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?
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.
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.
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:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/06/covid-deaths-continue-to...
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.
Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.
Which is why nobody has the right to force you to get penetrated and injected with something against your will.
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.
There are those who hold individual rights to be the highest.
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]
[1]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/30/viral-imag...
- I don't want to die!
- I don't want to be really sick!
- I don't want to lose my job!
- I want to travel!
And on the opposite side of the coin, the "for the greater good" reason:
- I want to prevent spreading the disease to my fellow man.
Is not even a benefit of 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.
Yes, there are many ways to play your stupid game.
It's exhausting.
It’s basic autonomy over your own body. No government or employer should have the right to determine what gets injected into your body.
There isn't even a draft any more.
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.
>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.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0...
- Required to obey all lawful orders (not all orders)
- Congress may change these laws, or pass new laws, at any time
See, e.g., RFRA.
(Not important to the issue, but yes, DD Form 4 is used for officers and enlisted; however, the officer oath does not swear to obey the President)
He can quit if he doesn't like it. He's not entitled to a job.