People litigate all sorts of things today. One would think that leaving the ship and holding salary and rank would be sufficient. It’s not like he has any future in the service after this bs.
This is true for every army (served in Israeli army). Everyone gets the shots. No exceptions. If you have a medical reason not to then you can be in the disabled units in the backoffice.
Not a servicemember, but the framing from someone who was: while you're a member of the US armed forces, your body is the property of the US Government.
Of course they are. You are in the army because you want to be in the army, together with all the pris and cons.
You must be ready to kill someone in a country in Africa (pick anything here) because the govt said so. You know this when you join.
You can die there too, and you know that too. This is why I do not particularly care about the military kills in such a war until someone does not celebrate the same way the guy who killed himself serving in mountain rescue, to save someone else.
This person should likely not be a CO if they refuse to get the COVID vaccine. They are indicating that they refuse benign orders purely because they have some philosophical objection to them. What kind of example does that set?
> It’s not philosophical- side effect risk for men under 40 is non trivial and if you have had COVID you already have some immunity.
It's philosophical:
> The issues stem from [a lawsuit](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/02... ) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida late last year alleging servicemembers’ rights are being infringed upon by the COVID vaccine mandate because their religious beliefs prevent them from taking the vaccine.
From that link in the quote:
> “Through much prayer and reflection, Plaintiffs have sought wisdom, understanding, and guidance on the proper decisions to make concerning these COVID-19 vaccines, and Plaintiffs have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that accepting any of the three currently available vaccines is against the teachings of Scripture and would be a sin,” according to a Florida lawsuit first filed in late 2021, then amended on Feb. 7 with additional plaintiffs.
Religious exemptions are the most plausible legal argument so it isn’t surprising that’s what will be filed - I should have known that was the alleged reason though, I responded hastily to the claim the request to get vaccinated is “benign” (it isn’t.)
It would be sad to consider service-members making a fraudulent-claim to disobey orders.
I mean, if they sincerely believed that they were created by a God and intended to follow God's laws, forcing them to refuse orders that they'd otherwise have complied with, then that'd be one thing. But if they're merely insubordinate and lying because they know the law wouldn't agree with them, then that'd seem different.
Anyway, you're right that it'ld seem like an over-statement to call the vaccines "benign" in an absolute sense. Strange to think of service-members as being afraid of potential risks of that magnitude, though, if they'd voluntarily joined to serve in the armed-forces.
I guess part of me kinda hopes that they're sincerely religious, as the alternative would seem distasteful. However, if they're just lying, then I suppose I'd speculate that they're making decisions based on political-ideology rather than a true understanding of the issues involved. For example, I'd be skeptical that most of them had even read a single academic-article on vaccines, much less be equipped to understand its contents.
I'd be surprised if religious exemptions fly as far as people would think. How many vaccines have they had up until that point? Hell, how many did they have in the first two weeks of service. Lying about what makes this one different doesn't strike me as a winning move.
Philosophical in the broad sense includes practically everything: religion, mathematics, the sciences (as since it is an interpretation of the senses, coupled with philosophical assumptions such as "the scientific method likely leads to truth").
But what I meant here is philosophy in the narrow sense. Religion includes revaluation, a discussion of theology. (again, not to say that philosophy and theology don't interact: they do. see philosophical theology).
Unfortunately we still do not understand the mechanism of action nor the underlying cellular consequences. (Subclinical cases obviously are not measurable, and clinical resolutions may not mean no permanent damage.) Here is a study where autopsies were done on teenagers who appear to have died from the vaccine induced myocarditis.
It could go either way imo: we may find only a small number of people were harmed, or we may find that thousands of young men now have subclinical heart damage that they need to monitor and make lifestyle choices to address. I suspect we will know more in the next year, but in any case this radically alters the bioethics of mandates.
I can't edit my parent comment, just want to say thanks for your later comments, and citing sources.
I was of the impression (and, tbh, am still under the suspicion..) that any myocarditis risk was "noise" -- not noticeably higher than that in the larger population, or that reported cases have confounding factors that would suggest the vaccine is not the cause.
That being said, I think the more interesting question is what constitutes non-trivial medical risk. 1 in 10k is really small, especially for a medical treatment.
It doesn’t constitute noise if you control for males under 40, especially Moderna. Early on this would have potentially just been data mining, but it’s been replicated and has also led to pulling Moderna for those age groups in some countries. 1 in 10k isn’t a massive risk, but when taken in conjunction with the mandates making the population this is administered in to be “all living humans” then the absolute numbers get very concerning imo, esp if you think there may be more subclinical cases than we think.
> if you control for males under 40, especially Moderna
Fascinating! Thanks. (to be pedantic, my emphasis on the word "was", meant to convey that my opinion was changing)
I was gonna ask "do you have a source on that?" but was able to find this in JAMA w/o much effort: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
which states in no uncertain terms that "The rates of myocarditis cases were... in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years .. 105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine", sure enough, 1 in ~10k.
I think it's also important to note, just for larger context -- not attacking or negating anything you've said -- that that cohort (16-17yo males) is the most extreme, it's down to 1 in ~20k once you include up to age 24. Across the whole population it becomes closer to 1 in 200k.
Myocarditis is by no means "no impact" and certainly if you get it, complications are the least of your worries. Here's a blog post about the relative risks by a doctor:
"And myocarditis is a serious disease, make no mistake. Lately, I’ve been hearing this sentence alot: “but the myocarditis caused by the covid vaccines is mild!”. I’d never heard of “mild” myocarditis pre-covid. Pre-covid, myocarditis was always considered a serious disease. What the people saying this mean is that the patients admitted to hospital with myocarditis after vaccination are usually able to go home after a few days, and don’t generally end up in an ICU. Which is true.
But we don’t say that most heart attacks are “mild” just because they don’t result in a stay in an ICU, and just because the patient is usually able to leave the hospital within a week. A heart attack is a heart attack, and is by definition serious. The same goes for myocarditis. Our heart muscles are not very good at repairing themselves, and it is impossible to know today the extent to which an episode of vaccine induced myocarditis increases the person’s future risk of serious long-term complications, such as chronic heart failure or atrial fibrillation.
So, myocarditis is always serious, regardless of whether it puts you in an ICU or not, and we need to know whether the risk of myocarditis caused by the vaccines is greater than the risk caused by infection."
That’s a counterpoint to some arguments like “if it’s March 2021 and you’re 40 you should not get shot one” but not ones like “we should be concerned about vaccine side effects from Moderna” and “if you’ve caught COVID and you’re a 20 year old male it is unethical to mandate the vaccine and perhaps unwise to take it to prevent BA.2”
If we're talking about relative personal risk assessment, you need to incorporate natural immunity, omicron, the waning effect of the vaccines, demographic skew on both sides of this, uncertainty about the mechanism and scope of side effects, and a bunch of other things beyond dividing two numbers together.
1/10,000 men develop a medical problem from taking a vaccine.
Around 2/10,000 men die from not having access to the vaccine (I don't have the data, but I imagine most of those under 40 men died unvaccinated based on this [0])
You can mental gymnastics all you want about 'personal risk,' and 'natural immunity,' but at least agree that's not a data-driven approach.
- Vaccine induced heart damage is more likely in younger men
- The vaccine induced immunity drops off after 5 months due to waning + evolutionary pressure
- Natural immunity of a prior infection confers protection towards BA.X
I'm not doing any mental gymnastics. I stated specifically: your counterargument is one for some arguments, not others. I am illustrating clearly when what you wrote is not a meaningful counterargument if it is being used to persuade someone to get vaccinated or to justify a mandate when, for example, that person is a young, healthy man who has already had COVID.
Now go ahead and reply again with another thinly veiled insult, citing broad, long term statistics and dividing two numbers. It reflects poorly on you.
And soldiers are heavily trained to try and avoid getting killed, especially by friendly fire. People seem to think there's some contradiction here, but there isn't. Nobody wants to unnecessarily run the risk of being injured, perhaps permanently, by their own side.
And it is unnecessary. COVID was already almost always mild for people outside of risk groups like the elderly (who aren't serving in the military anyway), and Omicron just took that mildness to another level. It just isn't necessary for this CO to get vaccinated against Omicron, especially as the vaccine effectiveness has gone negative i.e. not only can they get it anyway after vaccination but they're actually more likely to.
The myocarditis from COVID and vaccines plausibly have separate prognoses (we don’t even know much about either) but in any case for this population some studies have shown the risk is higher of this specific symptom for both mRNA vaccines.
Neither does the vaccine. Natural immunity is more protective vs omicron, at least according to some studies. The best combo of course is a post infection vaccination, but the vaccine wears off after 5 months anyway.
I don't think refusal of an injection of a substance into one's body is purely "philosophical" (nor do I think it's reasonable to judge such an injection as purely "benign"). I also think each person should have full agency over their body and what is done to it, and any violation thereof is a pretty fundamental human rights concern. That said, I imagine the military should be able to reassign the CO to a different role/location/etc. (not in a punitive way, but in an accommodating way). The currently-widespread invalidation of peoples' right to bodily autonomy honestly blows my mind, and how little employers do to accommodate this is super disappointing to me.
We're talking about the military, here. When you enlist, you cede most control over your health (including what and when to eat, when you can and cannot sleep, and yes even drugs) to such an extent that you accept that your orders may get you maimed or killed.
I'm not saying I would take that deal, but the person in the article did. If he can't comply, he should be discharged. Simple as that.
It's incredible the tolerance for antisocial behavior these days. There are people who will still burn trash amidst the worst consequences of climate change because "only myself matters" attitudes. They want to enjoy the fruits of society without social responsibility.
> It's incredible the tolerance for antisocial behavior these days.
Protecting one's body and exercising one's individual rights is not antisocial behavior. Just want to make that crystal clear. And nobody has the right to force you to inject anything into your body. Especially the government. Erich Fromm wrote the masses have a slavish need for authority and most people are incapable of being true free individuals. I really didn't believe until covid. You saw bits of it during the start of iraq war, but not to this degree.
Wrong. American fetishization of individualism is a sickness that is literally rotting our society by causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Causing people to die is pretty much the absolute most anti social thing someone can do. Sure, no one has the right to force you to take a vaccine, but society absolutely has the right to completely exclude you if you are making decisions that are causing people to die.
The vaccine does not and has never stopped infection or spread. Therefore there is quite simply no collectivist argument for vaccination even if we accept the premise that everyone should be forced to blindly trust authorities against their will, which we should not (perhaps military service is an exception to that, but it's not due to philosophical objections to individualism given that said military is usually deployed in defence of it).
In fact, when raw rate data is published (e.g. by England) what you see is that vaccination starts to actually increase the risk of infection after some months, not decrease it! This article has an in-depth analysis of the UK data along with animations of their graphs so you can see the evolution over time:
The cause appears to be a form of immune imprinting, in which the vaccine trains the immune system to make antibodies against the original Wuhan strain spike, then Omicron comes along with a very different spike but otherwise looking kinda similar and the immune system misfires. It builds antibodies as it was trained to, instead of ones that will work, and then it takes a while to notice what's going on. In that time period you've become more badly infected than an unvaccinated person would have done. It turns out that this has happened many times before with vaccines; it's not a given that vaccines definitely cause lower rates of infection or sickness.
This would appear incompatible with initially high effectiveness, but when examined closely that appears to be a set of nasty statistical artifacts (invalid assumptions underlying TNCC study design + immortal time bias). Therefore it might not actually be real. The UK data shows evidence that these problems exist in their data, and the UK HSA is unusually thorough. Data from Alberta that they published and then swiftly deleted when it was realized what it meant, also backed this theory up. Certainly the trials couldn't show benefits even for 3rd doses pre-Omicron, so they had to be approved on the basis of elevated antibody levels rather than clinical outcomes (which is backwards - putting the cart before the horse). The fact that most countries had by far their largest waves after vaccinating most of their population is suggestive that the negative effectiveness might actually have been there from the start, but hidden.
How do you protect others from your decision? Surely you're not planning to live alone to protect others, specially vulnerable people, from a preventable risk?
Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.
Can you at least agree that others also have a right to not be sick because of your selfish decisions?
Before the vaccines, people were dying because hospitals were saturated, it's clearly turned for the better after them, because people can still get infected and spread it, but their viral charge is mild. COVID can't be eradicated because there are animal reservoirs, but having people stubbornly refuse to vaccinate means they are like we were at the start of the pandemic, forming a permanent human reservoir breeding new mutations, because politics.
> I think the second is more compatible with the United States. We are guaranteed individual liberties.
Sorry but this has never been the case. I mean when the country was founded slavery was perfectly legal. The enslaved people would certainly argue that the US did not hold individual rights to the highest standard.
Not to mention the first president literally did exactly what we're doing now [1]
I'm not going to reason your argument because I've noticed it never works. I think you also want the things you're listing, but what is your core reason to refuse the vaccine?
- You distrust the medical science of vaccines?
- You distrust the data showing the current effect of mass vaccination?
- Is it truly about individualism, or religion?
- Does it have to do with politics and those damned democrats?
- Because the governments didn't ask nicely?
Remember that we're trying to stop deaths, not infections. It would be awesome if we could stop infections, but COVID mutates. Nevertheless, deaths have decreased sharply among the vaccinated population.
It's because we live in a corporate marketing curated hellscape of "rugged individual" libertarian consumerist zombies who have zero community awareness or empathy, drooling their way through their own exploitation while screeching about freedom.
This argument is more colorable when not applied to people who signed a contract that says you must follow all orders given to you by the president or others in the chain of command. Those orders might include literal suicide missions, or exposure to chemical, biological, or nuclear hazards.
> This argument is more colorable when not applied to people who signed a contract that says you must follow all orders given to you by the president or others in the chain of command
Nobody has signed such a contract.
The orders must be lawful, and not unreasonably interfere with personal matters. Manual for Courts-Martial (2019 ed.), Part IV, para. 16.c.(2)(a)(iv).
Your argument would be stronger if there were better evidence that the vaccine was significantly effective at preventing infection rather than ameliorating its course.
Granted, this is an officer, but I assume it's close enough to the DD-4 language (officer vs enlisted isn't an issue afaik in this case):
>FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES:
I understand that many laws, regulations, and military customs will govern
my conduct and require me to do things under this agreement that a civilian
does not have to do. I also understand that various laws, some of which are
listed in this agreement, directly affect this enlistment/reenlistment
agreement. Some examples of how existing laws may affect this agreement
are explained in paragraphs 10 and 11. I understand that I cannot change
these laws but that Congress may change these laws, or pass new laws, at
any time that may affect this agreement, and that I will be subject to those
laws and any changes they make to this agreement. I further understand
that:
a. My enlistment/reenlistment agreement is more than an employment
agreement. It effects a change in status from civilian to military member of
the Armed Forces. As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
I will be:
(1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.
(2) Subject to separation during or at the end of my enlistment. If my
behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards, I may be discharged
and given a certificate for less than honorable service, which may hurt my
future job opportunities and my claim for veteran's benefits.
(3) Subject to the military justice system, which means, among other
things, that I may be tried by military courts-martial.
(4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.
(5) Entitled to receive pay, allowances, and other benefits as provided by
law and regulation.
b. Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change
without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances,
benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces
REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/ reenlistment document.
and the oath:
>I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the
orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God.
I work remote for a small firm and so have never grappled with the issue of a religious exemption, but a close friend did at his Federal contractor employer:
- Fetal Cell Tissue, apparently there is some use of it in the development pipeline such that quite a few contemporary religions can use that as an out.
- Mark of the Beast, given how forceful government have been (varying on location), one could make the argument that this represents the Revelations concept of being forced into some system of submission to Satan in order to live and so it is their duty as good Christians to resist this.
Regarding the first point, I’m not sure if any other DOD related vaccines fall into this category but one could argue their religious beliefs came after their initial military indoctrination.
Regarding the second point, the existence of a religious exemption somewhat weakens the argument but then again one could claim that the battle against Satan is ongoing and the system incomplete.
Surely the military forces you to carry identification papers and present such ID in many circumstances. That seems obvious from an OPsec perspective. My father served in the forces and would also readily rattle off their social security number (another 'mark of the beast') to any government official. It's just what they do in the forces.
Who is to say the social security number is or isn’t the mark of the beast?
I’ve yet to hear of anyone kicked out of a store in the western liberal order for lack of one. On the other hand, the Covid shot yes. You’re perhaps forgetting one of the key elements to the story is not just “a mark” but that it is required for your ability to operate in life.
That my undocumented school mates had no trouble getting by in life and attaining meaningful work post graduation would contraindicate the SSN being “the mark,” it wasn’t required to rhat degree.
Then again someone may come along and argue IT IS the mark but they just haven’t finished implementing that system yet.
Interpretation of religious texts is fun that way.
There are quite a few things you can't participate in without a SSN or some equivalent in the US. Public school is not one of those because at the very least, voters have been convinced we shouldn't be cruel to children in that way.
The first objection looks pretty sensible, if properly backed with proof.
The second, in contrast, is incredibly ambiguous, as the mark of the beast can be anything, even abstractions. The measles vaccine actually leaves a mark, and it had little opposition, if at all.
Religion can be anything because religion is imaginary, and that's fine. It's cool as long as you keep it in your head, it's not cool when you use it to justify antisocial behavior.
If I create a religion that says corpses are holy, I'm still not allowed to keep dead animals in my backyard because it fosters disease. "BuT Im noT gEtTinG sIcK" wouldn't fly.
All in all, it’s not anyone’s place to play religious scholar with anyone else’s belief system or to demand hard proof either. Personally, I haven’t found a sect that really matches with my reading and understanding of scripture. So how do you validate that?
As for the second, no one said the “mark” has to be a literal mark. Many sects of many religions view large parts of scripture as allegorical or good general teachings for a coherent (if not imperfect, particularly based on modern secular norms) society.
No to be overly accusatory, but this all reminds me a bit of a young, agnostic me. The “well what about turning the other cheek” type of gotcha comment that ignores scripture that provides deeper context or contextual “contradiction.”
We live in a large and diverse world, and religion is ultimately a human system. We’re just never going to be able to nail it down to an instruction set as we may desire to do.
There's no need to validate anyone's beliefs, only their actions. You can't claim that your personal beliefs exempt you from taxes and get away with it, for example. Your beliefs are your own inner world, but the outer world still exists and you're accountable to it.
Actually, you can claim that your beliefs exempt you from taxes and get away with it, but the privilege is negotiated in the real world with real influences.
I believe your tax example reveals your ignorance of the Amish and their place in American society.
My friend, I mean no disrespect but you remind me of a younger me. I was a teenage agnostic, but the politics were too convenient...
I’m sure you want folks to take a medical treatment you believe will help them and others but we live in a diverse society that makes affordances for religious belief as a core pillar of our society.
Whether or not you want that to be so is not germane to the issue of how one, here and now, is presented with an exemption from an otherwise mandatory government edict.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but the only taxes the Amish don't pay are services they have been specifically exempt from paying (FICA, because their religion has a specific obligation to take care of their elderly) and taxes that come through state usage fees like driver's licenses. They pay federal and state income taxes, property taxes, and any other tax that comes along with those.
All you have to do is ask if they're being consistent.
If they've taken all the vaccinations to this point but suddenly have an issue with this particular vaccine, then it's not a religious thing. Personally, I don't feel like it should matter whether a belief is fundamentally religious or not. The thing that matters is that a person believes it.
That said, if they aren't being consistent, then there's no reason to take them seriously.
Sure, if you catch them in an lie it’s clear something is amiss. If one argued against Fetal Cell development and asked off for an abortion (or used some other product) then you get to mail them to the proverbial cross.
Now, how much time must elapse before a religious change is true and sincere? A hard question to determine. For many, all it takes is a rock bottom moment in their life.
Either that or you make the legal argument that your freedom of religion ends at the tip of my nose. Seeing as the larger the group of unvaccinated get, the more danger we are all in, I don't think that would be a difficult argument to make.
All those drugs existed, approved and became generic before fetal cell research emerged. If one drug manufacturer decides to do FCR on asprin that doesn't invalidate all asprin, just that manufacturer's. For a new product the logic is different. This product exists because of FCR and is forever tainted unless it is recreated using clean room design.
Now, you might disagree with this logic, and that's your prerogative. But also irrelevant outside of an honest attempt to persuade a person otherwise. It's their conscious.
> the existence of a religious exemption somewhat weakens the argument
So because there is an out built into the system, it can't be the literal embodiment of evil some argue, therefore no one should be allowed to use the out? I feel like this argument is self-defeating.
For the mark of the beast side, as a good Christian, he should not be fighting for Satan's(the US government) navy? It'd make a lot more sense for him to leave the military altogether
Thank you for asking in a way that is not derogatory unlike many of the comments here. There are two reasons generally. I am a Christian, and morally natural to the vaccine.
The first (and rarely claimed as the reason) is the mark of the beast interpretation in Revelation. Interpreting much of Revelation is hard, whether the mark is metaphorical or actual, and what the mark is, and what the beast is, are all questions with not extremely clear answers.
The second, and by far the most claimed reason, is the use of fatal tissues in testing, developing, or producing the vaccine. Here, Christians consider supporting and taking this vaccine is similar to supporting abortion. In a similar way, one might think that buying products produced by child labor is supporting child labor, or that eating meat is supporting animal cruelty.
The same Christians who do not support covid vaccine for the second reason, might be fine with taking other vaccines, even if they were developed by aborted tissues. The main reason here is that it has been such a long time between the development and today that taking the vaccine is not a support of such behavior. Similarly, one today might use ride a volkswagon beetle without being considered a supporter of nazi, even though it was developed by the nazi.
Some Christians see that the vaccine is good despite of using fatal tissues, because they see that there is no alternative to preventing getting covid, and so it is permissible in this exceptional circumstance.
There is none. All leaders of the worlds’ major religions support the COVID vaccine, anyone who claims religious exemption is either lying or part of some fringe religion.
Theoretically someone could have a religious awakening after they joined the military. I know someone who had a life saving blood transfusion after a nasty car accident, who later became a JW and now says he regrets the transfusion and would refuse it in the future if he needed another one.
If the article is accurate, this is a surprisingly ridiculous position of the judge and court. The commander has rights to not be forced to take a vaccine but what right does he have to lead a ship? I'm surprised the Navy needs a reason to reassign him. He disobeyed orders and endangers his fellow shipmates. Why he does that (supposedly religion) is immaterial to his being reassigned due to disobedience and endangerment.
Could you imagine not being able to reassign a pilot because their "religion" prevents them from losing weight or getting corrective eye surgery?
Yeah. I never served, but my understanding, both from common sense and an acquaintance who did is that you have to follow orders, or lose your job.
How in the world are we supposed to have an effective military if we can't rely on the bedrock principles of following orders and respecting the chain of command? I don't know which to be more upset with, the officer or the activist judiciary.
I agree that service members shouldn't follow illegal orders, especially including orders that amount to war crimes. Comparing an attention hungry American officer trying to make a political point to Russia using cluster bombs on civilians feels a bit of a stretch to me though. Perhaps Godwin's law even. ;-)
I agree with you that he cannot be forced to take the vaccine, and in the military, they could just reassign him, or should be able to. It was irresponsible for him not to get tested, but now that he has had COVID, he is the same if not less dangerous to his crew than vaccinated crew members. I am not vaccinated, and my coworkers have contracted COVID twice after being vaccinated and boosted. I know my natural immunity will keep me from having a severe second bout, but it's interesting that at 57 years old, I have not gotten it and three younger, fit, vaccinated and boosted people around me have. Neither has my recovered family gotten COVID since our infection over a year ago. And we all test well-above the antibody test minimum for positive by an order of magnitude. Look Ma, no booster! That and the two studies showing the spike protein does enter the cell nucleus in vitro (like a study over 6 months ago also showed also in vitro) makes feel more comfortable with my decision not to get vaccinated. A lot of stuff coming to the surface now that things are turning back to normal somewhat. People were scrambling to vaccinate their 5 to 11 year-old children, and now it's shown to drop to 12% effectiveness after only 30 days. A low risk group, with an ineffective vaccine, with potential to enter their adapting bodies and potentially be worse for them in the short and far term (cancer 10 years down the road, fertility issues, etc., who knows?) I don't think the black-and-white, ignore-the-naturally-immune-chant of, "pandemic of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated" holds much water now, and people forget rather than learn, while their lords make money and do as they please. Pfizer's sure done well for itself as the once-most-mistrusted pharmacy company in one of the biggest mistrusted market (big pharma). Who can blame this CO?
The Constitution says that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Commanders have been ordering their subordinates to get vaccines going all the way back to George Washington and it's unprecedented for courts to question the power of the president to do that. It's no more of an infringement than ordering an officer into battle when their is a nonzero risk of being killed is. It's part of what he signed up for.
In the past, soldiers who didn't want to accept a required vaccine were removed from service.
Read my first sentence. I agree he can be reassigned. I am not arguing the military having the right to I belonged to a volunteer military boys club in my pre-teens, and I went to military school for four years looking for a scholarship, since I grew up below the poverty line. I did what was told, believe me. That was many years ago with George Washington. These vaccines do not have any long-term safety data; they cannot, since they are too new. The current president ignored natural immunity, while I think good Ol' George wouldn't have especially after +140m Americans have it for sure if not more. I do hope and pray it is safe in the long run, since my older children were left with little choice by their respective universities. And that was after they both got COVID from me. My daughter worked on the front lines as an EMT and an urgent care provider during the whole start of the pandemic. Don't they allow all sorts of accommodation for gender identity and sexual reassignment? Certainly not the military of years ago, so maybe this is good change unless you think the days of good Ol' George were easy living.
Religious rights don't trump everything. Try going to prison and claiming your religion requires you to wear a burqa at all times and see how far you get.
I got a friend who was forced to take the anthrax vaccine as an enlisted going into Iraq.
Anthrax vaccine is well known for pretty severe side effects too. It's not like the COVID-19 vaccine at all. But the military has a long tradition of force protection measures like this.
Honestly, this comes off more like some entitled officer thinking they have more sway than they actually do.
So the new precedent would be that you can refuse an order in the military if you think that order might cause you harm? Seems like that might not work out well.
I'm not making an argument, I'm simply addressing the parent comment. Perhaps the status quo in question is whether forcing service members to take a vaccine (totally lawful) is justified in this case. Even the CDC director is openly admitting that pushing these brand new vaccines so aggressively was "overly optimistic."
Again, not making an argument here, just pointing out that the status quo in the military for _these specific vaccines_ may change as a result of a shifting political landscape, and a lawsuit like this may well be the avenue.
So wait, how is a Florida judge allowed jurisdiction here? Isn't the military under the UCMJ [1]? In my day, this kind of clown would have been drummed out of service before you could say "dishonorable discharge".
What the government will have to prove, in both cases, is that while it’s granted thousands of medical and administrative exemptions ― though many of those are temporary ― that the high bar for approval of religious exemptions is necessary for keeping the force healthy and deployable.
Basically, the military has a mechanism to offer exemption to vaccination for various circumstances. There's an argument being made that their mechanism for exemption on religious grounds is too high.
While these arguments are ongoing, the military is being told they cannot discharge the CO, which is where this article comes in. Ultimately, this decision probably doesn't matter since this will quickly escalate to a federal appeal at which point the decision is obvious. Florida can say what it wants in the meantime.
> It's not a Florida judge, it's a Federal judge in the US District Court.
And yet, the US District Judge is still not a military judge.
This is a military matter and should be left to the military courts and judges that are well versed in military law. Let the federal courts handle federal laws, let local courts handle local laws, and let military courts handle military laws.
From what I gathered, the lawsuit is asserting that the US Navy is not abiding by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I understand this to be outside the scope of a court-martial, as this is federal law and not from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I'd like to think this is only an issue during peacetime.
During wartime, I would assume the violation would either be ignored or the officer would be immediately court martialed and next in command would take over.
He's only still in command due to a judicial ruling temporarily preventing the navy from taking action. He had already been relieved of command but the judge reinstated him. It's doubly sticky because it was a civilian court. Generally speaking the military can issue a lot of orders that are not allowable under civilian law. Like mandatory vaccinations.
This is one of those ambiguous arguments that can be made either way. I got both Pfizer shots and the booster. But, with all of the ruckus surrounding Covid and the vaccines, I'll fall short of condemning other views.
Those wanting to toss all dissenters out of the service need to ask themselves how much risk they're interested in eating.
Ukraine is no maritime conflict, but there is significant potential for one on the far end of the Asian continent.
Indeed, future historians may come to deem this vaccine fracas as somehow related to all of the military goings-on.
Maybe a few years from now that might work when they find out it does cause long-term health issues. Two new studies showing the spike does enter liver cells in vitro. An older study found the same, and it was ignored, and slighted by social media and government stooges. Will you be afraid if cancer rates triple in all populations of the vaccinated in 5 to 7 years? this is my fear. I had COVID, and I have natural immunity. My current wife and my younger kids did not get vaccinated due to having recovered from COVID. My older kids got COVID along with us, but both decided to get vaccinated to attend university. There are no long-term safety studies. There can't be. The vaccine is not old enough. I hope it all goes away, but I will never trust the likes of Big Pharma when they are making $38bn each year pushing a "one size fis all" regimen on all age and risk groups. If you are not diabetic, obese, over 65, or have other immuno-compromising conditions, you are not at as much risk as an obese, diabetic twenty-something with a BMI of 40 or over. And the 5-11 year-old vax is only 12% effective after 30 days. How they hell can they push it on ads and everywhere preying on parents' fears with good conscience? It's criminal.
> If you are not diabetic, obese, over 65, or have other immuno-compromising conditions, you are not at as much risk as an obese, diabetic twenty-something with a BMI of 40 or over.
That's not true. Age is by far the most important risk factor, way more important than comorbidities. A healthy 50 year old is much more likely to die than an obese diabetic 20 yo. Look at the actual risk factor charts instead of listening to Joe Rogan kind propaganda (if you are fit, eat healthy and exercise you have nothing to worry).
Diabetes doubles your death risk, as does every 5 years of age. So a 30 year age gap increases your death risk 2^6=64 times versus a healthy 20 yo and 32 times versus a diabetic 20 yo.
To put it in other words, comorbidities are a linear risk, while age is an exponential risk. It quickly overcomes everything else.
Citations please, and I prefer data I can process rather than being shown limited pretty charts, especially by the CDC. The CDC is more of a propaganda machine than Joe Rogan in my book. Joe Rogan does not claim to be an expert; he actually says don't take his advice. He says he is a comedian and fight commentator and sometimes knucklehead. How is that propaganda? You can't legislate intelligence or censor to protect unintelligent people. I enjoy watching his show and I don't take it for more than a conversation between two people on interesting topics that leads me to look into it more if I am interested. Let people discuss and make mistakes, and let's learn in open dialogue, not curated 'wisdom' from experts. How many times has the narrative changed over the past two years on COVID origins (lab leak anyone?), masking, biodistribution of the spike protein, and now finally the CDC's reluctant recognition of natural immunity? On the other hand, the CDC operates from a position of implied authority and issues guidelines for things like masking and has not conducted one RCT study with thousands of employees working on COVID. They have not released data for fear of misinterpretation! They have withheld serology surveillance data. Why? It might show enough people already had COVID and ruin their girl scout cookie drive of mRNA vaccines. They ignored the very obvious robustness and effectiveness of natural immunity for over a year to carry forward the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" political slogan. That's propaganda. The CDC did not release data on booster shot effectiveness in 18–49-year-olds, only older people. Why? Think about it. They pushed vaccines for 5–11-year-old, while the rest of the world took more cautious steps with their young. Now, we find that the child vaccine drops to 12% effectiveness after 30 days! I am so glad I didn't rush my young ones to get it or buy into the CDC as my only source of information to help me make decisions for me and my children. They already had COVID along with me and my wife, so we'll stick with our natural immunity. I am 57 and was pretty fit until I gained a little weight, and COVID was like a flu without all the mucous for me. My kids had one night of fever and were out of it for a day, two most after it. I come from a working-class family, my wife is from the sawas (rice fields) of East Java, Indonesia, and my kids are trim and fit. There is not one mortality from COVID in my immediate family and peer group who've had COVID. I know this is anecdotal, but I like to sum it up like this: If you have trouble making a flight of stairs, you'll have trouble if you get COVID. The six-year-old girl who made headlines because she died of COVID was said to have no health issues by the media and her parents. The photo showed a young girl, poor soul, with three chins and obviously very overweight. How this gets overlooked or not included in the article is a disservice. It stirs up fear in parents and overlooks the obvious - propaganda.
> Diabetes doubles your death risk, as does every 5 years of age.
The older you are, the closer you are to the life expectancy for your category, even without COVID. And a man who is categorized as having died from COVID at age 78 or 80 is already past the 76.1 life expectancy for an American male. No natural immunity for that. Exercise helps, but only to a point. Meanwhile obesity can be turned around with diet, sleep, and exercise or activity. I lived in SE Asia for 6-plus years, just after SARS-CoV-1 and during the MERS breakout. Before that the word pandemic was used to speak of the obesity problem in America, which finally came to roost during COVID-19.
From just using a few risk calculators (here's one [1]) from reputable institutions and schools I am seeing almost equal risk for a fit 50-year-old (height: 6'-0", weight 178 lbs.) vs. a 20 year-old (same height, weight: 320 lbs.) and Type-2 diabetes with the 20-year-old slightly worse off. If it were simply the exponential math you posited, they should be several factors of risk apart, but they're not.
CNN and other media using the disparaging term, "horse medicine" for Ivermectin because a few people ripped off or bought the dose prepared for an animal vs. the prescribed dose for a human is blatant politics and propaganda. Ivermectin has a longer safety record, and up to recently, more doses given than the novel mRNA vaccines. An older study was discounted because they say it appeared to help people against COVID when it was due to making them healthier by deworming them. However, now there is a large study (drawn from a pool of 44 healthcare institutions and over 60 million patients from the U.S. to produce a controlled study) "There were a total of 1,761,060 possible COVID-19 patients based on ICD-10 diagnostic terms and confirmatory lab results.", showing it is more effective than the much more expensive Remdesivir[2]. Of course, Forbes headlines a contrary study, "Ivermectin Doesn’t Help Covid Patients, Study Finds" from Malaysia with only 500 subjects. Hmmm...who's the propagandist now?
I've also been told from doctor friends that because doctors are seeing an increasingly obese patient, they are not coding for obesity as much due to familiarity and moving the bar, and fear of shaming people or getting accused of it. I wonder when the CDC finally releases the data with age, comorbidities, ethnicity, serology surveillance, and COVID deaths and hospitalizations, instead of their single comparisons of Age and COVID mortality [3] for example, what data mungers will uncover.
If his objection is a religiously derived moral, as opposed to a religious taboo, that wouldn't work. You can physically insert it into him, but he would not be morally at fault since it wasn't his action.
This would be like physically grabbing his hand and forcing it to slap his fellow prisoner with it. Obviously the person who slapped the prisoner isn't the CO but the captor.
Imagine if a soldier refused to shoot a gun or wear body armor when ordered to do so because it interfered with their beliefs. Neither side of the aisle, even the most anti-gun one, would tolerate their antics, and there would be no sympathetic judge shielding them from consequences.
Folks in many militaries claim pacifism, and I understand this to be not uncommon in US forces during conscription. They’d end up being medics or similar roles.
There's a large difference between conscientious objectors in a draft and professional service members who join up voluntarily understanding the expectations of them.
They are still citizens. There is a contract between the service member and the government. The service member does not lose their rights or citizenship or any of that, but they do agree in contract to do certain things such as following the legal orders of those appointed above them, and adhering to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (an additional set of laws for the military members).
Presumably, someone has done a threat assessment and resolved that a single man without a covid shot is more of a threat than being down an entire ship during wartime with a nuclear superpower.
The issue is the court order prevents that. This is the whole problem; that the office cannot be dishonorably discharged for disobeying a lawful order (get this preventative medical care, just like the other 500 vaccines they give everyone).
I do, Fauci says nothing that contradicts this. People with breakthrough infections spread similarly to unvaccinated people, yes. But the majority of vaccinated people do not experience breakthrough infection. And people who are not infected do not spread the disease.
Your article is from October. Omicron basically nuked the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection. (It’s not a zero, but it is extremely weakened esp without a recent booster.)
Even if the vaccine _only_ protected the recipient (from severe illness and death), it would still be in the Navy's interest (and authority) to require sailors to receive it before deployments. This is no different than all the other preventative care non-civilians submit to in order to avoid having health problems jeopardize the success a mission later on.
And mind you even if the impact on transmission rates is relatively small, this has a significant impact on the amount of cases due to the exponential nature of disease spread.
What I wrote is not misinformation, the post I was replying to however is incorrect, claiming the “majority of vaccinated people do not get infected.” The efficacy of eg two shots from H1 2021 is iirc about 30% (being generous.) Also, the fact that someone already had COVID or not materially alters the potential benefits of getting a subsequent first, second, or third shot. Men under 40 who have had a COVID infection specifically are reasonable to reject the current vaccine, especially Moderna, given the still unknown mechanism of action which is causing heart damage and in some rare cases killing people.
They don't do "essentially nothing" to prevent infection [1]. You are also at risk of both severe illness and long covid (something that appears to be under reported on) if you get it, even as a young healthy person. Where did you get your info?
