Navy USS Theodore Roosevelt COVID-19 crisis

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Gastrapathy

Gastrapathy

I’m just here so I don’t get fined
Lifetime Donor
Verified Member
Physician
15+ Year Member
Gold Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
5,710
Reaction score
5,460

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Gotta give the CO credit. To make this public means he made the request in private and was rejected and he’s decided to put his crew ahead of his career.

www.sfchronicle.com

Exclusive: Captain of aircraft carrier with growing coronavirus outbreak pleads for help from Navy

The captain of a nuclear aircraft carrier docked in Guam with more than 100...
www.sfchronicle.com www.sfchronicle.com

here’s the actual letter. It’s remarkable and clearly involved the influence of the SMO.
www.documentcloud.org

TR COVID 19 Assistance Request

Source document contributed to DocumentCloud by Jason Lloren (Hearst Newspapers).
www.documentcloud.org
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
This letter will be an important document going forward, and this ongoing event will be a significant case study for both naval operations students and public health students.

Can containment, if not isolation, be achieved against an infectious pathogen in a shipboard environment? Can this be done while maintaining some semblance of combat readiness? "Fighting sick" sounds bad enough. What does that mean for aircrew in the context of an aircraft carrier and its tasking? Do they fly sick (bad idea, there)? Can you isolate a healthy aircrew component and keep them mission ready?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
obviously am not a military strategist or anything, but makes me wonder if the aircraft carrier is going the direction of the battleship with this type of vulnerability.
 
Gastrapathy said:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Gotta give the CO credit. To make this public means he made the request in private and was rejected and he’s decided to put his crew ahead of his career.

www.sfchronicle.com

Exclusive: Captain of aircraft carrier with growing coronavirus outbreak pleads for help from Navy

The captain of a nuclear aircraft carrier docked in Guam with more than 100...
www.sfchronicle.com www.sfchronicle.com

here’s the actual letter. It’s remarkable and clearly involved the influence of the SMO.
www.documentcloud.org

TR COVID 19 Assistance Request

Source document contributed to DocumentCloud by Jason Lloren (Hearst Newspapers).
www.documentcloud.org
Click to expand...

That skipper is a stand-up guy and clearly fell on his sword for his crew. Referencing CDC guidance and the NAVADMIN message several times in the letter was a smart move but I don’t know how much cover that will give his career.

I also hope backdoor diplomatic communication, through the Swiss if necessary, is stressing to NK, China, Iran, etc., to refrain from doing anything stupid.
 
Monty Python said:
That skipper is a stand-up guy and clearly fell on his sword for his crew. Referencing CDC guidance and the NAVADMIN message several times in the letter was a smart move but I don’t know how much cover that will give his career.

I also hope backdoor diplomatic communication, through the Swiss if necessary, is stressing to NK, China, Iran, etc., to refrain from doing anything stupid.
Click to expand...

The people who should be worried are his superiors who dithered. He likely went through normal channels and got told by lesser minds to suck it up. A letter like this may portend the end of his career, and possibly this captain felt the need to choose between the casual neglect of his superiors and the welfare of his crew at the expense of ending his career. He should not suffer that, but if he does, so should every link in the chain of command up to the JCS. Every one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Suppose the entire crew, including the air wing has to debark. Does the Navy have a plan to stand up an experienced skeleton crew to manage the ship and its engineering and security requirements (expecting the Marine Security Detachment would have to debark as well) until the negative-testing (and negative re-testing) crew can leave quarantine? This may be one of those actions never before done in the modern Navy.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
Suppose the entire crew, including the air wing has to debark. Does the Navy have a plan to stand up an experienced skeleton crew to manage the ship and its engineering and security requirements (expecting the Marine Security Detachment would have to debark as well) until the negative-testing (and negative re-testing) crew can leave quarantine? This may be one of those actions never before done in the modern Navy.
Click to expand...

It has been done before. Ships that are pre-comming or decomming usually have a skeleton crew at some point. The new Zumwalt class destroyers had minimal crew for a while. They are designed that way, but even for that ship, they had very low manning for a while. If you shut down the plant and put things into layup, you can go to pretty minimal manning.

Additionally, both times I've taken ships into the yards, with everything in layup, the majority of our time was spent making sure what needed to be upgraded was getting upgraded, making sure paperwork was good to go, and things that needed to be replaced were being replaced. Since they wouldn't actually be in a yard period, they could have a skeleton crew maintain things.

I was weapons, so I'm not entirely sure how fast they could throw engineering into layup, but I know they can shut the plant down pretty quickly. It could be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
They need 2-4 weeks to quarantine, re-test, isolate and treat, all of it ashore, while the ship is sanitized. Doesn't seem like Guam is ideal for that. The sick should be disembarked ASAP. Pearl or San Diego would be better. They really can't make port calls elsewhere. Their ability to conduct air operations is questionable from the standpoint of mission continuation.

The history and timing of onset suggests the virus came aboard while in port in Vietnam. I'm not sure who gets port study information before calls like that but I recall well that I was not eligible to have access to port studies when my unit was deployed overseas because those required TS/BI clearance, and the lowly medical officer (but department head) had no such clearance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Isn’t a port call a big deal ($$$ to locals, political dog and pony show for local politicians etc), and the decision to make the call is far above the Captain’s head?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
orbitsurgMD said:
They need 2-4 weeks to quarantine, re-test, isolate and treat, all of it ashore, while the ship is sanitized. Doesn't seem like Guam is ideal for that. The sick should be disembarked ASAP. Pearl or San Diego would be better. They really can't make port calls elsewhere. Their ability to conduct air operations is questionable from the standpoint of mission continuation.

The history and timing of onset suggests the virus came aboard while in port in Vietnam. I'm not sure who gets port study information before calls like that but I recall well that I was not eligible to have access to port studies when my unit was deployed overseas because those required TS/BI clearance, and the lowly medical officer (but department head) had no such clearance.
Click to expand...

There are a disturbing number of current active duty folks on my Facebook feed who are saying the crew needs to suck it up and stay in the fight, whatever the casualties may be.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
Pearl or San Diego would be better.
Click to expand...

I agree, This is a bad situation no matter how you slice it. How do they know the exact number of positive cases on board the ship? Are they swabbing, getting results? Or just calling it clinically? In any case, now you have 5000 sailors running around the island of Guam. How are you logistically going to move half of them back home? (especially if they're positive or high suspicion thereof, have to quarantine first, but we know that's no guarantee of anything). Might've been better to just steam east all the way to home port (San Diego). They've could've made it in 7-10 days. Now it'll take 'em weeks to get everybody off Guam. In any case, not an easy situation, I feel bad for those involved.

Don't you miss the good times when a West Pac was only good for the clap and syphilis? Doxy and penicillin for all!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DrMetal said:
I agree, This is a bad situation no matter how you slice it. How do they know the exact number of positive cases on board the ship? Are they swabbing, getting results? Or just calling it clinically? In any case, now you have 5000 sailors running around the island of Guam. How are you logistically going to move half of them back home? (especially if they're positive or high suspicion thereof, have to quarantine first, but we know that's no guarantee of anything). Might've been better to just steam east all the way to home port (San Diego). They've could've made it in 7-10 days. Now it'll take 'em weeks to get everybody off Guam. In any case, not an easy situation, I feel bad for those involved.

Don't you miss the good times when a West Pac was only good for the clap and syphilis? Doxy and penicillin for all!
Click to expand...
Sounds like a clinical call, which is all that makes sense to do. They already know there is COVID aboard. Testing at this time is more or less pointless (even if they could test everyone) since they can't isolate or quarantine based on that information. If they could, then you could stage separate isolation/treatment of the positive until recovery and quarantine of everyone else with re-testing to determine whether isolation would be necessary (of asymptomatic positives) or release to duty if remaining negative.

They need a large shore base. Yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
There are a disturbing number of current active duty folks on my Facebook feed who are saying the crew needs to suck it up and stay in the fight, whatever the casualties may be.
Click to expand...
That means that most of the ship would be infected with a distribution of outcomes probably typical of that in other places where containment measures: isolation, quarantine, social distancing were poorly followed or done too late to be effective: Italy, Spain, USA. The shipboard medical department would be at greatest risk with the additional ~15% requiring hospitalization and the ~5% needing critical care and 1-3% deaths. That is 50-150 dead sailors. That is a big ask, to say the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
orbitsurgMD said:
That means that most of the ship would be infected with a distribution of outcomes probably typical of that in other places where containment measures: isolation, quarantine, social distancing were poorly followed or done too late to be effective: Italy, Spain, USA. The shipboard medical department would be at greatest risk with the additional ~15% requiring hospitalization and the ~5% needing critical care and 1-3% deaths. That is 50-150 dead sailors. That is a big ask, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Amazing that someone could think like that. 50-150 dead Sailors for nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
orbitsurgMD said:
The history and timing of onset suggests the virus came aboard while in port in Vietnam. I'm not sure who gets port study information before calls like that but I recall well that I was not eligible to have access to port studies when my unit was deployed overseas because those required TS/BI clearance, and the lowly medical officer (but department head) had no such clearance.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that Vietnam is unusual in that they only allow one foreign military ship per country per year to make a port call.

There may have been some diplomatic considerations behind the decision to make that port call despite the COVID-19 risk. Maybe bailing on the year's only permitted military port call in that nation was part of the calculus? I mean, in peacetime a significant purpose of any deployment is to demonstrate our presence and show the flag. Port calls aren't just bar crawls. Impossible for us to know all of the information that they had or considered.

Everything's obvious in hindsight.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
Agreed. Amazing that someone could think like that. 50-150 dead Sailors for nothing.
Click to expand...
Well - the quoted hospitalization rates, ICU care rates, and death rates assume a population that is much older and unhealthier than a Navy carrier crew. 15% hospitalization and 5% ICU isn't a figure that's even remotely correct for a crew of 20-40 year olds. Worst case you've got a small number of senior officers and chiefs that are approaching a higher risk age.

I've no doubt that they could continue the mission uninterrupted if they had to, probably with minimal actual operational impact. But the ship CO is right, the correct thing to do right now is get the crew to a place where isolation is feasible and make their care and safety the priority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
pgg said:
Well - the quoted hospitalization rates, ICU care rates, and death rates assume a population that is much older and unhealthier than a Navy carrier crew. 15% hospitalization and 5% ICU isn't a figure that's even remotely correct for a crew of 20-40 year olds.
Click to expand...

Of course, very doubtful that you'd have 200 sailors dead on that ship. I'd certainly medevac off anyone who was too sick.

Their deployment ended the second they pulled out of Vietnam, no doubt. There's no way that crew was mentally engaged after that.

I agree with the COs decision to effectively end the deployment and pull in somewhere, but I do think he should've just steamed home to SD, where he would have the full support of the local MTF clinics, all the necessary barracks rooms at NASNI and NAVSTA, not to mention civilian resources (SD County health dept, etc etc).

Look at this way: call t=0 the day pulled out of Vietnam. +2-3 days to get to Guam, +2-3 days to keep everyone quarantined on the ship, while they figure out the barracks situation (total nightmare, getting 3K sailors into barracks on that tiny base), +1-2 days to effectively move off the ship. = 6 to 9 day ordeal. Could be in SD by that time. Yes, more cases would arise during a transit across the Pac, but they're going to be stuck on that ship while in port Guam for a couple days anyway.
 
There are few over 45 on the ship, and most of the comorbidities are disqualifying, save HTN. There could be no deaths.
 
Mortality rates should be close to zero if they can deliver proper care but a substantial portion of “young” hospitalized patients require vent support. That decompensation happens fast too.
Smoking is a prior condition in the studies. Although there aren’t patients with active malignancies or on immunosuppressive meds, it’s not like IC1 Jones is the paragon of health
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Shore patrol better keep them under close watch at those hotels- there are worse things you can catch in Tumon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Monty Python said:
USNI article from 1 April afternoon.

news.usni.org

Navy Plans to Put USS Theodore Roosevelt Sailors in Guam Hotel Rooms - USNI News

Navy leaders and Guam’s hoteliers are scrambling to match USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) sailors who test negative for COVID-19 with vacant hotel rooms.
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...


Yeah, this is gonna go real well. You're gonna 'quarantine' a bunch of 20-something yo to a civilian hotel? Should've stayed underway. Perhaps medevac off the 45 positive and clean the ship while at sea. I get the COs intentions, but I think this was a grave mistake.
 
DrMetal said:
Yeah, this is gonna go real well. You're gonna 'quarantine' a bunch of 20-something yo to a civilian hotel? Should've stayed underway. Perhaps medevac off the 45 positive and clean the ship while at sea. I get the COs intentions, but I think this was a grave mistake.
Click to expand...

[sarcasm on]. God help those DTS travel voucher clerks. Hope they set this up for direct bill to the USN. [sarcasm off].
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Gastrapathy said:
www.cnn.com

Commander of aircraft carrier hit by coronavirus removed for 'poor judgment' after sounding alarm

The commander of a US aircraft carrier that has been hit by a major outbreak of coronavirus has been relieved of command for showing "poor judgment" days after writing a memo warning Navy leadership that decisive action was needed to save the lives of the ship's crew, acting Secretary of the...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

As he must have expected when he wrote the memo.
Click to expand...

They just had a press conference relieving him of command. What an embarrassment. I have never been ashamed to be in the Navy, but I am embarrassed today. Our government has bungled this pandemic at every level possible, including here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DrMetal said:
Sucks, he didn't deserve to get fired. Was a very tough and unprecedented situation. And I don't blame him for going outside the chain of command.
Click to expand...
Well. He did make a port call in Vietnam on March 5th.

I don't know if that was his call or someone else's, but someone deserves to be relieved for that decision alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
pgg said:
Well. He did make a port call in Vietnam on March 5th.

I don't know if that was his call or someone else's, but someone deserves to be relieved for that decision alone.
Click to expand...

The acting secretary defended the port call. I feel like if it was the CO’s decision alone they would have used that to throw him out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
The acting secretary defended the port call. I feel like if it was the CO’s decision alone they would have used that to throw him out.
Click to expand...
I saw that; they said there were only 100 cases reported at the time and they felt it was low risk. But it's hard for me to understand why a carrier made a port call there when commercial cruise liners started canceling southeast Asia port calls a full month earlier.

The only thing I can think of is that the port call had major political or diplomatic significance and they didn't want to make a scene by canceling. There's something to be said for accepting some risk in the name of benefiting a larger geopolitical game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
pgg said:
I saw that; they said there were only 100 cases reported at the time and they felt it was low risk. But it's hard for me to understand why a carrier made a port call there when commercial cruise liners started canceling southeast Asia port calls a full month earlier.

The only thing I can think of is that the port call had major political or diplomatic significance and they didn't want to make a scene by canceling. There's something to be said for accepting some risk in the name of benefiting a larger geopolitical game.
Click to expand...

What I saw essentially said as much. Only the second ship in 40 years to pull in there, and apparently the meeting meant a lot.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
What I saw essentially said as much. Only the second ship in 40 years to pull in there, and apparently the meeting meant a lot.
Click to expand...
I was deployed / TAD to Vietnam a couple years ago as part of a medical partnership between our military and theirs. There is a lot invested in improving ties with Vietnam. They were extraordinarily welcoming, gracious hosts. Very enthusiastic about creating close ties to us. Not a bit of hostility or anger or hard feelings over the Vietnam war. I still keep in touch with my counterpart there and do some work helping with English/grammar for his journal submissions. They are wary of and hostile to China, and we should be committed partners to them.

Just an unfortunate situation all around. I don't know. Hindsight is often 20-20. Sometimes I just feel like I've spent the last 2+ months screaming into the wind, trying to get to get family, friends, neighbors, and even colleagues to take COVID-19 seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pgg said:
I was deployed / TAD to Vietnam a couple years ago as part of a medical partnership between our military and theirs. There is a lot invested in improving ties with Vietnam. They were extraordinarily welcoming, gracious hosts. Very enthusiastic about creating close ties to us. Not a bit of hostility or anger or hard feelings over the Vietnam war. I still keep in touch with my counterpart there and do some work helping with English/grammar for his journal submissions. They are wary of and hostile to China, and we should be committed partners to them.
Click to expand...

Yeah my ship some years ago was the first to go back to PI after some bad incidents. It was a big deal and went very well. Totally understand the mission there.

Just an unfortunate situation all around. I don't know. Hindsight is often 20-20. Sometimes I just feel like I've spent the last 2+ months screaming into the wind, trying to get to get family, friends, neighbors, and even colleagues to take COVID-19 seriously.
Click to expand...
Same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He sent a letter up the chain, skipping his immediate superior - the strike group commander.

It was courageous and by deduction shows the strike group commander (1-2 star flag) HAD to be bypassed due to a reason that he knew could not be remedied otherwise.

He knew his career was over the second he hit send. Don’t forget his name.
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
Statement From SECNAV on Relief of CO Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)
Click to expand...

The letter is a classic ass-covering exercise, the necessary cherry on top is the firing of the guy lowest in the chain. Typical bureaucratic Navy cowardice.

This could have been resolved many better ways. They could have said to the skipper that "look, you are in a tough situation. We agree you need to get the contagion under control. If Guam is necessary as the place to debark and decontaminate, we have your back. As an alternative, if your situation can allow it, you can make maximum speed for San Diego and in the interim, we can have a much more thoroughly-organized and faster sequestration of your crew. The difference in time may be at most a couple of days. We know that time might result in a doubling in cases of infection, but the resources to deal with whatever comes will be much deeper than anything where you are now. Either way, we have your back and will do what it takes for your crew."

But they didn't do that. Instead, there is the usual boilerplate justification for relieving the captain. Moral cowardice.

SECNAV (Acting) Thomas B. Modly
ADM Michael M. Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations
ADM John C. Aquilino, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
RADM Stuart Baker, Carrier Strike Group Commander

Shame on all of them. The quality of their leadership is to be doubted. If the President finds reason to dismiss any or all of them, it would serve them right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
pgg said:
The only thing I can think of is that the port call had major political or diplomatic significance and they didn't want to make a scene by canceling. There's something to be said for accepting some risk in the name of benefiting a larger geopolitical game.
Click to expand...

Probably. And he went despite the risks he was forced to accept, showed the flag, made the best of it. Now the inevitable happens, the risks were real, things go sideways, and the skipper gets thrown under the bus.

You can always count on senior Navy leadership to at least try to take the low road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The Navy has a long and also recent history of letting the CO take the fall and absolving their flag superiors. Ask Kirk Lippold or Sean Kearns

CAPT Crozier knew the consequences of his actions. But it’s pretty remarkable they had the gall to relieve him immediately. I expected an early relief in 3-4 mo after the news cycle. They decided to remind every PCO in the Navy how the game is played.
 
pgg said:
Well. He did make a port call in Vietnam on March 5th.

I don't know if that was his call or someone else's, but someone deserves to be relieved for that decision alone.
Click to expand...
I was actually in Vietnam during this period. By early March, Vietnam had had only about 15 cases and most recovered. They had someone come back from Europe right around March 6th or something and bring back more, but Vientam was a WAY safe place to be from a COVID perspective than most of Asia at that time. And now, I'd imagine.
 
COVID-19 had been detected in the community prior to the port visit. The number of cases is inevitably underreported and a ship is the perfect place for a single case to be a super-spreader event. It is obvious and not just in hindsight, how dumb that was. But that was not why he was fired because that would put the spotlight on 7th Fleet. If you listen to the press conference on YouTube, he was supposedly fired because SECNAV felt sending the email in the fashion that he did was poor judgement.

Pretty tough job for the next guy cause the crew undoubtedly believes the skipper saved them and took a headshot for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Gastrapathy said:
COVID-19 had been detected in the community prior to the port visit. The number of cases is inevitably underreported and a ship is the perfect place for a single case to be a super-spreader event. It is obvious and not just in hindsight, how dumb that was. But that was not why he was fired because that would put the spotlight on 7th Fleet. If you listen to the press conference on YouTube, he was supposedly fired because SECNAV felt sending the email in the fashion that he did was poor judgement.

Pretty tough job for the next guy cause the crew undoubtedly believes the skipper saved them and took a headshot for it.
Click to expand...

It will be on the heads of those admirals and the SECNAV if there are bad outcomes. I am reminded somehow of the Afghan "sport" of buzkashi.
 
Gastrapathy said:
=

Pretty tough job for the next guy cause the crew undoubtedly believes the skipper saved them and took a headshot for it.
Click to expand...

There is hangar deck video of the CO's departure. He is the crew's hero, for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

militaryPHYS
All Branch Topic (ABT) Real-Time COVID-19 Information
Replies
38
Views
2K
SLC
SLC
LTMCUSN
COVID-19 hospitalization “permanently disqualifying”, says USMEPCOM
Replies
3
Views
1K
GreenHousePub
GreenHousePub
Setih
All Branch Topic (ABT) COVID PCS
Replies
10
Views
1K
pgg
pgg
backrow
Navy GMO Death on USS Arlington
Replies
10
Views
3K
Cooperd0g
Cooperd0g
DrMetal
COVID Vaccine: why is it not required for all DOD personnel?
2 3
Replies
128
Views
6K
DrMetal
DrMetal
Top