All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[Halifax Tar]

That's up to the Queen and those given the authorities under the NDA to issue legal orders. It's a volunteer army... if you lose confidence in the leadership's decision-making (as I have), then you can leave (which I have) so you no longer have to suffer from poor leadership / no longer assume the risk of serving under poor leadership.

For a soldier to argue they should be exempt from unlimited liability because you don't like the orders coming down the pipe is fucking shameless. Unlimited liability doesn't exist to ensure people follow the orders that they happen to like.



Whether it's right or moral to make any decision that has to balance risk with accomplishing a mission can always be debated and the "truth" will never be known until you can look back at it in hindsight.

Like taking any objective, no one has a crystal ball so that they can use the benefit of hindsight. Commanders have to make the best decision they can with the information they have. This is absolutely no different than having to make a decision to order someone into harm's way to take an objective. In this case the best info we have is that administering vaccines provide negligible risk but provide a huge boost to force protection... it's an easy decision.

If this causes someone to lose confidence in the leadership, they should do the honorable thing and leave.

Generally I agree. But we must think about 2 things, (1) unlawful commands; and (2) is telling the good people to leave what got us in this situation to begin with ?

Right now the system will sacrifice great Cpl for the craptastic LT(N) 9 times out of 10. Lets keep in mind the problem here is the craptastic LT(N) and they are the ones that should be corrected to released.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We were following lawful orders when they used us a guinea pigs for mefloquine.

 

[QV]

That's up to the Queen and those given the authorities under the NDA to issue legal orders. It's a volunteer army... if you lose confidence in the leadership's decision-making (as I have), then you can leave (which I have) so you no longer have to suffer from poor leadership / no longer assume the risk of serving under poor leadership.

For a soldier to argue they should be exempt from unlimited liability because you don't like the orders coming down the pipe is fucking shameless. Unlimited liability doesn't exist to ensure people follow the orders that they happen to like.



Whether it's right or moral to make any decision that has to balance risk with accomplishing a mission can always be debated and the "truth" will never be known until you can look back at it in hindsight.

Like taking any objective, no one has a crystal ball so that they can use the benefit of hindsight. Commanders have to make the best decision they can with the information they have. This is absolutely no different than having to make a decision to order someone into harm's way to take an objective. In this case the best info we have is that administering vaccines provide negligible risk but provide a huge boost to force protection... it's an easy decision.

If this causes someone to lose confidence in the leadership, they should do the honorable thing and leave.

Do you equate this pandemic to going to war for your country?

 

[Remius]

Do you equate this pandemic to going to war for your country?

Do you equate unlimited liability to apply only when going to war for your country?

 

[QV]

The lack of self awareness between these two statements made in the same thread on the same day is truly incredible.

I can’t question my government as a private citizen? Or are you mad I pointed that out to the guy who lost so much confidence in his leadership that he quit, but says to shut up and do what you’re told or quit like him? Resigning in protest may get some attention if you’re high enough. The soldiers related to this thread have initiated court action to challenge this, nothing wrong with that, this isn’t a war, the CAF is exactly where it is today because too many people shut up and do/say nothing.

 

[QV]

Do you equate unlimited liability to apply only when going to war for your country?

Question for question, ok…

What are the acceptable losses in peace time for bad decisions?

 

[Good2Golf]

Question for question, ok…

What are the acceptable losses in peace time for bad decisions?

I must have missed that. So how many CAF personnel have died from vaccination so far?

 

[QV]

I must have missed that. So how many CAF personnel have died from vaccination so far?

I don’t know. Do we know the long term effects of the vaccine?

 

[Remius]

Question for question, ok…

What are the acceptable losses in peace time for bad decisions?

I wouldn’t know. How many have we lost to the vaccination?

The reason I ask is that we have to maintain a certain degree of force readiness and security. This virus is a threat to that.

Unlimited Liability is not only limited to war time situations right?

But beyond that, while unlimited liability can be invoked, it has more to do with following lawful authority. Reservists are not subject to unlimited liability (unless on class C I believe) but are subject to the vaccine directive.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don’t know. Do we know the long term effects of the vaccine?

I don’t know either, since we’re only 1-1/2 years into it.

My question about CAF vaccination death rates was directly related to your “what are the acceptable losses in peacetime” question. Hard to answer your question if no one in the CAF has died…yet, as you would likely ask.

 

[brihard]

Are CAF members required to be vaccinated to deploy to any of our ongoing operations? If so, in any of those deployed ops is that a requirement imposed by the host nation (Latvia, Ukraine, etc)? Would failure to vaccinate against COVID DAG any of our troops red?

 

[ModlrMike]

Are CAF members required to be vaccinated to deploy to any of our ongoing operations? If so, in any of those deployed ops is that a requirement imposed by the host nation (Latvia, Ukraine, etc)? Would failure to vaccinate against COVID DAG any of our troops red?

There are basic immunization requirements for every deployment. Some require specific, additional vaccines. AFAIK, failure to meet the vaccination standard required by the host nation (including COVID), would DAG a person red.

 

[OldSolduer]

Every deployment I went on there was always a DAG for immunizations, so every one had the same level. I particularly didn't like the Yellow Fever shot but I took the damn thing.

Two COVID shots - nothing for me, and nasty for others.

 

[QV]

I don’t know either, since we’re only 1-1/2 years into it.

My question about CAF vaccination death rates was directly related to your “what are the acceptable losses in peacetime” question. Hard to answer your question if no one in the CAF has died…yet, as you would likely ask.

Right. There were two approaches that could have been taken. Recommend/encourage vaccine for those at risk groups, or mandate for all with threat of job loss.

Considering the knowns and unknowns, the prudent approach would have been the former which would have resulted in probably 80%+ uptake anyway, which we know is sufficient for herd immunity provided the vaccine works. But the CAF/DND took the latter with almost zero accommodation for medical or other reasons or for those permanently working from home.

If there is an unfavourable outcome from the vaccine down the road, the CAF/DND has just forced 98% of its staff to get it under threat of job loss. If there are bad outcomes down the road, the CAF/DND have made the situation far worse by mandating it.

 

[Good2Golf]

Considering the knowns and unknowns, the prudent approach would have been the former which would have resulted in probably 80%+ uptake anyway, which we know is sufficient for herd immunity provided the vaccine works. But the CAF/DND took the latter with almost zero accommodation for medical or other reasons or for those permanently working from home.

I had calculated CAF voluntary uptake at closer to 76.3819274%. Not sure why our objectively-derived calculations differ so much.

If there is an unfavourable outcome from the vaccine down the road, the CAF/DND has just forced 98% of its staff to get it under threat of job loss. If there are bad outcomes down the road, the CAF/DND have made the situation far worse by mandating it.

Is 99.7% ‘far’ worse than 80%+? How far is far when it comes to worse? More than ‘significantly’ worse, but less than ‘almost inconceivably’ worse?

 

[KevinB]

Donald Trump got his booster...

Mic drop

 

[mariomike]

Sarah Palin says she won't be.

Sarah Palin says she’ll get Covid vaccine ‘over my dead body’

Former vice-presidential candidate also falsely claimed that those who would refuse a vaccine outnumbered those taking them

www.theguardian.com

 

[QV]

Donald Trump got his booster...

Mic drop

Its advisable, as he’s in the “at risk” group. Watch for the pro mandate Trump haters to hate on or mock him for doing something they approve. That’s the test for TDS.

 

[kev994]

But the CAF/DND took the latter with almost zero accommodation for medical...

So could it be that according to medical professionals who have studied this kinda stuff for their entire medical lives there are very few legitimate reasons not to get vaccinated?

 

[dimsum]

Watch for the pro mandate Trump haters to hate on or mock him for doing something they approve.

No - the reason for the mocking is because he originally brushed it off as "just like the flu" and mocked steps to curb the spread, while having had the vaccine because he's POTUS.

Then, realizing that his actions have caused his voters to refuse those steps and therefore get Covid, he changed his tone. Not surprisingly, got booed by his base.

So, it's not TDS - it's knowing that he's a hypocrite.