Coronavirus Survivors 'Permanently Disqualified' from Joining U.S. Military

[TomCADem]

Source: MSN

A memorandum from the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM) says applicants who have previously tested positive for the COVID-19 novel coronavirus won't be allowed to serve in the armed forces, according to Military Times.

The authenticity of the memorandum has been verified by the Pentagon.

"During the medical history interview or examination, a history of COVID-19, confirmed by either a laboratory test or a clinician diagnosis, is permanently disqualifying," the memo reads.

Additionally, the memo lays out guidelines for handling possible and confirmed coronavirus cases in applicants. It says any applicants at any of the 65 nationwide Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) should be evaluated for possible coronavirus infection, most likely through a temperature check and questions about their symptoms and possible contact with infected individuals.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/coronavirus-survivors-permanently-disqualified-from-joining-us-military/ar-BB13I8in?li=BBnb7Kz

---

Of course, despite the concern about the possible spread of COVID-19, Trump is ordering a thousand West Point cadets to come back near a COVID-19 hotspot to serve as window dressing for his campaign, er commencent, speech.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-forcing-west-point-graduates-risk-coronavirus-his-ego-disrespects-ncna1195576

Trump forcing West Point graduates to risk coronavirus for his ego disrespects their work

President Donald Trump announced two weeks ago that the annual commencement ceremonies at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point would proceed as normal and that he would speak in-person to this year’s 1,000 graduating class — much to the surprise of academy officials, who had been carefully planning how to restructure the milestone for cadets without putting anyone at risk for COVID-19. So now, instead of delaying the iconic ceremony or conducting it virtually, the commander in chief is putting 1,000 cadets, an untold number of military personnel and civilians, and perhaps the cadets’ families at risk in order to give a speech.

Though dangerous and irresponsible, it certainly tracks with Trump’s lack of discipline and general disrespect for our military. It’s also an especially narcissistic response to the hard work of these soon-to-be officers, who have spent the past four years in the most grueling undergraduate program in the country. I would know: After my time as an enlisted soldier (and before I was medically retired due to health complications), I spent two years as a cadet at the academy.

West Point offers perhaps the furthest thing from a typical college education, and attracts some of the best and brightest, even when they could go anywhere else. Valedictorians, class presidents, team captains, Eagle Scouts and prior service soldiers with distinction in combat all have to compete for either a congressional nomination or a commander’s approval just to apply; their reward for getting in is a “free” education that comes with a five-year active duty service requirement in which they pledge to give their lives in defense of our country. Countless graduates have done exactly that — many of them buried in West Point’s cemetery.

From the moment cadet candidates arrive on campus for Reception Day at the end of June until they graduate four years later, they are tested for resilience, discipline, teamwork and most of all, their ability to grow as leaders — in addition to their mastery of high-level academics. It’s common for cadets to take more than the minimum number of credits per semester, as many work to complete not only a major in the humanities or social sciences but also a required minor in engineering.

[Frustratedlady]

1. Soooooo, does this mean companies should not rehire those who have had Covid-19?

I'm sorry, but I guess I'm not too bright. I don't understand this ruling. Perhaps I didn't read it correctly?

We are in for a whole lot of hurt in the future....definitely, until January 2021.

[iemitsu]

3. The military does not want to be responsible for the future health

problems these applicants might require.

[rpannier]

13. Thank you

That's what I've been trying to explain in this thread

[Corgigal]

15. Cause we have no

idea what time and a RNA novel will do to us.

I guess they are counting on a vaccine, or we have no military in two years.

[Voltaire2]

17. so why would any business wnat to be responsible for the future health

problems these applicants might require?

[mr_lebowski]

2. Welp, there's 100's of 1000's of people who will make sure they (or their kids) never get tested ...

That should keep Needy Amin's 'numbers' down like he wants them to be.

Presumably anyone who's in the military who tests positive would also be immediately dismissed from service as well ...

Not sure this will survive the eventual Court challenge, but it's really just a way to keep the number of positive test cases low before the election, so ...

[rpannier]

5. They would not be immediately dismissed from service

To begin with, they would receive full treatment before being discharged.
Having contracted it while on active service, the military will take care of them until they have healed.
I was in the service and had a non-duty related injury that laid me up for a few weeks. I had surgery, did recovery and completed my time. Not once did they consider removing me. And the people that they do discharge, like the guy who damaged his neck and was in a brace are discharged following the full and complete discharge process.
There is a fairly lengthy process to discharge someone. It can take weeks.
Once in, the military moves heaven and earth to keep you in

[mr_lebowski]

9. If this new rule really is that you are permanently disallowed from joining due to a

CV diagnosis, what is the logic for keeping someone in ... who's had it?

I mean the whole thing is freaking ridiculous if it's being reported accurately, nobody should be permanently disqualified for something like this, but for the sake of logical consistency ... how can you say 'well you can never join if you ever had it ... but if you're already in, no biggie'?

What is would be the rationale for a policy like that, IOW?

[rpannier]

11. Several reasons for keeping them in

1. There is no guarantee that having had it while in service will negatively impact their unit. That really is the bottom line.
2. Cost savings. It is very expensive to put people through basic training/boot camp.
3. The military is always going to work to keep those that are on active duty in the military.
They are likely more concerned with the long term effects on the person who gets Covid-19 are. If you're not in, they don't want to take you because your physical health may ultimately be problematic later on. If you're already in, they are responsible for your recovery. They are monitoring you. Military doctors are taking care of you. They can make a determination based on what the medical personnel within the organization dictate. They do not have that ability with someone they did not treat and monitor over a long period of time.
4. They are on the hook for that persons medical treatment essentially for life if it is the result of their time in service. Which means, going to the above point, they do not want to risk having someone who had it and being stuck paying for it until that person dies.

[mr_lebowski]

16. Fair enuf ... thx ... & I suppose then what they are essentially doing here is admitting

that there's a fair chance that EVER having tested positive for COVID-19 implies a high likelihood of relatively severe health problems later down the line ... and that's true even if you were never outright sick, and even if you were young at the time.

Wonder if our intrepid media will point this out/publicly question anyone about this obvious implication of the policy?

In any case, the ultimate outcome will be what Trump wants ... less people will get tested. A lot of young people want to keep their options to join the military open, as do their parents. If a positive test is a proverbial scarlet letter for ever serving, then many will decide not to risk it.

Some will likely die as a result of that decision, I'll add.

Thanks for your service, btw.

[RobinA]

27. They Aren't Admitting Anything

They don't have any idea. Just another knee jerk move in an episode replete with knee jerk moves.

[mr_lebowski]

28. If what the person I'm responding to is right about the reasoning

It implies that (what I said) is at minimum ... definitely suspected.

Do you disagree?

[smb]

20. Honoring An Existing Contract vs Avoiding Committing The Service To A New Contract

The two situations are different -- the service isn't going to break existing commitments to personnel (if only for the pragmatic reason that it would wreck future recruitment), but doesn't want to assume any new expensive commitments if it can help it.

[PaulRevere08]

21. I guess it's better than claiming "bone spurs".

[caraher]

4. So are they discharging all the sailors who got sick?

This is just stupid.

[rpannier]

6. Not necessarily

I have seen nothing that has said they are, or they're not.
That probably means they aren't -- at least at this time.
The sailors will received full treatment and once it is finished the Department of Navy will make a decision
The military has a lot of rules to keep people out.
Once in, if something happens that would bar initial enlistment, there is little chance it would keep you from wanting to stay/re-enlisting.
It is expensive to get someone through basic training/boot camp. The military prefers to keep what they have, even if the service member isn't very good..
I had a surgery that would have barred me from enlisting, but since it happened while on duty that rule did not apply. They would have let me re-enlist had I said yes. In fsact, they would have allowed me to go back in even a year after I got out.

[SunSeeker]

7. That makes absolutely no sense. I predict a "clarification" to that memo. nt

[Steelrolled]

30. I agree 100%

It doesn't pass the "smell test". We are in the middle of the pandemic, and it is not surprising the armed services are being very careful for now - that is how they operate. They will loosen the rules once things are understood better.

[yuiyoshida]

8. So what will they do if most in the Military

comes down with it? .. FIRE THEM ALL?

And what about thoses who were on the Aircraft Carrier? Will they be entirely released from duty?
Honorable discharge?

[rpannier]

12. No they won't fire them

They will be treated and the medical staff will make a recommendation based on the treatment the person receives.
When I joined having had had a heart attack was a bar to enlistment. But, I knew a First Sergeant who had one and the doctors recommended that he not be discharged. He wasn't.

[Grokenstein]

10. So much for "let it wash over us"

That's gonna leave a huge dent in military readiness. We're gonna be reduced to a skeleton crew that fires off munitions 24/7 in order to keep the military-industrial complex propped up.

...Oh, who am I kidding? They'll rescind this the moment they run low on bodies to hurl into the current for-profit quagmire.

[LeftInTX]

14. When there's a vaccine, they will let them in

[sinkingfeeling]

18. So, if we go with the 'herd immunity' plan, we won't have anybody

to join the military?

Thought MF45 was building the army back up.

[Vinca]

19. That doesn't make sense. You would think immunity would be an asset not a liability.

[Backseat Driver]

22. In the Lunatic-in-Chief's peanut brain, survivors are

losers in the War Against the Invisible Enemy who were held in Quarantine for at least 2 weeks as isolated POWs, and we all remember what the Dimwit thought of John McCain.

Then there's unknown permanent effects on organs and stamina, and claims that might arise long-term for VA healthcare of veterans.

Then there's additional health tests and/or titer testing now at induction and even after a vaccine makes it unknowable if the immunity conferred was by infection or vaccine. Begs the question with what substance/device "tracking" they will tag the vaccine(s); gender or orientation-by-documented history specific(?).

BUT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND STUPID considering active duty personnel who came down with CoVID-19 and managed to get tested with a positive result, symptoms/complications or not.

[CaptainTruth]

23. So a 1 year old child who tested positive & suffered no ill effects...

...won't be allowed to enlist 17 years later?

That doesn't make sense to me. Especially if some of the studies are correct that in some areas up to 30% of the population has had it without even knowing it.

Seems like this would really reduce the number of US troops for a generation. And if another nasty virus pops up in future years & they implement the same policy, another generation, & another etc

[Initech]

32. Well, assuming we still have a society 17 years from now...

There should be a vaccine then. So that should go away hopefully.

[patphil]

24. By the time covid19 is done, a large percentage of the population will have had it.

This will greatly diminish the military's ability to maintain their manpower levels and military readiness.
This memo will only hold until that effect is seen...probably a couple of years.
Granted, an economy still trying to recover from the virus will result in many young people looking to the military as a means of employment, but many of them won't be allowed in.
Given our nation's history of a ridiculously large military, it's just not going to work.
One of the best ways to compensate would be to drop most of our foreign bases, and scale back our forces by a few hundred thousand.

This would be a good time to take this approach.

[captain jack]

25. West Point is where the "circle game" is all the rage, right? n/t

[roamer65]

26. If they start a draft for a war, miraculously this restriction would just disappear.

When they want cannon fodder, most of them will.

[majdrfrtim]

29. Insurance companies are going to use this rule

as (part of) their rationale for considering anti-CV antibodies as proof of a "pre-existing condition" for which they'll be able to deny affordable insurance coverage once the SCOTUS destroys "Obamacare" after this fall's election. Ironic that so many of those who've salivated over the prospect of "Obamacare's" demise will be thrown into irremediable penury and perhaps homelessness as a consequence of their fondest dreams being realized . . .

[captain jack]

31. So there is an upside! n/t

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

33. OK, another reason for people to not get tested in the first place

I don't understand why they would exclude someone with a positive COVID-19 test. If they got over it and are healthy now, that is all that should matter.

[marlakay]

34. Sounds like preexisting conditions

So if you have had any past health problems you don’t qualify?