President Trump reinstates 8000 fired military for refusing COVID shots

2,145 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by Jock 07
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
with backpay...

BiggiesLX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't like it. Especially the back pay part.

Upgrade their discharge to other than honorable, maybe. How many of those got the anthrax vaccine and were exposed to burn pits and took no stand on those issues?
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
apples and lawnmowers comparison

I do wonder how many will take him up on it and if they have to meet all the phys/med/ pt requirements before being re-instated.
BiggiesLX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's hypocritical to not take action on vaccines not given to civilians and then let the political environment talk you out of one thats available to everyone.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BiggiesLX said:

It's hypocritical to not take action on vaccines not given to civilians and then let the political environment talk you out of one thats available to everyone.
I'm not following you.

Anthrax was/is given to civilians and it has been for decades and was tested long before it became mandatory for Soldiers.

BiggiesLX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The anthrax vaccine is approved for all but hardly anyone had it prior to joining. Never once did I hear about anyone questioning its risks or effectiveness or even ask if was FDA approved. If they did, I'm sure they'd be laughed at. All because it wasn't a political dividing point.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Anthrax vaccine did injure military personnel that were compelled to take it.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/anthrax/gao-military-anthrax-shots-caused-many-reactions-prompted-some-pilots-quit

Some of them sued and won.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/50-million-anthrax-lawsuit-settled/

The history of the Anthrax vaccination program in the military should have served as a warning to DoD and CDC that the COVID mRNA vaccines had much higher risks that they had calculated.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC526141/

The order to provide back-pay (and promotions) makes sense to me for those that are willing and otherwise qualified to return to active duty with an enlistment contract or commission with an additional service obligation of 2-4 years.
Deleted User
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Again.

Apples and lawnmowers.

All those other vaccines were have been around for quite some time and are thoroughly tested and vetted.

The COVID vaccine has not and has since been proven pretty ineffectual in actually preventing COVID.

Forced use of experimental drugs on Soldiers in any other circumstance would have folks completely up in arms.

This not really a political issue IMO. Servicemen should never be FORCED to take an experimental drug, period, full stop.


Moy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not to change the subject, but I could swear the USMC was giving the anthrax vaccine to grunts in the mid-90s, not '98 as the linked article states. I'm thinking it was about the same time dna collection was instituted. And in the same timeframe of the US Army / UN blue beret controversy.

And yes, Devil Dogs complained about it. It was a big deal, but was squashed with the promise of NJP to even discuss it.
clarythedrill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Moy said:

Not to change the subject, but I could swear the USMC was giving the anthrax vaccine to grunts in the mid-90s, not '98 as the linked article states. I'm thinking it was about the same time dna collection was instituted. And in the same timeframe of the US Army / UN blue beret controversy.

And yes, Devil Dogs complained about it. It was a big deal, but was squashed with the promise of NJP to even discuss it.

You may be thinking of the gamma globulin shots. The Army gave those to everybody who deployed anywhere up until the anthrax became a thing. Last time I got one was when I deployed to Bosnia in '96. I remember you got a whole vial, half in one butt cheek and the other half in the other butt cheek. Was called the peanut butter shot.
13B
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Moy said:

Not to change the subject, but I could swear the USMC was giving the anthrax vaccine to grunts in the mid-90s, not '98 as the linked article states. I'm thinking it was about the same time dna collection was instituted. And in the same timeframe of the US Army / UN blue beret controversy.

And yes, Devil Dogs complained about it. It was a big deal, but was squashed with the promise of NJP to even discuss it.

During Desert Shield/Storm they had us take Anthrax shots but didn't put it in our shot records (made me unhappy). There was a specific threat that it was being used to combat but was not in the standard battery of shots (ie GG).

Later in my career they made us take Cipro but had the option to decline (they wanted to see how it might affect us in case we needed it in theater). Then they wanted us to try Go/No Go pills, which I refused with no repercussions.

It is one thing to have you take shots that have been extensively tested and only used for specific threats. It is another thing to force you to take experimental shots that have not been extensively tested and then kick you out if you refuse. It is the very least the Government can do to reinstate them and back pay dependent on them being in mission ready condition.



bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think this sets a bad precedent. I get that the perception is that the vaccine was experimental and being tested on troops (which is false), however these individuals decided to disobey a mandate. They chose to break their end of the contract and oath they took to obey the orders of those above them. I think it's fine they chose not to take it, but there are consequences. And now they're getting arguably rewarded for their actions.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't believe their basis for objection can be correctly described as a perception that an unsafe drug was being tested on military personnel. It would be more accurate to say that an unsafe (in that it was approved without undergoing standard FDA protocol) vaccine that was being tested on everyone, not just the military. Unlike civilians who could refuse the vaccine without facing criminal charges, military personnel were charged with a violation of Article 92 and administratively separated. The Trump EO is essentially an acknowledgment that neither the FDA nor the DoD followed their own established policies and therefore the order that these soldiers refused was not, upon review, a lawful order.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lawful and ethical orders.

An argument is easily made that these orders were unethical.

Troops are under no obligation to follow unethical orders.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bigtruckguy3500 said:

I think this sets a bad precedent. I get that the perception is that the vaccine was experimental and being tested on troops (which is false), however these individuals decided to disobey a mandate. They chose to break their end of the contract and oath they took to obey the orders of those above them. I think it's fine they chose not to take it, but there are consequences. And now they're getting arguably rewarded for their actions.


Last I heard only 1% or so even re-joined when congress allows them to come back. There weren't a whole lot that even refused to get it anyway. My unit had a 100% rate to get it and no one really gave a ***** There were some in our brigade that refused but almost all were just because they wanted an easy way to punch out.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It wasn't even that long ago that a lot of the people making a fuss about an expedited emergency use authorization (after extensive testing on 10s of thousands) were the same ones complaining about how long the FDA takes to approve drugs compared with Europe and other places.

Regardless, the drug was FDA approved under an EUA, so by definition not experimental. It just underwent a different approval process that has precedent dating back decades.

The issue is that it was politicized early, and people choose their side based on party lines, which makes everything worse. And at this point there is virtually no convincing anyone to change their mind.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Teslag said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

I think this sets a bad precedent. I get that the perception is that the vaccine was experimental and being tested on troops (which is false), however these individuals decided to disobey a mandate. They chose to break their end of the contract and oath they took to obey the orders of those above them. I think it's fine they chose not to take it, but there are consequences. And now they're getting arguably rewarded for their actions.


Last I heard only 1% or so even re-joined when congress allows them to come back. There weren't a whole lot that even refused to get it anyway. My unit had a 100% rate to get it and no one really gave a ***** There were some in our brigade that refused but almost all were just because they wanted an easy way to punch out.


My unit could have gotten a 96 if we achieved 96% vaccination by a certain date. But people had the power to say no to everyone in the military for once. And they all got it once it was mandatory. But of course we got no 96.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bigtruckguy3500 said:

It wasn't even that long ago that a lot of the people making a fuss about an expedited emergency use authorization (after extensive testing on 10s of thousands) were the same ones complaining about how long the FDA takes to approve drugs compared with Europe and other places.

Regardless, the drug was FDA approved under an EUA, so by definition not experimental. It just underwent a different approval process that has precedent dating back decades.

The issue is that it was politicized early, and people choose their side based on party lines, which makes everything worse. And at this point there is virtually no convincing anyone to change their mind.


"By that definition"? What good are protocols and procedures for public safety if the FDA officials disregard them for political experience and personal accrual of royalties ? If they ignored protocols to sign the EUA, it means nothing, just like their paths to do no harm.

FDA and officials moved to those positions from NIH where they patented many of the molecules that they were later approving as members of the FDA boards. IIRC, Bobby Kennedy Jr. stated in his book on Fauci that all of the most recent 200 drugs approved by the FDA were based on molecules invented and patented by NIH before they were given to pharmaceutical companies for commercialization. The same civil servants that patented these drugs collected royalties as patent holders. It is a system of perverse incentives that is amplified by the revolving door to semi-retirement as a pharmaceutical company executives.

Nobody, least of all those who were subject to the UCMJ, actually were informed of the risks to be able to consent.
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ulysses90 said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

It wasn't even that long ago that a lot of the people making a fuss about an expedited emergency use authorization (after extensive testing on 10s of thousands) were the same ones complaining about how long the FDA takes to approve drugs compared with Europe and other places.

Regardless, the drug was FDA approved under an EUA, so by definition not experimental. It just underwent a different approval process that has precedent dating back decades.

The issue is that it was politicized early, and people choose their side based on party lines, which makes everything worse. And at this point there is virtually no convincing anyone to change their mind.


"By that definition"? What good are protocols and procedures for public safety if the FDA officials disregard them for political experience and personal accrual of royalties ? If they ignored protocols to sign the EUA, it means nothing, just like their paths to do no harm.

FDA and officials moved to those positions from NIH where they patented many of the molecules that they were later approving as members of the FDA boards. IIRC, Bobby Kennedy Jr. stated in his book on Fauci that all of the most recent 200 drugs approved by the FDA were based on molecules invented and patented by NIH before they were given to pharmaceutical companies for commercialization. The same civil servants that patented these drugs collected royalties as patent holders. It is a system of perverse incentives that is amplified by the revolving door to semi-retirement as a pharmaceutical company executives.

Nobody, least of all those who were subject to the UCMJ, actually were informed of the risks to be able to consent.


I mean, capitalism? But also, there are protocols for EUA. And again this wasn't experimental. I understand I won't be able to convince you, but a lot of people smarter than me (and even smarter than RFK) looked at this data and technology and believed it to be safe.

I'm pretty sure everyone was provided, or had the option to read, the vaccine information sheet.

Then again, I might be biased because I saw first hand a lot of unvaccinated people (even pretty healthy people) end up in the ICU or dead. And a lot of vaccinated people with mild symptoms.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You won't be able to convince me because adherence to the protocols is the criteria by which an EUA is authorized. That makes it an unauthorized experiment and it also makes it a violation of the Nuremburg Code.

The FDA not only broke the testing protocols, they also lied to discredit the proven and documented efficacy of HCQ. The statute requires that there can be no effective therapeutic treatment as a condition for the issuance of an EUA. They NIH and CDC committed fraud to justify a sparsely and incompletely tested mRNA treatment. Both HCQ and Ivermectin were available in large quantities and had billions of doses administered to humans for decades with a very low side effect rates. They lied.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok
inconvenient truth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bigtruckguy3500 said:

Ulysses90 said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

It wasn't even that long ago that a lot of the people making a fuss about an expedited emergency use authorization (after extensive testing on 10s of thousands) were the same ones complaining about how long the FDA takes to approve drugs compared with Europe and other places.

Regardless, the drug was FDA approved under an EUA, so by definition not experimental. It just underwent a different approval process that has precedent dating back decades.

The issue is that it was politicized early, and people choose their side based on party lines, which makes everything worse. And at this point there is virtually no convincing anyone to change their mind.


"By that definition"? What good are protocols and procedures for public safety if the FDA officials disregard them for political experience and personal accrual of royalties ? If they ignored protocols to sign the EUA, it means nothing, just like their paths to do no harm.

FDA and officials moved to those positions from NIH where they patented many of the molecules that they were later approving as members of the FDA boards. IIRC, Bobby Kennedy Jr. stated in his book on Fauci that all of the most recent 200 drugs approved by the FDA were based on molecules invented and patented by NIH before they were given to pharmaceutical companies for commercialization. The same civil servants that patented these drugs collected royalties as patent holders. It is a system of perverse incentives that is amplified by the revolving door to semi-retirement as a pharmaceutical company executives.

Nobody, least of all those who were subject to the UCMJ, actually were informed of the risks to be able to consent.




Then again, I might be biased because I saw first hand a lot of unvaccinated people (even pretty healthy people) end up in the ICU or dead. And a lot of vaccinated people with mild symptoms.

Funny I saw first hand the exact opposite. Anecdotes are fun!
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
inconvenient truth said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

Ulysses90 said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

It wasn't even that long ago that a lot of the people making a fuss about an expedited emergency use authorization (after extensive testing on 10s of thousands) were the same ones complaining about how long the FDA takes to approve drugs compared with Europe and other places.

Regardless, the drug was FDA approved under an EUA, so by definition not experimental. It just underwent a different approval process that has precedent dating back decades.

The issue is that it was politicized early, and people choose their side based on party lines, which makes everything worse. And at this point there is virtually no convincing anyone to change their mind.


"By that definition"? What good are protocols and procedures for public safety if the FDA officials disregard them for political experience and personal accrual of royalties ? If they ignored protocols to sign the EUA, it means nothing, just like their paths to do no harm.

FDA and officials moved to those positions from NIH where they patented many of the molecules that they were later approving as members of the FDA boards. IIRC, Bobby Kennedy Jr. stated in his book on Fauci that all of the most recent 200 drugs approved by the FDA were based on molecules invented and patented by NIH before they were given to pharmaceutical companies for commercialization. The same civil servants that patented these drugs collected royalties as patent holders. It is a system of perverse incentives that is amplified by the revolving door to semi-retirement as a pharmaceutical company executives.

Nobody, least of all those who were subject to the UCMJ, actually were informed of the risks to be able to consent.




Then again, I might be biased because I saw first hand a lot of unvaccinated people (even pretty healthy people) end up in the ICU or dead. And a lot of vaccinated people with mild symptoms.

Funny I saw first hand the exact opposite. Anecdotes are fun!

Yeah, perspective and vantage point matters. I saw everything you did. But I work in a hospital and have added perspective.

Data is also fun. But many people refuse to acknowledge the data.
Roc96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My son was one of those 8,000, and his contract was cut short by about ten months. Even if he were reinstated, would the USMC just have a Marine come back for ten months, and then potentially separate again?
Roc
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It happens. I had two cases where Gunnery Sergeants that had been charged with some misconduct, sent to Court Martial, and separated on an "appellate leave" status only to be brought back on active duty and attached to my command. Much to the surprise of the Marine Corps, their convictions were overturned on appeal. They were brought back on active duty, paid back pay, and served out the remaining number of months on active duty from their last enlistment contract.
clarythedrill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ulysses90 said:

It happens. I had two cases where Gunnery Sergeants that had been charged with some misconduct, sent to Court Martial, and separated on an "appellate leave" status only to be brought back on active duty and attached to my command. Much to the surprise of the Marine Corps, their convictions were overturned on appeal. They were brought back on active duty, paid back pay, and served out the remaining number of months on active duty from their last enlistment contract.
OK, spill it. What did those two blockheads do?
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bigtruckguy3500 said:

inconvenient truth said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

Ulysses90 said:

bigtruckguy3500 said:

It wasn't even that long ago that a lot of the people making a fuss about an expedited emergency use authorization (after extensive testing on 10s of thousands) were the same ones complaining about how long the FDA takes to approve drugs compared with Europe and other places.

Regardless, the drug was FDA approved under an EUA, so by definition not experimental. It just underwent a different approval process that has precedent dating back decades.

The issue is that it was politicized early, and people choose their side based on party lines, which makes everything worse. And at this point there is virtually no convincing anyone to change their mind.


"By that definition"? What good are protocols and procedures for public safety if the FDA officials disregard them for political experience and personal accrual of royalties ? If they ignored protocols to sign the EUA, it means nothing, just like their paths to do no harm.

FDA and officials moved to those positions from NIH where they patented many of the molecules that they were later approving as members of the FDA boards. IIRC, Bobby Kennedy Jr. stated in his book on Fauci that all of the most recent 200 drugs approved by the FDA were based on molecules invented and patented by NIH before they were given to pharmaceutical companies for commercialization. The same civil servants that patented these drugs collected royalties as patent holders. It is a system of perverse incentives that is amplified by the revolving door to semi-retirement as a pharmaceutical company executives.

Nobody, least of all those who were subject to the UCMJ, actually were informed of the risks to be able to consent.




Then again, I might be biased because I saw first hand a lot of unvaccinated people (even pretty healthy people) end up in the ICU or dead. And a lot of vaccinated people with mild symptoms.

Funny I saw first hand the exact opposite. Anecdotes are fun!

Yeah, perspective and vantage point matters. I saw everything you did. But I work in a hospital and have added perspective.

Data is also fun. But many people refuse to acknowledge the data.
Hate to come over the top of your medical credentials but I did 3 years of Covid in Los Angeles County. You might call it first hand field research.

I lived next door to a hospital and around the corner from an urgent care type of clinic where I saw lines of people Covid testing every day so they could work on set at their entertainment job.

I even spent one night in the hospital next to my house after a doctor told me I would be dead in 7 days from the December 2020 Covid that was credited with killing 15,000 people in LA County.

Seemed like the socially prudent thing to do. I have to admit that I did feel like a spy though getting an inside view of what was going on in the hospital during peak Covid when hospitals in LA were allegedly stacking up bodies in the gift shop and running out of oxygen, etc.

The really fun part was my neighbors treating me like a leper from January 2021 through September 2021 because I had Covid in December 2020 and made the mistake of telling them that I had it.

Since you're into data, the best data point I can give you is from July 2021 when my neighbor who was an avid boxer got carted off to the hospital for 2 days by an ambulance because he was sick with Covid. Impossible, right? After all, he got the vax.

And of course there was the late 2021, get the vax or lose your job. Yeah, makes sense for a virus that I'd already had 3 times by that point.

And the maskers... When I bailed out in August 2023, it was still 20% maskers at my grocery store.

Nevermind what my daughter who was Class of 2020 went through.

Yes, tell me more about the data LOL.

Edited to add: In June 2020 we were given a tight time window to get into the VMI barracks to turn in stuff and claim personal stuff from the room. We spent that night in Lexington, VA and got to visit with a couple guys who Commissioned into the Navy who were about to report for duty.

To begin their Navy Careers, they had to quarantine on base for 14 days ahead of their school starting. So much science happening back in 2020 - 2021.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
clarythedrill said:

Ulysses90 said:

It happens. I had two cases where Gunnery Sergeants that had been charged with some misconduct, sent to Court Martial, and separated on an "appellate leave" status only to be brought back on active duty and attached to my command. Much to the surprise of the Marine Corps, their convictions were overturned on appeal. They were brought back on active duty, paid back pay, and served out the remaining number of months on active duty from their last enlistment contract.
OK, spill it. What did those two blockheads do?


Not that interesting, really. One was a horrible supply warehouse manager. Over an extended period of time, a lot of stuff walked out of the warehouse. She was charged with stealing and selling it when the government really didn't have any evidence to support that assertion but she had a junior officer as defense counsel who wasn't skilled or incentivized to win. On appeal she had a competent civilian attorney who made a convincing argument that she was merely incompetent and the officers in command failed to exercise proper supervisory oversight and verify the inventory on a regular basis.

The other Gunny (who was not on recruiting duty) was convicted of statutory rape for a rather long term consensual relationship with a 17 year old. The appeal was successful based on the fact that there was no proof that a sexual relationship was consummated before she turned 18 and that the command exerted undue influence in charging him based on the position held by the girl's father.
Aggiehunter34
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Ulysses90 said:

The Anthrax vaccine did injure military personnel that were compelled to take it.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/anthrax/gao-military-anthrax-shots-caused-many-reactions-prompted-some-pilots-quit

Some of them sued and won.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/50-million-anthrax-lawsuit-settled/

The history of the Anthrax vaccination program in the military should have served as a warning to DoD and CDC that the COVID mRNA vaccines had much higher risks that they had calculated.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC526141/

The order to provide back-pay (and promotions) makes sense to me for those that are willing and otherwise qualified to return to active duty with an enlistment contract or commission with an additional service obligation of 2-4 years.
Worst series of shots I took in my 22 years. I had the worst reactions and didn't have a choice.
clarythedrill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ulysses90 said:

clarythedrill said:

Ulysses90 said:

It happens. I had two cases where Gunnery Sergeants that had been charged with some misconduct, sent to Court Martial, and separated on an "appellate leave" status only to be brought back on active duty and attached to my command. Much to the surprise of the Marine Corps, their convictions were overturned on appeal. They were brought back on active duty, paid back pay, and served out the remaining number of months on active duty from their last enlistment contract.
OK, spill it. What did those two blockheads do?


Not that interesting, really. One was a horrible supply warehouse manager. Over an extended period of time, a lot of stuff walked out of the warehouse. She was charged with stealing and selling it when the government really didn't have any evidence to support that assertion but she had a junior officer as defense counsel who wasn't skilled or incentivized to win. On appeal she had a competent civilian attorney who made a convincing argument that she was merely incompetent and the officers in command failed to exercise proper supervisory oversight and verify the inventory on a regular basis.

An E-7 should not need supervisory oversight when simply doing their skill level job. She was basically saying she is a POS and should be reduced for inefficiency.

The other Gunny (who was not on recruiting duty) was convicted of statutory rape for a rather long term consensual relationship with a 17 year old. The appeal was successful based on the fact that there was no proof that a sexual relationship was consummated before she turned 18 and that the command exerted undue influence in charging him based on the position held by the girl's father.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree. The problem was that her command failed to hold her accountable until the dollar value of discrepancies drew attention at a higher level. Instead of admitting to the command's own dereliction of duty to verify, they charged her with a criminal act despite the fact that incompetence isn't the same as intent.

As a point of clarification, neither of these individuals were in the command prior to being brought back on active duty. This was at the recruiting station that used to be in Buffalo NY (since closed). They just happened to live in the local area and be attached to the nearest unit.
japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Back pay, rank, et al are not enough...damages should also be paid....
Using 18-29 year olds as the proxy for military age personnel:

COVID-19 Deaths in 18 - 29-Year-Olds: According to CDC provisional data (20202023), approximately 1015 deaths per 100,000 population in this age group were attributed to COVID-19, totaling ~5,000 - 7,000 deaths nationwide. This age group accounted for ~1%-2% of total U.S. COVID-19 deaths, reflecting their low overall risk. 90% had significant comorbidities; the highest being Obesity; followed by diabetes and asthma.

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) by Age Cohort
The IFR represents the percentage of infected individuals (including undetected cases) who died from COVID-19. A meta-analysis of global data, including U.S. studies, provides the following median IFR estimates by age:
  • 0-19 years: 0.0003% (extremely low risk, primarily due to fewer severe cases)
  • 20-29 years: 0.002% (low risk, with rare severe outcomes)
  • 30-39 years: 0.011% (risk begins to increase slightly)
  • 4049 years: 0.035% (moderate increase in risk)
  • 5059 years: 0.123% (notable increase, especially with comorbidities)
  • 6069 years: 0.506% (significant risk, particularly for those with underlying conditions)
  • 7079 years: ~2.0%3.0% (sharp increase, with higher rates for those with comorbidities)
  • 80+ years: ~5.0%8.0% (highest risk, especially in nursing homes or with poor health)

Age-Adjusted Death Rates per 100,000 Population (20202022)
The CDC's provisional mortality data provide age-specific death rates per 100,000 population, adjusted for population size and age distribution:
  • 0-17 years: ~25 deaths per 100,000 (very low, with most deaths linked to underlying conditions)
  • 18-29 years: ~1015 deaths per 100,000 (low, but higher than children due to increased exposure)
  • 30-39 years: ~2540 deaths per 100,000 (moderate increase, driven by comorbidities)
  • 4049 years: ~6080 deaths per 100,000 (significant jump, reflecting higher case severity)
  • 5064 years: ~150200 deaths per 100,000 (high, with risk increasing with age and health status)
  • 6574 years: ~400500 deaths per 100,000 (very high, driven by age-related immune decline)
  • 7584 years: ~1,0001,200 deaths per 100,000 (extremely high, with many deaths in long-term care)
  • 85+ years: ~2,5003,000 deaths per 100,000 (highest, with ~30% of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in this group)
Jock 07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Roc96 said:

My son was one of those 8,000, and his contract was cut short by about ten months. Even if he were reinstated, would the USMC just have a Marine come back for ten months, and then potentially separate again?

I've read that those who choose to come back will incur a 2 year service commitment.
Jock 07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I lived in LA county during the height of the china virus. It was pure insanity. The lack of logic was mind blowing.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.