4 ms·

Coronavirus survivors banned from joining the military

21 points by spking 6y ago

legerdemain 6y ago
Remains to be seen if they immediately discharge all active-duty service members who receive a positive diagnosis, following the same logic they used to arrive at the current decision.
- oyashirochama 6y ago
  They won't because that's not how medical in the military works once you're actually in, you go on waiver process for physical tests (and mental occasionally) and will get med boarded if you are on waiver to long, to test if you can do your jobs minimum requirements you pass, you stay, you fail, you get separated. They are much more picky on coming in because they know people will gradually breakdown as they work through the military job (as any job really too) and want the person to have as low a burden coming in as possibly.
aaron695 6y ago
Clearly it's a paperwork issue, since it makes no sense. But whats with the pathetic "Coronavirus survivors"? Is this a medical term, meaning the disease has passed? Or is it the on going bullshit that anyone who stubs their toe is called a 'survivor' so they can have a better sounding Facebook group that they can join and share?
- waste_monk 6y ago
  My understanding is some COVID-19 patients (as in, the fraction of people who experience symptoms much more severe than a regular flu but do not die as a result) suffer severe permanent reduction to their aerobic capability (lung damage caused by pulmonary edema). I am certainly not suggesting that ALL servicefolk who contract COVID-19 should be medically discharged, but statistically a portion of them will have severe enough cases that medical discharge is the only sensible option, as they may be endangered if left in place. It is not their fault, but if an existing servicemember is no longer physically fit to serve then it seems fair to medically discharge them. And similarly to reject an applicant on medical grounds. I do not think it is fair to blanket reject all COVID-19 patients, as most will make a full recovery and would be perfectly able to serve, but if you had sufficient applicants that you could be choosy about it you would understandbly want to choose the ones with less doubts about their medical history. I am not from the USA so I do not know how picky they are with recruiting at the moment, but if it is a trough in the cycle then I would expect to see recovered coronavirus patients turned away.
  - aaron695 6y ago
    At the higher level of the military, at least, they know almost all Americans will get Covid-19. So to say people who have had it are "banned from joining" wouldn't really make sense. But yes, for now perhaps it is true. Someone who's had it vs someone who'll get it later, not sure why you chose the later. I guess if re-infections continually weaken the person, the later will be stronger. But then you have the unknown of how badly it effects them since they haven't had it yet.
    - oyashirochama 6y ago
      Most likely there will be a lung test if you were previously positive for COVID19 to determine eligibility for waivers, they currently have no process to go through waivers though so PDQ will be exactly that permanent without a chance to go at all.
0d9eooo 6y ago
This is absurd. If anything they should be looking for people in good health who gave already had it.
- welcome_dragon 6y ago
  ... but there's no indication that having it once gives you future immunity
  - acrooks 6y ago
    That doesn't take away from the absurdity (after enough time has passed from infection). There is _no chance_ that somebody who has not contracted COVID-19 is safer than somebody who has. In the case of no immunity, they're both equally dangerous. In the case of yes immunity, those being banned are safer. , they're equally likely to contract COVID. At worst, the person who h
  - paypalcust83 6y ago
    True. There are three main aspects from the military's side to consider when a candidate tests positive for IgM anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: 0. Immunity - Possibility of not lifelong immunity. 1. Carriers - Possibility of continuing to shed viruses and infect other personnel. (It costs too much to conduct rtPCR tests, it's worth just playing it safe and hoping determined candidates reapply or ask for waivers when more scientific evidence is available.) 2. Organ damage - Potential for permanently-reduced lung capacity due to damage from COVID-19, which reduces operational effectiveness. Also, the potential for kidney, liver, and heart damage.. this raises potential ongoing healtcare liabilities (TRICARE).
mleonhard 6y ago
Perhaps the rule is to prevent recruits from infecting other recruits during training?
- oyashirochama 6y ago
  It says history, so even if you had it say 2 years later (as its written its a memo so it can change fairly fast) you can't join without a waiver or probably physical exam to check lung functions.

21 points by spking 6y ago

Remains to be seen if they immediately discharge all active-duty service members who receive a positive diagnosis, following the same logic they used to arrive at the current decision.

oyashirochama 6y ago
They won't because that's not how medical in the military works once you're actually in, you go on waiver process for physical tests (and mental occasionally) and will get med boarded if you are on waiver to long, to test if you can do your jobs minimum requirements you pass, you stay, you fail, you get separated. They are much more picky on coming in because they know people will gradually breakdown as they work through the military job (as any job really too) and want the person to have as low a burden coming in as possibly.

aaron695 6y ago

Clearly it's a paperwork issue, since it makes no sense. But whats with the pathetic "Coronavirus survivors"? Is this a medical term, meaning the disease has passed? Or is it the on going bullshit that anyone who stubs their toe is called a 'survivor' so they can have a better sounding Facebook group that they can join and share?

waste_monk 6y ago
My understanding is some COVID-19 patients (as in, the fraction of people who experience symptoms much more severe than a regular flu but do not die as a result) suffer severe permanent reduction to their aerobic capability (lung damage caused by pulmonary edema). I am certainly not suggesting that ALL servicefolk who contract COVID-19 should be medically discharged, but statistically a portion of them will have severe enough cases that medical discharge is the only sensible option, as they may be endangered if left in place. It is not their fault, but if an existing servicemember is no longer physically fit to serve then it seems fair to medically discharge them. And similarly to reject an applicant on medical grounds. I do not think it is fair to blanket reject all COVID-19 patients, as most will make a full recovery and would be perfectly able to serve, but if you had sufficient applicants that you could be choosy about it you would understandbly want to choose the ones with less doubts about their medical history. I am not from the USA so I do not know how picky they are with recruiting at the moment, but if it is a trough in the cycle then I would expect to see recovered coronavirus patients turned away.
- aaron695 6y ago
  At the higher level of the military, at least, they know almost all Americans will get Covid-19. So to say people who have had it are "banned from joining" wouldn't really make sense. But yes, for now perhaps it is true. Someone who's had it vs someone who'll get it later, not sure why you chose the later. I guess if re-infections continually weaken the person, the later will be stronger. But then you have the unknown of how badly it effects them since they haven't had it yet.
  - oyashirochama 6y ago
    Most likely there will be a lung test if you were previously positive for COVID19 to determine eligibility for waivers, they currently have no process to go through waivers though so PDQ will be exactly that permanent without a chance to go at all.

0d9eooo 6y ago

This is absurd. If anything they should be looking for people in good health who gave already had it.

welcome_dragon 6y ago
... but there's no indication that having it once gives you future immunity
- acrooks 6y ago
  That doesn't take away from the absurdity (after enough time has passed from infection). There is _no chance_ that somebody who has not contracted COVID-19 is safer than somebody who has. In the case of no immunity, they're both equally dangerous. In the case of yes immunity, those being banned are safer. , they're equally likely to contract COVID. At worst, the person who h
- paypalcust83 6y ago
  True. There are three main aspects from the military's side to consider when a candidate tests positive for IgM anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: 0. Immunity - Possibility of not lifelong immunity. 1. Carriers - Possibility of continuing to shed viruses and infect other personnel. (It costs too much to conduct rtPCR tests, it's worth just playing it safe and hoping determined candidates reapply or ask for waivers when more scientific evidence is available.) 2. Organ damage - Potential for permanently-reduced lung capacity due to damage from COVID-19, which reduces operational effectiveness. Also, the potential for kidney, liver, and heart damage.. this raises potential ongoing healtcare liabilities (TRICARE).

mleonhard 6y ago

Perhaps the rule is to prevent recruits from infecting other recruits during training?

oyashirochama 6y ago
It says history, so even if you had it say 2 years later (as its written its a memo so it can change fairly fast) you can't join without a waiver or probably physical exam to check lung functions.