Coronavirus survivors banned from joining the military | Hacker News Reader

Coronavirus survivors banned from joining the military

militarytimes.com

21 pointsspking12 comments

Open articleView on HN

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

... but there's no indication that having it once gives you future immunity

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com