Posted on Oct 8, 2014
Will deploying more US troops to fight Ebola increase the chances of the virus spreading through more states?
7.75K
81
58
11
11
0
Have you noticed whenever you turn on the news or read it—Ebola seems to be everywhere? It is a little scary. Cases of Ebola have now been found in Dallas and D.C. Doctors and aid workers from across the world are helping fight the battle against this epidemic, but how much do you really know about this virus? There are many misconceptions about Ebola, so lets clear some up now:
1. Ebola is extremely infectious but not extremely contagious. It is infectious, because an exceedingly small amount can cause illness.
2. Ebola is moderately contagious. The virus is not transmitted through the air.
3. Humans can be infected by other humans if they come in contact with body fluids from an infected person or contaminated objects from infected persons.
This week, President Obama declared that there will be additional screening measures to prevent the virus from ravaging the United States but will not be banning any air travel. The Coast Guard is also starting to put protocols in place for ships that have recently been in Ebola-affected areas. Passengers will be checked for symptoms of the virus before the ship docks. Is this enough or should the U.S. take a more drastic approach and ban all travel unless approved to these virus devastated countries?
As many know, up to 4,000 service members will be deployed to aid in the battle against Ebola in West Africa, but is this really something U.S. Military should be involved in? Operation United Assistance will focus on building treatment units in Liberia and aid in training local health workers to treat patients. Troops are not expected to have direct contact with Ebola patients, but they will still be trained on the proper methods that come with personal protection equipment. With so many Americans being deployed to West Africa, will this only increase the chances of Ebola spreading through States?
1. Ebola is extremely infectious but not extremely contagious. It is infectious, because an exceedingly small amount can cause illness.
2. Ebola is moderately contagious. The virus is not transmitted through the air.
3. Humans can be infected by other humans if they come in contact with body fluids from an infected person or contaminated objects from infected persons.
This week, President Obama declared that there will be additional screening measures to prevent the virus from ravaging the United States but will not be banning any air travel. The Coast Guard is also starting to put protocols in place for ships that have recently been in Ebola-affected areas. Passengers will be checked for symptoms of the virus before the ship docks. Is this enough or should the U.S. take a more drastic approach and ban all travel unless approved to these virus devastated countries?
As many know, up to 4,000 service members will be deployed to aid in the battle against Ebola in West Africa, but is this really something U.S. Military should be involved in? Operation United Assistance will focus on building treatment units in Liberia and aid in training local health workers to treat patients. Troops are not expected to have direct contact with Ebola patients, but they will still be trained on the proper methods that come with personal protection equipment. With so many Americans being deployed to West Africa, will this only increase the chances of Ebola spreading through States?
Posted in these groups: 
Command Post
Coronavirus COVID19
Command Post Coronavirus COVID19
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 26
1
1
0
I am not convinced that the US military is the right agency to respond directly. Military support should be limited to airlift and other logistics support function. However, if the contagion risk is as low as reported it may seem a low risk proposition for properly trained troops. These actions also provide good real-world training for the troops, allows exercise of response plans with realistic but low-threat scenarios, and good PR at a time when most people thing we just go in a blow a place up.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm curious on how they want our troops to fight Ebola when it's a disease? What are you gonna do bust out the 'one shot one kill' .? Troops are dying already from 'fighting' Ebola. This is just outrageous.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would think it is not the mission of our fighting and protection from attack force (the army), to handle a CDC failure. It is the military mission to protect and defend from enemies not from outbreaks that are in another country. Perhaps the CDC needs to make its own response team and get their mission straight.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The CDC has no jurisdiction or ability to operate in Africa...how is that a failure on their part?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
I am personally in Africa right now and have had several briefings as well as conducted my own research on this matter, Ebola is only a major issue if you do not have established medical facilities, pay attention to where major outbreaks are; Western Africa, the worst medically covered area in the world. Even if you travel easterly from where the outbreak is it quickly diminishes as you get to more developed countries (how ever more slightly may be). Ebola may reach the states but it will never spread unless medical facilities just shut dosn out of nowhere.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Army doctors are more concerned about malaria exposure than Ebola for the deployed soldiers. "We pretty much have zero exposure risk to Ebola right now, and 100 percent exposure risk to malaria," said Maj. Benjamin Platt, a doctor with Army Medical Support Company, Joint Forces Command-United Assistance.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Gen. Dempsey Discusses Military Action in the Ebola Crisis
18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army General Martin E. Dempsey talks about the U.S. military mission in West Africa as well as precautions i...
General Dempsey's message from youtube yesterday. He addresses the precautions that will be taken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Fcm_CTgyo
DOD had a team stand up for 30 days at the request of DHHS in case of a domestic outbreak recently as well and that is currently placed under NORTHCOM.
http://www.defense.gov/video/default.aspx?videoid=368042
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Fcm_CTgyo
DOD had a team stand up for 30 days at the request of DHHS in case of a domestic outbreak recently as well and that is currently placed under NORTHCOM.
http://www.defense.gov/video/default.aspx?videoid=368042
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SGT Jay Ehrenfeld The Vietnam war cost the US military almost 60,000 deaths while OIF and OEF combined is currently around 8000 (each loss deeply felt and certainly not all directly attributable to Gen Dempsey)...so I am confused of what point you were trying to make. Can you please clarify?
OIF and OEF Ref. (http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf)
Vietnam Ref. "The Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) Extract Files contains records of 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War. These records were transferred into the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration in 2008. The earliest casualty record contains a date of death of June 8, 1956, and the most recent casualty record contains a date of death of May 28, 2006. The Defense Casualty Analysis System Extract Files were created by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The records correspond to the Vietnam Conflict statistics on the DMDC web site, which is accessible online at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/main.xhtml. " National Archives
OIF and OEF Ref. (http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf)
Vietnam Ref. "The Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) Extract Files contains records of 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War. These records were transferred into the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration in 2008. The earliest casualty record contains a date of death of June 8, 1956, and the most recent casualty record contains a date of death of May 28, 2006. The Defense Casualty Analysis System Extract Files were created by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The records correspond to the Vietnam Conflict statistics on the DMDC web site, which is accessible online at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/main.xhtml. " National Archives
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is known that Ebola is spread through bodily fluids. Other means by which the disease may be spread are not known. This is a mutating virus and all the known cases of Ebola have not been explained by body fluid contact. I do not believe that we should be sending our troops to fight this disease. Perhaps flying in of equipment and supplies are warranted but drop it and leave it. Leave this to civilian volunteers who are willing to be quarantined and have the experience and training. Our troops should be on our nations borders preventing illegal crossings by people who may be criminals in their own country, may become criminals in our country, and are criminals by default if they cross illegally. We have all manner of diseases that have already entered our country in this manner. Liberia is a failed nation that we have burned billions on. They have not been trainable to run a democratic nation and I don't expect them to be trainable to handle this disease.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It will increase the chance of the spread of Ebola. Here is a link that says the nurse who was caring for the man in Texas has tested positive for Ebola.
If you think those who are in contact with the disease won't get it... Think again.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/health/ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
If you think those who are in contact with the disease won't get it... Think again.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/health/ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Ebola outbreak: Texas nurse tests positive - CNN.com
The deadly Ebola virus has been contracted by someone inside the United States for the first time.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
There was also a doctor that died after even being suited up in Africa. Shows how serious you should be with your PPE, any mistakes can and will be deadly.
(0)
(0)
Sgt James Morse
It can't but increase the risk of infection here in the U.S. Any of the troops currently in the hot zone, who contract the virus, will most likely be transported to the U.S. for care. All this does is open the door to more widespread domestic infection.
The thing to remember about ebola (well, there's several things) is that nobody really knows how virulent it is, because there are no concrete models to work from. The reason for this is a) it's high mortality rate, and b) the speed with which it kills the infected. This is also one of the reasons that it has been mostly constrained to the African interior prior to this outbreak; villagers who contracted the disease tended to be dead before they could get near healthy populations.
Another thing to bear in mind is that while it seems safe to assume that an airborne variety of this virus has not yet been categorized, viruses mutate like crazy-- it's only a matter of time before we can expect to see an airborne strain (if one does not already exist somewhere in the interior). The good news is that this particular strain doesn't seem to have quite the same mortality rate as other outbreaks (as high as 99%), but the fact that such large population groups are being exposed to it makes the point moot. If the mortality rate is "only" 85%, that's still 85 out of 100 people hitting the burn pile within a week of showing symptoms. Extrapolate those numbers in a population center like New York or Chicago, Los Angeles or, for that matter, Dallas-Fort Worth. All it would take is a single patient to be missed by the authorities to start a pandemic.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist, just realistic. And in their limitless wisdom, the powers that be refuse to put restrictions on overseas flights, but don't seem to be considering the necessity for martial law in the event of a pandemic. Because, well, our government wouldn't be hoping for a crisis that they can take advantage of. Right?
The thing to remember about ebola (well, there's several things) is that nobody really knows how virulent it is, because there are no concrete models to work from. The reason for this is a) it's high mortality rate, and b) the speed with which it kills the infected. This is also one of the reasons that it has been mostly constrained to the African interior prior to this outbreak; villagers who contracted the disease tended to be dead before they could get near healthy populations.
Another thing to bear in mind is that while it seems safe to assume that an airborne variety of this virus has not yet been categorized, viruses mutate like crazy-- it's only a matter of time before we can expect to see an airborne strain (if one does not already exist somewhere in the interior). The good news is that this particular strain doesn't seem to have quite the same mortality rate as other outbreaks (as high as 99%), but the fact that such large population groups are being exposed to it makes the point moot. If the mortality rate is "only" 85%, that's still 85 out of 100 people hitting the burn pile within a week of showing symptoms. Extrapolate those numbers in a population center like New York or Chicago, Los Angeles or, for that matter, Dallas-Fort Worth. All it would take is a single patient to be missed by the authorities to start a pandemic.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist, just realistic. And in their limitless wisdom, the powers that be refuse to put restrictions on overseas flights, but don't seem to be considering the necessity for martial law in the event of a pandemic. Because, well, our government wouldn't be hoping for a crisis that they can take advantage of. Right?
(1)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
Sgt James Morse I could not agree with you more. I am also concerned about how those powers that be are trying to downplay Ebola. I remember during the Swine Flue threat they were tripping all over themselves to come up with a vaccine to prevent the spread.
Ebola seems to be a greater threat, so why not a greater urgency to combat it, without the use of troops. Something is not setting in my crawl just right about this, but you can bet I will be following this.
You brought up an interesting point Sargent. "All it would take is a single patient to be missed by the authorities to start a pandemic." I wonder, do they really know everyone that has been exposed from this one incident? Now there is two, that happened rather quickly.
From what I could tell of the briefing from the CDC, is, A> they were not confident in their statements, and B. typical Obama administration to look for a place to put blame. I mean, for real, protocol breach. From what I understand the nurse followed protocol exactly, and the CDC admitted, there may need to be more protocol added. Sounds to me like they really don't know what they are dealing with when they are not even sure if the current protocol is sufficient.
Ebola seems to be a greater threat, so why not a greater urgency to combat it, without the use of troops. Something is not setting in my crawl just right about this, but you can bet I will be following this.
You brought up an interesting point Sargent. "All it would take is a single patient to be missed by the authorities to start a pandemic." I wonder, do they really know everyone that has been exposed from this one incident? Now there is two, that happened rather quickly.
From what I could tell of the briefing from the CDC, is, A> they were not confident in their statements, and B. typical Obama administration to look for a place to put blame. I mean, for real, protocol breach. From what I understand the nurse followed protocol exactly, and the CDC admitted, there may need to be more protocol added. Sounds to me like they really don't know what they are dealing with when they are not even sure if the current protocol is sufficient.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I've read several sites, including WHO and CDC that infer it may be contagious via airborne particulates, let's not forget, a dead person is still contagious, and via improper handling is easily spread. A virus mutates, so it may not be airborne today or tomorrow, but who is monitoring the mutations....and what the new version can and cannot do?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google