US sailors will die unless coronavirus-hit aircraft carrier evacuated, captain warns

[sglowrider]

Carrier with thousands onboard is docked in Guam, which is struggling to handle local caseload of Covid-19 infections

The captain of a US aircraft carrier, with 5,000 people onboard, including an unconfirmed number who have tested positive for Covid-19, has called for help to save the lives of his sailors.

The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt was in the Pacific when the navy reported its first coronavirus case a week ago. It has since pulled into port in Guam, a US island territory in the western Pacific.

A four-page letter, written by the ship’s captain, describes a bleak situation onboard the nuclear-powered carrier as more sailors test positive for the virus.

Captain Brett Crozier, the ship’s commanding officer, wrote that the carrier lacked enough quarantine and isolation facilities and warned the current strategy would slow but fail to eradicate the highly contagious respiratory virus.

In the letter dated Monday, he called for “decisive action” and removing over 4,000 sailors from the ship and isolating them. Along with the ship’s crew, naval aviators and others serve aboard the Roosevelt.

“We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset - our sailors,” Crozier wrote.

US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that nearly 80 people aboard the ship had tested positive for the coronavirus, a number likely to increase as all personnel on the ship are tested.

 

[iuwclurker]

Carrier with thousands onboard is docked in Guam, which is struggling to handle local caseload of Covid-19 infections

The captain of a US aircraft carrier, with 5,000 people onboard, including an unconfirmed number who have tested positive for Covid-19, has called for help to save the lives of his sailors.

The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt was in the Pacific when the navy reported its first coronavirus case a week ago. It has since pulled into port in Guam, a US island territory in the western Pacific.

A four-page letter, written by the ship’s captain, describes a bleak situation onboard the nuclear-powered carrier as more sailors test positive for the virus.

Captain Brett Crozier, the ship’s commanding officer, wrote that the carrier lacked enough quarantine and isolation facilities and warned the current strategy would slow but fail to eradicate the highly contagious respiratory virus.

In the letter dated Monday, he called for “decisive action” and removing over 4,000 sailors from the ship and isolating them. Along with the ship’s crew, naval aviators and others serve aboard the Roosevelt.

“We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset - our sailors,” Crozier wrote.

US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that nearly 80 people aboard the ship had tested positive for the coronavirus, a number likely to increase as all personnel on the ship are tested.

Scientifically speaking, when analyzing not just a sample but the entire population, one can come up with more interesting data. Still not a controlled study of course.

 

[sglowrider]

America and China in Spider-Man outfits, pointing at each other.
If they don’t look after that ship and the virus causes serious issues...absolutely nobody will get the blame

 

[sglowrider]

Amazing that Trump reinstated a Navy SEAL war criminal, but allowed this guy to be removed from command.

He has a warped idea about what constitutes manly strength and decisiveness. That's perhaps why he seems to champion the morally-wrong type of military person; he's living vicariously through others' ruthlessness and idealises himself as the same (doing deals and dismissing critics are his substitutes for killing opponents)...if he wasn't so busy doing manly things like being the biggest boss of them all. *cue Hail to the Chief*

He is an outdated cliché of masculinity... Like from some 80s action film.
If he was lean and healthy looking but he's fat and orange.
War criminal kills foreigners/muslims = "good", Crozier showed civil courage, going against American authorities = "bad".

If he was lean and healthy looking instead of being fat and orange....

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

View embedded media

Amazing that Trump reinstated a Navy SEAL war criminal, but allowed this guy to be removed from command.

He has a warped idea about what constitutes manly strength and decisiveness. That's perhaps why he seems to champion the morally-wrong type of military person; he's living vicariously through others' ruthlessness and idealises himself as the same (doing deals and dismissing critics are his substitutes for killing opponents)...if he wasn't so busy doing manly things like being the biggest boss of them all. *cue Hail to the Chief*

He is an outdated cliché of masculinity... Like from some 80s action film.

War criminal kills foreigners/muslims = "good", Crozier showed civil courage, going against American authorities = "bad".

social distancing fail

 

[mashnut]

@Aloha Hoosier @INRanger27 if either of you are willing, I'd love to hear your takes on this story. On one hand, it's obviously a good idea to have a policy of being careful about information about our combat troops and ships being public, and this getting out could expose some issues with current readiness to hostile actors. On the other hand, it sure looks like he was only trying to save lives here.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

@Aloha Hoosier @INRanger27 if either of you are willing, I'd love to hear your takes on this story. On one hand, it's obviously a good idea to have a policy of being careful about information about our combat troops and ships being public, and this getting out could expose some issues with current readiness to hostile actors. On the other hand, it sure looks like he was only trying to save lives here.

I don’t have enough information to comment responsibly.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What are words never spoken on the internet, Alex?

I don’t have enough information to comment responsibly.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

View embedded media

Amazing that Trump reinstated a Navy SEAL war criminal, but allowed this guy to be removed from command.

He has a warped idea about what constitutes manly strength and decisiveness. That's perhaps why he seems to champion the morally-wrong type of military person; he's living vicariously through others' ruthlessness and idealises himself as the same (doing deals and dismissing critics are his substitutes for killing opponents)...if he wasn't so busy doing manly things like being the biggest boss of them all. *cue Hail to the Chief*

He is an outdated cliché of masculinity... Like from some 80s action film.
If he was lean and healthy looking but he's fat and orange.
War criminal kills foreigners/muslims = "good", Crozier showed civil courage, going against American authorities = "bad".

If he was lean and healthy looking instead of being fat and orange....

Did Trump order that he be relieved? Do you know why he was relieved?

Answers to both questions are available to you.

 

[UncleMark]

Did Trump order that he be relieved? Do you know why he was relieved?

Answers to both questions are available to you.

Has Hannity come to the commander's defense? That's what matters in these situations.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Did Trump order that he be relieved? Do you know why he was relieved?

Answers to both questions are available to you.

You sure about that?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

@Aloha Hoosier @INRanger27 if either of you are willing, I'd love to hear your takes on this story. On one hand, it's obviously a good idea to have a policy of being careful about information about our combat troops and ships being public, and this getting out could expose some issues with current readiness to hostile actors. On the other hand, it sure looks like he was only trying to save lives here.

I honestly haven't read a lot about it because I'm busier than a one armed paper hanger lately. I have read one article on it and based solely on that, I'm not surprised he was relieved. Sounds like he went outside his chain of command and in a way he had to know would result in leaking to the press. As a result information about the operational readiness of one of the most powerful warship on earth (only equaled by other US CVNs) was made readily available to our enemies and potential enemies. The ship was deployed and presumably 100% operationally capable, but now we know it's not. Ideally, the ship would have made a port visit to Guam and the Navy would have quietly taken care of the Sailors and crew and not compromised information about the ship's readiness - at least for as long as they could. However, I've not dived into this more deeply and I don't know if the chain of command wasn't responding or if there some other mitigating factor which caused him to do what he did. I might even become convinced that relieving him was the wrong thing to do. I just don't know enough. I do have current and former Navy friends that are on Facebook that know him and really like him, but they also believe he probably should have been relieved based on what they know. He may have known he would be relieved when he did what he did, in fact, I think he probably knew he would be. He might have decided in his mind that it was necessary to get some faster assistance for his crew. Obviously I'm only speculating on his reasoning.

 

[UncleMark]

He may have known he would be relieved when he did what he did, in fact, I think he probably knew he would be. He might have decided in his mind that it was necessary to get some faster assistance for his crew.

Is there a "greater good" argument to be made? (Does that even exist in the military?) At what point does the welfare of his crew "trump" good order and discipline?

 

[thezinfan1]

I honestly haven't read a lot about it because I'm busier than a one armed paper hanger lately. I have read one article on it and based solely on that, I'm not surprised he was relieved. Sounds like he went outside his chain of command and in a way he had to know would result in leaking to the press. As a result information about the operational readiness of one of the most powerful warship on earth (only equaled by other US CVNs) was made readily available to our enemies and potential enemies. The ship was deployed and presumably 100% operationally capable, but now we know it's not. Ideally, the ship would have made a port visit to Guam and the Navy would have quietly taken care of the Sailors and crew and not compromised information about the ship's readiness - at least for as long as they could. However, I've not dived into this more deeply and I don't know if the chain of command wasn't responding or if there some other mitigating factor which caused him to do what he did. I might even become convinced that relieving him was the wrong thing to do. I just don't know enough. I do have current and former Navy friends that are on Facebook that know him and really like him, but they also believe he probably should have been relieved based on what they know. He may have known he would be relieved when he did what he did, in fact, I think he probably knew he would be. He might have decided in his mind that it was necessary to get some faster assistance for his crew. Obviously I'm only speculating on his reasoning.

I had read that he was pretty loose with who was on that memo or email. I hadn't considered that the info also revealed reduced readiness. Nice analysis.

 

[Hoosiers Rising]

I had read that he was pretty loose with who was on that memo or email. I hadn't considered that the info also revealed reduced readiness. Nice analysis.

He cc'd to like 30 people.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I honestly haven't read a lot about it because I'm busier than a one armed paper hanger lately. I have read one article on it and based solely on that, I'm not surprised he was relieved. Sounds like he went outside his chain of command and in a way he had to know would result in leaking to the press. As a result information about the operational readiness of one of the most powerful warship on earth (only equaled by other US CVNs) was made readily available to our enemies and potential enemies. The ship was deployed and presumably 100% operationally capable, but now we know it's not. Ideally, the ship would have made a port visit to Guam and the Navy would have quietly taken care of the Sailors and crew and not compromised information about the ship's readiness - at least for as long as they could. However, I've not dived into this more deeply and I don't know if the chain of command wasn't responding or if there some other mitigating factor which caused him to do what he did. I might even become convinced that relieving him was the wrong thing to do. I just don't know enough. I do have current and former Navy friends that are on Facebook that know him and really like him, but they also believe he probably should have been relieved based on what they know. He may have known he would be relieved when he did what he did, in fact, I think he probably knew he would be. He might have decided in his mind that it was necessary to get some faster assistance for his crew. Obviously I'm only speculating on his reasoning.

I think this is the right take.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Is there a "greater good" argument to be made? (Does that even exist in the military?) At what point does the welfare of his crew "trump" good order and discipline?

I think that that is the personal question that he must have asked himself, and he made his decision.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Is there a "greater good" argument to be made? (Does that even exist in the military?) At what point does the welfare of his crew "trump" good order and discipline?

I don't believe this was about good order and discipline. Welfare of the crew is always the ship's leaders' prime concern. He may have made the calculus that this was what he had to do. He may have thrown himself on his sword because he thought he had to. He may have been right and he may have been wrong. I'm speculating and I don't know. All I know is what I read and what I read leads me to the conclusion that he should have been relieved. I also said that if/when I get a chance to dig into this (maybe I'll get a chance to see the report) I could change my mind - or not.

 

[hoosboot]

I don't believe this was about good order and discipline. Welfare of the crew is always the ship's leaders' prime concern. He may have made the calculus that this was what he had to do. He may have thrown himself on his sword because he thought he had to. He may have been right and he may have been wrong. I'm speculating and I don't know. All I know is what I read and what I read leads me to the conclusion that he should have been relieved. I also said that if/when I get a chance to dig into this (maybe I'll get a chance to see the report) I could change my mind - or not.

Thanks for your valuable perspective, Aloha. Doing the right thing doesn't absolve one from having to bear the repercussions of one's actions. You still have to take ownership of your actions. Sometimes that is even what being a hero demands.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[iuwclurker]

I honestly haven't read a lot about it because I'm busier than a one armed paper hanger lately. I have read one article on it and based solely on that, I'm not surprised he was relieved. Sounds like he went outside his chain of command and in a way he had to know would result in leaking to the press. As a result information about the operational readiness of one of the most powerful warship on earth (only equaled by other US CVNs) was made readily available to our enemies and potential enemies. The ship was deployed and presumably 100% operationally capable, but now we know it's not. Ideally, the ship would have made a port visit to Guam and the Navy would have quietly taken care of the Sailors and crew and not compromised information about the ship's readiness - at least for as long as they could. However, I've not dived into this more deeply and I don't know if the chain of command wasn't responding or if there some other mitigating factor which caused him to do what he did. I might even become convinced that relieving him was the wrong thing to do. I just don't know enough. I do have current and former Navy friends that are on Facebook that know him and really like him, but they also believe he probably should have been relieved based on what they know. He may have known he would be relieved when he did what he did, in fact, I think he probably knew he would be. He might have decided in his mind that it was necessary to get some faster assistance for his crew. Obviously I'm only speculating on his reasoning.

Do you find it hard to believe that the correct chain of command above him does not care about the welfare of his sailors as they should? In other words, couldn’t he have simply communicated the urgency of the situation and got an effective response is using the correction chain of command?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Do you find it hard to believe that the correct chain of command above him does not care about the welfare of his sailors as they should? In other words, couldn’t he have simply communicated the urgency of the situation and got an effective response is using the correction chain of command?

Yes. Yes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes. Yes.

I have no opinion on this, myself. Not my wheelhouse, and I don't know enough to fake it.

But based on all your answers so far in this thread, I'm forced to ask a speculative question: If - if - he did first try to use the regular chain of command, and only did what he did as a last resort...isn't that scary as hell?

 

[iuwclurker]

I have no opinion on this, myself. Not my wheelhouse, and I don't know enough to fake it.

But based on all your answers so far in this thread, I'm forced to ask a speculative question: If - if - he did first try to use the regular chain of command, and only did what he did as a last resort...isn't that scary as hell?

Sounds to me more like a good commanding officer lost his composure under an extreme circumstance and panicked. Hysteria is the one common denominator in a crisis like this. Varying degrees of hysteria. It’s palpable.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I have no opinion on this, myself. Not my wheelhouse, and I don't know enough to fake it.

But based on all your answers so far in this thread, I'm forced to ask a speculative question: If - if - he did first try to use the regular chain of command, and only did what he did as a last resort...isn't that scary as hell?

Sure, but that is so far outside my experience during 26 years in the Navy that it’s hard for me to imagine.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Sure, but that is so far outside my experience during 26 years in the Navy that it’s hard for me to imagine.

Both possibilities seem strange. Either the higher ups ignored his pleas or a man made it to Captain of a carrier whose very first response was an email to the media. None of his training should have led to that.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Both possibilities seem strange. Either the higher ups ignored his pleas or a man made it to Captain of a carrier whose very first response was an email to the media. None of his training should have led to that.

The second is more likely, but I think I understand it. We've been in the house for two weeks and my wife is constantly going around the house to sterilize surfaces that no one has touched but us. I'm thinking that seems like overkill and slightly illogical since we either have it or we don't, but I'm not saying a thing about it. Whatever it takes for her to cope with this is OK with me. She's always been mildly germophobic and this has acerbated it. She's about to sew some masks for us after she gets back from a run (and not getting within 20 feet of anyone out there). I have no idea how this has affected the Skipper, but maybe it's affected his judgment. Still just speculating, of course.

By the way, I generally dislike the use of the term "Skipper." Most of us Surface Warfare officers dislike it and prefer "Captain" for the Commanding Officer of a ship. However, Aviators almost always use "Skipper" for the Commanding Officer of a Squadron or a ship, and since CVN COs are exclusively Aviators these days, it's appropriate. Just a little trivia for those unaware of this.

 

[Zizkov]

Navy Captain Removed From Carrier Tests Positive for Covid-19
Captain Crozier was fired after a leak of a letter he had emailed to Navy leaders detailing the service's failures in dealing with a coronavirus outbreak on the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/magazine/navy-captain-crozier-positive-coronavirus.html

 

[zeke4ahs]

So do we know what has happened to the men yet?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Navy Captain Removed From Carrier Tests Positive for Covid-19
Captain Crozier was fired after a leak of a letter he had emailed to Navy leaders detailing the service's failures in dealing with a coronavirus outbreak on the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/magazine/navy-captain-crozier-positive-coronavirus.html

Good grief

 

[thezinfan1]

So do we know what has happened to the men yet?

At least 155 sailors on the USS Theodore Roosevelt have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the Navy’s latest update.

They account for 42 percent of all cases among all U.S. sailors worldwide.

The Navy said only about 1,500 sailors have so far been removed from the carrier, which has a crew of 5,000. Earlier this week, Navy brass promised 2,700 would be ashore by now.

About 44 percent of the crew have received coronavirus tests so far. None of the crew members who tested positive have required hospitalization.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

At least 155 sailors on the USS Theodore Roosevelt have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the Navy’s latest update.

They account for 42 percent of all cases among all U.S. sailors worldwide.

The Navy said only about 1,500 sailors have so far been removed from the carrier, which has a crew of 5,000. Earlier this week, Navy brass promised 2,700 would be ashore by now.

About 44 percent of the crew have received coronavirus tests so far. None of the crew members who tested positive have required hospitalization.

Good news that none have required hospitalization. Not super surprising since the average age on that carrier is probably about 24 and they'd be more healthy than a random group with the same age demographics. I was among the five oldest on my last ship at 47 and I could still beat half the ship in the physical fitness test - more if I swam it, but I only did the run it to keep it fair for the Sailors who wanted to beat me.

Guam isn't a bustling metropolis with a lot of hospitals and empty rooms. It'll take a bit of time to find places for everyone there. I'd guess the Corps of Engineers and/or Seabees are building something for them.

 

[82hoosier]

I guarantee you that there was correspondence going back-and-forth as soon as the first person tested positive for the Covid virus. At some point he likely lost faith in the system and allowed a chain of events to develop with the information that would make its way to the press. I’m sure his decision was calculated.

 

[sglowrider]

US Navy captain fired for raising coronavirus concerns tests positive himself

Brett Crozier, the US Navy captain who was removed from his command this week after he wrote a memo expressing concern for the health of crew members exposed to coronavirus, has himself tested positive, the New York Times first reported.
The Times report cited two US Naval Academy classmates close to Crozier’s family. The details of Crozier’s condition were unclear.

 

[toastedbread]

I honestly haven't read a lot about it because I'm busier than a one armed paper hanger lately. I have read one article on it and based solely on that, I'm not surprised he was relieved. Sounds like he went outside his chain of command and in a way he had to know would result in leaking to the press. As a result information about the operational readiness of one of the most powerful warship on earth (only equaled by other US CVNs) was made readily available to our enemies and potential enemies. The ship was deployed and presumably 100% operationally capable, but now we know it's not. Ideally, the ship would have made a port visit to Guam and the Navy would have quietly taken care of the Sailors and crew and not compromised information about the ship's readiness - at least for as long as they could. However, I've not dived into this more deeply and I don't know if the chain of command wasn't responding or if there some other mitigating factor which caused him to do what he did. I might even become convinced that relieving him was the wrong thing to do. I just don't know enough. I do have current and former Navy friends that are on Facebook that know him and really like him, but they also believe he probably should have been relieved based on what they know. He may have known he would be relieved when he did what he did, in fact, I think he probably knew he would be. He might have decided in his mind that it was necessary to get some faster assistance for his crew. Obviously I'm only speculating on his reasoning.

How's this for comportment.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics/uss-tr-crozier-modly/index.html

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

How's this for comportment.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics/uss-tr-crozier-modly/index.html

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

He might be to stupid to remain as SecNav.

 

[NPT]

I don’t have enough information to comment responsibly.

That's not stopping all the other experts on here.

 

[iuwclurker]

He might be to stupid to remain as SecNav.

Looks like he’s the one worried about the thorough investigation. So he ass-jacked Crozier.

 

[hoosboot]

That's not stopping all the other experts on here.

Hmmm...if that's the standard, I think you might want to find a thread about horse medicine and a few others where there is a lot of "expertise" flowing.