ad infinitum. Not to mention these are the exact same tactics used by the BLM protestors, including during Dutch protests, and the authorities let 'em sweep on by with the arson and destruction. Yet being hesitant or resistant to said shot (note, it's not a "vaccine" by the scientific definition until Fauci said otherwise) gets you shot. Either way, the state ensures you get some sort of shot. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/police-netherlands-open-fire-covid-lockdown-protesters-european-nation-rcna6231 Seems legit... 2
tac airlifter Posted November 23, 2021 Posted November 23, 2021 (edited) 23 hours ago, Waingro said: So you cited something that says scientists use emerging data to refine hypotheses? As in, scientists follow the scientific method? Cool, we're in agreement. Quick summary of this conversation: I speculate boosters may become mandatory, you come off the top rope mocking me, but now acknowledge boosters may be mandatory and you’ve forgotten that only 3 weeks ago it was a conspiracy theory. You think I’m a “southwest first officer” (which I assume is bad?), I think you're incapable of critical thought; conversation and compromise is impossible. That’s this whole COVID event in a microcosm. Wish I had an idea of how to move forward productively, but I don’t. From my viewpoint we have to: 1. cease mandates. “Emerging data to refine hypothesis” is fine, except this experiment involves human beings. How about we cease mandates until certain we aren’t making it worse? 2. hold responsible those who lied and abused their power, starting with Fauci and Cuomo and big tech oligarchs who crushed the free speech of doctors trying to help during a pandemic. 3. conduct an origin investigation on par with the 9/11 commission. That’s how we START healing. From his perspective I don’t know, but I’m guessing we get boosters every 6 months, ask no questions, and mock those who do. Our nation has irreconcilable differences and I fear for the future. Edited November 23, 2021 by tac airlifter 1 7
dudebro Posted November 23, 2021 Posted November 23, 2021 We must protect the protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to protect themselves with protection that doesn't protect the protected in the first place. It's got what plants crave. 1 3 4 1
bennynova Posted November 23, 2021 Posted November 23, 2021 https://lc.org/newsroom/details/112221-military-under-a-microscope-and-federal-employees-entitled-to-religious-exemption-1
FLEA Posted November 23, 2021 Posted November 23, 2021 21 minutes ago, bennynova said: https://lc.org/newsroom/details/112221-military-under-a-microscope-and-federal-employees-entitled-to-religious-exemption-1 The AF has denied several thousand religious accomodations but not one has been denied on religious grounds. Every single denial has recognized the Airmen's religious concerns as being genuine, but the MAJCOM commander denies the request anyway due to "operational considerations." A few of the letters are floating on the amn/nco/snco FB. The appeal process goes through the AF/SG, but it must be evaluated in context of the reason of the denial, not in the religious context. So based on the above article and narrative it would sound that the plaintiffs in that case are correct, the DoD never had any intention of allowing religious accomodations which would potentially be in violation of federal laws. Curious if anyone knows, if all the above is true, and you held a letter from your MAJCOM commander that recognized your religious views as genuine, what do you think declaring consciousness objector status would lead to? Seems like a pretty big knot to untangle, especially if you gave 10,000 or so people do it at once.
Recommended Posts