Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: ROFL over this one - DoD can only transport 1 soldier at a time back from Africa?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    ROFL over this one - DoD can only transport 1 soldier at a time back from Africa?

    http://www.infowars.com/dod-admissio...four-per-week/

    I know, infowars, but if true it has to be the biggest colossal screw-up of recent time to send those guys over to Africa..

    No Dunkirk for you guys !!! Sleep well.....all is fine...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I was unaware that the deployed military were expected to come into 'intimate and long lasting care' of persons infected with Ebola. So long as they're not swappin' spit with patients, they're fairly safe.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I was unaware that the deployed military were expected to come into 'intimate and long lasting care' of persons infected with Ebola. So long as they're not swappin' spit with patients, they're fairly safe.
    Now they said that they will be handling patients ...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Now they said that they will be handling patients ...
    And the definition of handling and expected duties are?
    Taking temperature?
    Giving them sponge baths?
    Bedpans?
    Administering hypodermic injections?
    Inserting catheters?
    Inserting IV's?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-25-2014 at 01:18 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Daily Mail, 20 October
    Army maintains that the risk of soldiers contracting the virus is minimal because it is not airborne and they will not have contact with sick patients.

    'It's been shown that this disease is most manifest when handling bodily fluid - blood, other sorts of fluids, said Major General Williams.

    'There is no plan right now for U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to do that'.

    The servicemen are also not permitted to shake hands, must frequently wash their hands with a chlorine solution and are required to have their temperatures measured several times a day.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Military.com 21 October
    Col. Brian DeSantis, a 101st division spokesman
    Their mission downrange will focus almost entirely on construction of 17 new Ebola treatment facilities and educating local health workers.
    "There is no mission for us to do things specifically with Ebola infected individuals. There's no mission for us to handle any remains, any medical waste. Soldiers are not going to be used in that way."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    USA Today, 03 October
    Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.
    President Obama initially ordered 3,000 troops to West Africa to help build hospitals, labs and treatment centers and provide logistics help. They are not going to treat Ebola victims.

    "We are not going to be in the treatment business," Kirby said.

    The new deployment includes soldiers from Army posts around the country and include engineers, logistics and civil affairs experts and military police officers.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    "contact is MINIMAL"...not none. Are all soldiers going to be housed in separate apartments? No. They will share housing. Will they dine alone? etc.

    Only takes one to start the domino effect.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    With the USAF decommissioning of the medical dedicated DC-9 aerovac fleet about a decade ago and move to the new buzz multi-purpose aircraft model the military appears to have lost the ability to move quarantined soldiers in large numbers.

    As I have found out with guns and holsters, multi-purpose isn't always better and sometimes leads to compromising away the best of anything for the mediocre of everything.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    "contact is MINIMAL"...not none. Are all soldiers going to be housed in separate apartments? No. They will share housing. Will they dine alone? etc.

    Only takes one to start the domino effect.
    You seem like a fairly intelligent guy, David... What's the R0 for Ebola? For measles?
    How many people can the average Ebola infected person go on to infect?

    BTW, it's much easier to interrupt a falling line of dominoes than a falling house of cards (contrasting Ebola and measles.)
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-25-2014 at 01:10 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.infowars.com/dod-admissio...four-per-week/

    I know, infowars, but if true it has to be the biggest colossal screw-up of recent time to send those guys over to Africa..

    No Dunkirk for you guys !!! Sleep well.....all is fine...
    "ROFL over this one - DoD can only transport 1 soldier at a time back from Africa?"


    That misrepresents what actually was stated. They only transport 'one infected person at a time.'


    However, in the event that soldiers begin contracting the virus, Maj. Gen. Lariviere admitted the military currently only has one plane capable of transporting symptomatic patients back to the US for treatment.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Now they said that they will be handling patients ...
    Where has that been said?
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-25-2014 at 01:16 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    You seem like a fairly intelligent guy, David... What's the R0 for Ebola? For measles?
    How many people can the average Ebola infected person go on to infect?

    BTW, it's much easier to interrupt a falling line of dominoes than a falling house of cards (contrasting Ebola and measles.)
    These values are estimates [people would be surprised at how these values are actually decided upon ~ usually the guesstimate of one person or institution] ~ sometimes I have no objection to the values.

    Many illnesses have been regional in nature even today, look at the virus that is now introduced from south america into the US .. all the illnesses of the US kids getting sick and some dying wherein in SA its not that rare.

    Ebola has been around for a long time, just classified in recent history.

    Our troops are over there, so the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue. Do you think its a national security issue that warrants the placement of our soldiers over there?

    And consider the doctor in NYC .. a well trained medical professional that should have been able to avoid getting the illness.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    These values are estimates [people would be surprised at how these values are actually decided upon ~ usually the guesstimate of one person or institution] ~ sometimes I have no objection to the values.

    Many illnesses have been regional in nature even today, look at the virus that is now introduced from south america into the US .. all the illnesses of the US kids getting sick and some dying wherein in SA its not that rare.

    Ebola has been around for a long time, just classified in recent history.

    Our troops are over there, so the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue. Do you think its a national security issue that warrants the placement of our soldiers over there?

    And consider the doctor in NYC .. a well trained medical professional that should have been able to avoid getting the illness.
    What do you base that upon?

    The FIRST known cases, classified or not, were in the 70's. Do you know of ANY similar illnesses in the region from history?


    How are you conflating 'our troops are over there, so the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue?' Did we send ANY combat troops?

    http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...-Ebola-mission

    Sounds like almost exclusively infrastructure, logistics, command, and medical.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-26-2014 at 01:27 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    What do you base that upon?
    <snip>
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Athens

    Ebola has been around for a while ... our technology for examining viruses is still getting better ..
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-26-2014 at 01:55 PM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    [QUOTE=wrightme;2105382] <snip>


    How are you conflating 'our troops are over there, so the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue?' Did we send ANY combat troops?


    Our troops should only be used only if there is a national security issue when sent overseas; and yes, all soldiers are combat troops...but I did not say that their objective is combat...

    But you don't find it odd that the gov't sending them in knowing that they can only pull out infected guys one at a time ?

    You fine with that? Back to point of thread...focus..if you wish to discuss other issues open a new thread.

    http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/many-be...n-ebola-panic/

    But here is an article about the NYC hospital workers calling in sick .. they are medical professionals worried about ebola I assume ^
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-26-2014 at 02:02 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Athens

    Ebola has been around for a while ... our technology for examining viruses is still getting better ..
    Do you have ANY actual information that shows ANY tie to any version of Hemmorhagic fever virus.

    What you link shows maybe a level of 'hypothesis' at best.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Our troops should only be used only if there is a national security issue when sent overseas; and yes, all soldiers are combat troops...but I did not say that their objective is combat...
    1) What do you base your limit upon?
    2) You did fail to answer the actual question asked. Are you attempting to say that medical personnel are 'combat troops?'

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth
    But you don't find it odd that the gov't sending them in knowing that they can only pull out infected guys one at a time ?
    No, I find nothing odd about it at all. Even in the areas of highest infection rate, the rate is about .1%. So, a transport rate of 3 or 4 per week is quite suitable for the 3-4000 troops being deployed.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth
    You fine with that? Back to point of thread...focus..if you wish to discuss other issues open a new thread.

    http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/many-be...n-ebola-panic/

    But here is an article about the NYC hospital workers calling in sick .. they are medical professionals worried about ebola I assume ^
    There is no real issue. It is an ersatz one. And, the claim you made in the OP topic title was false to begin with. They can pull out troops by the transport load. They can only transport one infected person at a time. There is no rational case to be presented for any higher infection rate; a point which you seem to refuse to acknowledge.
    But, what does the NYC hospital worker article have to do with your chosen thread subject?

    But, as to 'wish to discuss other issues,' you were the one presenting some ersatz argument about 'national security issue,' not I.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-26-2014 at 02:31 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    1) What do you base your limit upon?
    2) You did fail to answer the actual question asked. Are you attempting to say that medical personnel are 'combat troops?'

    No, I find nothing odd about it at all. Even in the areas of highest infection rate, the rate is about .1%. So, a transport rate of 3 or 4 per week is quite suitable for the 3-4000 troops being deployed.



    There is no real issue. It is an ersatz one. And, the claim you made in the OP topic title was false to begin with. They can pull out troops by the transport load. They can only transport one infected person at a time. There is no rational case to be presented for any higher infection rate; a point which you seem to refuse to acknowledge.
    But, what does the NYC hospital worker article have to do with your chosen thread subject?

    But, as to 'wish to discuss other issues,' you were the one presenting some ersatz argument about 'national security issue,' not I.
    The title is not inaccurate ... as noted in the first post, it was limited to infected .. you can only have so many characters int he title.

    And the use of troops for this is inappropriate IMO ~ just more nanny state action ~ and ones that put troops into places that they should not go.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The title is not inaccurate ... as noted in the first post, it was limited to infected .. you can only have so many characters int he title.
    So you felt the 'ROFL over this one' was more necessary than not being misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth
    And the use of troops for this is inappropriate IMO ~ just more nanny state action ~ and ones that put troops into places that they should not go.
    Your opinion is noted. I see that you have not supported your opinion about what our military should be used for with actual doctrine.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    The R naught for ebola is about 1.5-2 from what i have read.

    The difference between ebola and measles is that if you get the latter, you have about a 0.015% chance of dying, whereas, ebola in this current outbreak has about a 70% chance of killing you (if you live in west africa) Apparently ebola doesn't kill you if you are an american citizen.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    people don't need to panic about Ebola if you live here in the USA. It is apparently relatively difficult to transmit. None of the family members living in the apartment in texas with Mr Duncan contracted the disease. Likewise, the Medic's, police, bystanders, neighbors, etc also did not get sick. Of more than 70 hospital employees that cared for this patient, only 2 of them contracted Ebola and they both survived.

    It is likely aerosolized during vomiting, coughing, sneezing, etc and in laboratory studies can be transmitted through absorption through the eyes or the respiratory tract of those in close proximity to the patient. However, it is apparently much more likely for others to contract the disease through direct contact.

    Are we currently experiencing an ebola outbreak in the USA? No. Are we likely to see a widespread outbreak here? Not likely.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    <snip>

    Your opinion is noted. I see that you have not supported your opinion about what our military should be used for with actual doctrine.
    Support it with what? Troops should not be used in this capacity...we are not the defenders of the world for every issue.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Support it with what? Troops should not be used in this capacity...we are not the defenders of the world for every issue.
    Once again you present your own opinion. You earlier asked 'Do you think its a national security issue that warrants the placement of our soldiers over there?' Is a 'national security issue' the only valid reason in fact, or only in your personal opinion?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Once again you present your own opinion. You earlier asked 'Do you think its a national security issue that warrants the placement of our soldiers over there?' Is a 'national security issue' the only valid reason in fact, or only in your personal opinion?
    Well, what do you think?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, what do you think?
    I think that your narrow view of it is not supported by anything.


    In fact:

    http://www.army.mil/humanitarian/

    Humanitarian aid and disaster relief appear to be valid roles for the US Army.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-26-2014 at 04:02 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •