• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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."
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
"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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"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 R[SUB]0[/SUB] 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:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
http://www.infowars.com/dod-admissi...rs-out-of-africa-one-at-a-time-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.

Now they said that they will be handling patients ...

Where has that been said?
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
You seem like a fairly intelligent guy, David... What's the R[SUB]0[/SUB] 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.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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/20140930/NEWS08/309300063/U-S-troops-head-Africa-Ebola-mission

Sounds like almost exclusively infrastructure, logistics, command, and medical.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
<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-bellevue-staffers-take-sick-day-in-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:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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?'

davidmcbeth said:
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.

davidmcbeth said:
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-bellevue-staffers-take-sick-day-in-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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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?

davidmcbeth said:
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.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
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.
 
Top