Not that I have any say in Crozier’s assignments in any way whatsoever, but I do hope he is reinstated. What worries me is that if he does get reinstated, will the individual who removed him from command still be in his chain of command?
Crozier would be better off getting a new assignment. Otherwise he’s going to catch serious shit from the Rear Adm Baker. Baker would be looking for any new excuse to write up Crozier.
Since the Roosevelt is the Adm. Flagship. That means Baker’s quarters are there? That’s where his HQ is for the carrier strike group?
Modly could order the captain removed from command, but it takes the ISIC (Immediate Superior in Command) to actually effect that removal. aceplace57’s post is on point also.
Remember Modly took a chartered flight to deliver a profanity laden rant to the crew disguised as “damage control”, with very audible comments back like Bullshit. He was forced to resign within about 24 hours of the performance he thought trumpy would get behind.
Crozier is part of the Naval Academy class of 1992. He’s had quite a successful & distinguished career. He’s already got his 20 and can retire. I’d like to see him get his command reinstated and finish his duty assignment. Then afterwards he can decide what’s next. I suspect the airline industry would love to have him afterwards.
Having seen and dealt with staff investigations before, this looks very much like they are fishing for something else to hang him with - they know their stance to dismiss is not sustainable so now its time for post event justification - so now they are looking at previous history in an attempt to try tie them in - things such as incompatibility of command structure etc.
You are probably correct, unfortunately. I recall a truism: Shit flows downhill. Whenever an underling can be blamed, they will be. Expect to see animal cruelty charges dating from when Capt. Crozier forgot to feed his goldfish when in middle school.
Just a minor update, the ship is at basically full ship’s complement and at sea. Its deployment was interrupted for 55 day in all.
Captain Crozier has been reassigned to San Diego to serve in a temporary capacity as the special assistant to the Naval Air Forces chief of staff. I can’t find anything newer on him.
Update with some serology testing results, as well as information about the individual precautions people had and had not taken. One interesting takeaway is that face coverings seem to do quite a bit to protect the wearer, not just other people: about 56% of those who had worn one were infected, versus 81% of those who had not.
I did not see anywhere that the people wearing masks were not also the same people avoiding common areas and/or observing social distancing. So it could have been any or all of those factors causing the lower rate of transmission. I didn’t read the entire pdf, though, just the front page you linked to, so maybe it’s broken down better in the actual report.
Well, if they were exactly the same people, wouldn’t the numbers have been the same? Instead, we’re seeing a really big gap in infection rates with / without mask-wearing, and more modest ones with the other behaviors.
You could still have had some people social distancing (but not doing other things), some people avoiding common areas (but not doing other things), and some people doing everything they could think of (including social distancing, avoiding common areas, and wearing masks). In that case, the mask-wearers would still fare better than those doing other things, even if the masks themselves didn’t help.
You could also have, for instance, all of the sailors who work in one particular area all wearing masks, because their lieutenant ordered or suggested they do it. So the people wearing masks were also the ones who were around others wearing masks.
This is why controlling variables is important in experiments.
Fair enough, but I’m pretty sure there’s no ethical way to do a controlled experiment on this, so I think “one more helpful though not absolutely conclusive bit of evidence” is the best we’re gonna get.