• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

COVID-19

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
In the context of mask effectiveness, I thought this was an interesting graphic . . . .
At least that one has a respiratory particle represented on it, which is a good start (seriously), but it's only a partial answer.

The science of filtration has a bit more to it. Some of the rote knowledge NATOPS checkers would make you memorize that the ____ system had a 30 micron filter. A good "back at you" question is what % of 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, etc. micron-sized pieces of crud that the filter will stop.* That's how the "spit catcher" concept of face masks works, and not all masks are equally effective- not at all. The crappy ones catch a bit of your flying spit but a lot of average ones catch a pretty fair amount of your flying spit (but not all). And the really good ones that catch nearly all of it are of a very particular type and fitment.

Another problem here is half the voting-age population was eating paste back in public school science class (and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a world map either, but that's the subject of a different thread...).



* Technique-only on your NATOPS check to offend the checker for one asking stupid questions but more important two they themselves not understanding the meaning or relevance of the "correct" answers to those questions.
 

bcort

Member
My point was that they didn't need to say anything about ivermectin. They could just let people assume whatever they want, and get some extra money on the side from doctors prescribing deworming medicine off-label for a viral infection. But they issued a press release instead saying it doesn't work for anything other than its currently approved uses.

You still haven't answered the "why," by the way. Why should anyone consider an unproven drug in dosages higher than considered safe, when several drugs that have been tested and proven to work and were literally designed for COVID are available?
Could be part of the deal with the gov for $356 million. Could be to try to squash any studies on ivermectin showing its effectiveness so their own funding doesn't get killed. We don't know. We do know they are making more money from the government than they would be if they were pushing ivermectin.

There are 50 studies in one of my previous links showing it successfully reducing hospitalizations and/or deaths by 80%. You seem to ignore those and focus on the one that was only ivermectin against SARs2. In reality, your body's own antibodies are fighting the virus and ivermectin is there to help. It's not just ivermectin against the virus. (Again, provided in previous links you've ignored. )
 

bcort

Member
Now that mandatory vaccination is nearly upon us, is there any indication that medical exemptions would even remotely be considered for those with demonstrated immunity?
They don't name a source but the AP put this out:

Permanent exemptions include serious medical reactions to the vaccine, immune deficiencies such as HIV infection, and “evidence of existing immunity” by a serologic antibody test or “documentation of previous infection or natural infection presumed.”

It's also important to point out we have a shortage of the Corminaty vaccine currently. Don't know if supplies will increase before the official order will come out.
 

Gonzo08

*1. Gangbar Off
None
SECDEF Memo is out. Awaiting DON guidance.
 

Attachments

  • MEMORANDUM-FOR-MANDATORY-CORONAVIRUS-DISEASE-2019-VACCINATION-OF-DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-SERVICE...pdf
    470.5 KB · Views: 22

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
@jackjack

Who is this lady? Even with 80% vaccination. Even with zero cases (which is a ridiculous metric). Covid never ends.

Remember back in April when Nancy Pelosi said we couldn’t mandate vaccines because it was a privacy issue? Compare that with the President’s recent words encouraging companies to make vaccination for their employees mandatory. “tHiS cOuLd NeVeR hApPeN iN aMeRiCa!!”

Elections have consequences.

But hey, at least the adults are back in charge.
 
Last edited:

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
Here is one PHD’s opinion but a I’m sure she isn’t expert enough!
I’m sure she is full of shit.

I listened to her. She said that the vaccine actually makes you sicker when exposed to the Delta variant. That is of course easily refuted BS, as demonstrated by the picture below, repeated in every single hospital in every state in the country. Sweet jeebus...

She also says the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission. She doesn’t mention that the vaccine does reduce transmission.

32226
 

robav8r

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Remember back in April when Nancy Pelosi said we couldn’t mandate vaccines because it was a privacy issue? Compare that with the President’s recent words encouraging companies to make vaccination for their employees mandatory. “tHiS cOuLd NeVeR hApPeN iN aMeRiCa!!”

Elections have consequences.

But hey, at least the adults are back in charge.
The CEO of Pfizer was asked on camera if he was vaccinated and he said: "No, I am not. I don't want to seem as if i'm rushing to the front of the line." Pfizer employees are not mandated to take the vaccine. Neither are members of the White House staff, CDC, NIH, FDA . . . . .
 

robav8r

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
I’m sure she is full of shit.

I listened to her. She said that the vaccine actually makes you sicker when exposed to the Delta variant. That is of course easily refuted BS, as demonstrated by the picture below, repeated in every single hospital in every state in the country. Sweet jeebus...

She also says the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission. She doesn’t mention that the vaccine does reduce transmission.

View attachment 32226
Thank you doctor . . . . ?
 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
The CEO of Pfizer was asked on camera if he was vaccinated and he said: "No, I am not. I don't want to seem as if i'm rushing to the front of the line." Pfizer employees are not mandated to take the vaccine. Neither are members of the White House staff, CDC, NIH, FDA . . . . .
I’m surprised that all of his friends’ pleas on fb to “just get the shot!” have yet to change his mind.
 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
Thank you doctor . . . . ?
Can’t wait to hear the excuse matrix for these results.

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.”

 

FrankTheTank

Professional Pot Stirrer
pilot
Can’t wait to hear the excuse matrix for these results.

“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.”

?. We only follow Fauci science here!
 
Top