Best Handle This Much Better

| April 9, 2020


CVN-68, USS Nimitz

No one wants a repeat of USS Theodore Roosevelt’s debacle, and Big Pentagon is being very open about the COVID-19 situation onboard USS Nimitz. It is also plain this is not an isolated incident, as the Navy is reporting small numbers of ill Sailors with the virus on other vessels, as well.

Skippy sends.

Military Warns of Coronavirus ‘Breakouts’ Aboard USS Nimitz

The military’s No. 2 officer said the ship’s commanders are trying to isolate crew members who have contracted COVID-19.
By Paul D. Shinkman

THE MILITARY’S second-highest ranking officer on Thursday warned of a new coronavirus outbreak aboard the USS Nimitz, an aircraft carrier about to embark on a deployment to the Pacific as the military struggles to contain the spread of the virus that has already sidelined crewmembers from another carrier.

“There’s been a very small number of breakouts on the Nimitz, and we’re watching that very closely,” Air Force Gen. John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday about the 5,000-member crews. He said that those sailors have “been isolated on the ship.”

Hyten pointed to the inherent problem of containing the spread of the virus, which causes a disease known as COVID-19, aboard a ship in which many crewmembers share quarters, sometimes with as many as two dozen sleeping in bunks in one room. Not enough local hotel space exists in Bremerton, Washington, where the ship is based, for its commanders to quarantine crew members, so they’re attempting to isolate them on board, the general said.

Read the rest of the article here: US News

Thanks, Skippy

Category: Big Pentagon, COVID-19, Navy

Comments (43)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Skippy says:

    Here we go sorta again

  2. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    I assume they have a plan for dealing with seasonal flu, which is contagious and very dangerous?

    • Lobogris says:

      Nah. Why do that when they can go with the more sensational sickness and maybe sideline another carrier while the world laughs at us?

    • ArmyNormie says:

      Yea, it’s call a flu vaccine and it’s DOD mandated every year.

      • AW1Ed says:

        First time commenting, welcome aboard ArmyNormie. Unless you’ve been lurking for a while, I highly recommend having a look at the TAH FNG tab at the top of the page.

        The mandatory flu vaccine would kick my ass for a couple days after the shot, every single time. So I developed an annual allergy to poultry.
        Improvise, adapt, overcome.

        Again, welcome.

  3. OldSoldier54 says:

    Hopefully, someone will be able to get THIS info to the medical staff on the Nimitz ASAP.

    The link is to an OANN video opf an interview with one Dr. Vladimir Zelenko who used a combination of Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Zinc Sulfate on a 1000 patients with significant results.

  4. charles w says:

    Before I joined the Army, I was in the Navy. The one thing that was predictable was if one guy got the shits, the whole ship got the shits. We just cleaned more than normal and took our Motrin like men……..

  5. Slow Joe says:

    I got a brilliant idea!

    Let’s experiment with Sailors by doing absolutely nothing, other than the same shit we do for the flu, and find out if herd immunity really works!

    Brilliant!

  6. 5th/77th FA says:

    FTA “If our adversaries thinks this is our moment of weakness, they are dangerously wrong.” That’s good to know/good to hear. As we have discussed here, “floating petri dishes.” Now to address the elephant in the room. How is letting this info out different from the news on the “Big Stick” being released? The way it was done? A lower number of troops affected?

    It is one thing to face a known enemy’s weapons, it’s another to fight something you can’t see.

    • OWB says:

      At least it’s closer than Guam when the odd visits and lambasting begins.

    • timactual says:

      ” How is letting this info out different from the news on the “Big Stick” being released?”

      Gee, you mean this, too, might be an outrageous breach of OPSEC?

      (Said he with disarming innocence, no sarcastic intent at all)

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        Yeah ikr? Hey, inquiring minds want to know. Guess it was a whole lot easier for opsec way back yonder when not every PVT/AM/SM Snuffy had an e mail/smart phone machine.

        Anybody else remember waiting in line or being part of a lottery draw just to get a few minutes on a MARS call to Mamma & them?

      • Hondo says:

        In practice, there’s little difference. Procedurally and legally, though, there’s a huge difference.

        There are a rather small number of Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) within DoD. Only OCAs have the statutory authority to declassify information they have authority to declare classified earlier than it would automatically become downgraded or declassified (in general, 10 or 25 years). Questions regarding classification and public release – and requests for declassification and/or public release of classified material – MUST be referred to OCAs in the absence of existing guidance covering the situation in question.

        For readiness data, I’m reasonably sure the OCA is on either the Joint Staff or the Service/Defense Agency Staffs. Since this info was released by “Big Navy” through official channels, presumably that means the appropriate OCA has approved public release – either through classification review or early declassification – of the info relating to the Nimitz.

        My guess is that the TR fiasco was at least part of the reason why the OCA decided to approve public release here.

        That OCA review/determination doesn’t seem to have happened in the TR’s case. The TR info was released to the public at a far lower level than DoN – apparently without proper OCA review and/or approval. That in turn at least arguably revealed the readiness condition of a major combat unit without proper authority.

        • David says:

          Think all that translated to “The Navy can decide to say it. A lowly Captain can’t decide to say it”.

          Read carefully. Navy says there are some cases. Crozier said his ship’s effectiveness was compromised. Think I see a difference.

          • Hondo says:

            More precisely: “The official at the Pentagon (or elsewhere) with appropriate statutory authority can approve the info for public release – either by declassifying it or approving an unclassified version that doesn’t reveal as much. A unit commander – e.g., a ship’s Captain – cannot simply release it to the public.”

            As you note, the Navy’s statement is more ambiguous regarding the Nimitz’s readiness status than was Crozier’s letter about the TR. I would guess the OCA insisted on that ambiguity in the public release.

        • 5th/77th FA says:

          Yep Roger all that Hondo, figured that was the case myself. Big Navy wanted to get ahead of Seaman Apprentice Snuffy and his facetime chat with Mom. No matter who released it, I’m still of the opinion that the readiness of any unit is something that the public has a “no need to know.” A whole lot has changed in 50 years.

          • Hondo says:

            No matter who released it, I’m still of the opinion that the readiness of any unit is something that the public has a “no need to know.”

            Agreed – regarding ALL properly classified info, and readiness data certainly falls into that category.

            However, sometimes the situation is such that classified info virtually certainly cannot be kept under wraps. Then the organization in question has a hard call: taking the “can neither confirm nor deny” route, or releasing some info – not necessarily everything, but enough to allow the key parts to remain under wraps.

            The “can neither confirm nor deny” route breeds suspicion, gets unwanted attention, and prompts the press to dig harder. The latter intentionally tries to figure out what info can be safely released – and what can’t.

            That’s one damned hard call – and one where senior staffers certainly earn their pay. I’m quite glad it’s a call I never had to be involved in making.

      • timactual says:

        I think I see, as long as procedures and legalities are observed release of any information does not affect our national security. If I release the same information I am a traitor.

        Or, from another viewpoint, the enemy derives no benefit from information as long as the correct procedures and legalities are performed, whereas if the information comes from an unauthorized source the enemy wins!

        Wouldn’t it be a bit more logical to say the information was not that critical to start with?

  7. Wireman611 says:

    Respiratory disease spread by airborne vectors in a shipboard environment with a recirculation type vent system. What could go wrong?

  8. timactual says:

    “There’s been a very small number of breakouts on the Nimitz, and we’re watching that very closely,”

    Yeah, you watch very closely as that “small number” turns into an epidemic just like every other epidemic starts.

  9. 3/10/MED/b says:

    AW1Ed, I lost your contact info a while back. I know this ain’t no “Happy, what did you do this morning.” time. Would like to know what ya’ll are going through.

    b out.

  10. timactual says:

    “It is also plain this is not an isolated incident, as the Navy is reporting small numbers of ill Sailors with the virus on other vessels, as well.”

    Gee, who would have thunk it?

  11. timactual says:

    Sort of “isolate in place”. This is probably the “plan” proposed for the TR and why Capt. Crozier felt he had to make his objections widely known.

    • AW1Ed says:

      Ah, because about 10% of TR’s crew is now positive for COVID-19, and there is no way to isolate 400+ Sailors onboard, perhaps?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Obnoxious move by Newsom in CA: declares it a “nation-state” over virus response during crisis. (Foolish rhetoric, but some may not like it.)
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/gavin-newsom-declares-california-nation-160012325.html

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      We are the United StateS, not the United State.

      Now, there are some rules to that unity. And one of them is “Oh no you ain’t taking those citizens out from under the Constitution”.

      We cannot allow a chunk of the USA to detach and metastasize into a prog/socialist hellhole. War would be inevitable. The damage huge.

      Plus, the free folks there deserve our support and protection. We cannot allow their rights to be raped by a supposed majority, or even an actual one. Nothing in the Bill of Rights says anything about ” except where outvoted”.

      Well past time the alleged “government” of California was put back in their Constitutional lane.

      Once upon a time, and repeatedly, the Donks voted some folks were not people, and had lesser rights. Just because their lesser-person criteria have changed, doesn’t make it OK.

      • Hondo says:

        Yeah, as I recall the issue of whether or not states could unilaterally secede from the US was answered – rather definitively – somewhat less than 155 years ago.

        For what it’s worth: the Constitution provides for a means to admit new states – but does NOT provide for a means for states to secede once a part of the US. Further: the Constitution’s predecessor document (the Articles of Confederation) specifically declared the US to be a perpetual union. The Constitution thus succeeded a “once in, no exit” US government and presumably was intended and understood to be the same.

        The Constitution’s authors were not fools. Generally, whether something was or was not included in the Constitution was by design. The fact that the Constitution specifies no means of unilateral secession by states post-entry strongly implies that no such means of unilateral secession was envisioned – or desired.

      • Anonymous says:

        Making an empty rhetorical threat of independence to get their (Dems’) leftist way (as Daily Kos supports https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/9/1935371/-Newsom-Hints-at-California-Independence ) is not good. Just the other day Newsom talked about martial law being possible versus the virus ( https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/489748-californias-newsom-is-wrong-martial-law-is-always-a-last-resort ) too.

        Newsom and co. are just doing it for politics and to get their way versus the current admin (like a little kid holding his breath until he gets what he wants) but they may not appreciate how negative that is. Not something I’d do.

        • Anonymous says:

          Since that Daily Kos article, media/YouTube have gone silent on the subject. Methinks a “come to Jesus” moment of significant intensity ensued shortly thereafter.

  13. 26Limabeans says:

    What better isolation than a ship at sea?
    Not trying to be funny. It is what it is.

    • timactual says:

      Absolutely. Unfortunately isolation only works if you do not bring the disease with you to your isolated area.

  14. PavePusher says:

    “Hyten pointed to the inherent problem of containing the spread of the virus, which causes a disease known as COVID-19, aboard a ship in which many crewmembers share quarters, sometimes with as many as two dozen sleeping in bunks in one room.”

    Didn’t someone here a few days ago claim, quite strenuously, that this wasn’t a problem?

    I could swear someone did just that…..