PDA

View Full Version : Risk of contracting virus on airplanes - perspective


Bindair Dundat
14th Jul 2020, 18:38
https://www.forbes.com/sites/benbaldanza/2020/07/13/mit-study-on-airline-middle-seat-risk-confirms-view-that-flying-is-safe/#44cc0fde60a8

While the issue is greater than the actual transmission on planes and there are major roadblocks on either side of the flight, better analysis of data is required and industry groups need to get much savvier at confronting the fear mongering that is essential to journalisms bottom line now.

DingerX
14th Jul 2020, 19:43
The article cited by the former Chief Spirit should be read. It makes a ton of assumptions, including:
1. Transmission occurs primarily in the same row, and only people sitting in front or behind.
2. Everyone wears a mask
3. Those masks are as effective as a retracted Lancet study says there are
4. People who fly are half as likely to have COVID-19 (because they're rich, ignoring the fact that the rich have a lower infection rate because they don't have to be in contact with other people by doing things like traveling)
5. Although exposure over time is a critical factor in transmission, the authors couldn't quantify it, and so ignored it
6. Boarding, deplaning, lavatory transmission is deemed insignificant.
7. The only negative outcome considered is death, while long-term illness and disability is not mentioned.
and so on.
The fact of the matter is that this is a best-case scenario, and, read in that light, it's hardly encouraging.

Cheltman
14th Jul 2020, 21:25
The arguments are interesting and perhaps valid. I accept that the risk on the flight is managed. I accept the logic of the air circulation system . Currently my fear of flying is not the airplane. Its the issue of being away from somewhere that I have some understanding of the rules, the changing status, the health system.etc. The issue that has to be addressed is confidence at being far from home during a situation that is changing daily

Ray_Y
14th Jul 2020, 21:51
I welcome discussions like that. It's important to take a critical look at "new facts", as long as it's not part of a crusade.

FullWings
15th Jul 2020, 07:28
What is even more interesting is the behaviour of those who think a flight would be very risky but are happy to jump in a crowded van and go where thousands of people are congregating in close proximity.

There is much more science needed but given that many countries require temperature testing getting on and/or off and some do virus testing, you are already dealing with a likely lower probability of carriers on board, symptomatic or not. That and the fact that passengers are in a slower metabolic state, so less likely to be emitting viral particles by sweating, panting, etc. plus there are HEPA filters on modern aircraft that further reduce the level of pathogens in the air. That and mandatory mask use places a lot of barriers in the way of infection - these measures dont eliminate risk but would appear to reduce it to a reasonable level compared with many other social situations.

infrequentflyer789
15th Jul 2020, 20:40
What is even more interesting is the behaviour of those who think a flight would be very risky but are happy to jump in a crowded van and go where thousands of people are congregating in close proximity.

Humans not good at instinctively estimating small risks, as usual.

There is much more science needed but given that many countries require temperature testing getting on and/or off and some do virus testing, you are already dealing with a likely lower probability of carriers on board, symptomatic or not. That and the fact that passengers are in a slower metabolic state, so less likely to be emitting viral particles by sweating, panting, etc. plus there are HEPA filters on modern aircraft that further reduce the level of pathogens in the air. That and mandatory mask use places a lot of barriers in the way of infection - these measures dont eliminate risk but would appear to reduce it to a reasonable level compared with many other social situations.

I can believe all that, but to get to and from the aircraft you have to go through one of those other (anti)social situations - the airport. Was in France at Feb half term, by the time we were coming back things were starting to get worrying covid-wise, most scary part of the return trip from that point of view? (both at the time and analysed in hindsight) - the airport: check-in and security (second most scary: baggage reclaim). Actual flight was far less worrying.

The queues involved plenty of sweating, panting, odd bit of shouting, lots of physical contact, being pushed, shoved, people in your face, clothing removed and put back on, your stuff handled by multiple people, and so on, there were thousands crammed in tighter than you'd be allowed to transport livestock, for well over an hour in total, and quite possibly a longer exposure time than the actual flight.

I just can't see how airports are actually going to get back up to previous capacity with 2m or 1m+ social distancing, if you limit capacity in the terminal (like in the supermarkets, so I'm told) the outside queues will be miles long, you'll be able to park at the terminal and get a bus to the back of the queue or park miles away and have a short walk to the back of the queue. Only way I can see enough space, maybe, is if you ripped out all the shopping malls (and stuffed in a load more ventilation) - but that's the bit of the operation that actually makes money. The aircraft is in some ways the easiest bit to make more or less covid-safe, I'd be happy to do the actual flight if I didn't have to go through an airport, but air travel doesn't work that way (unless you have far more money than I will ever have).

PilotLZ
15th Jul 2020, 21:35
Airports are not special in terms of social distancing. In fact, none of the infrastructure we have was designed with social distancing in mind. Quite the opposite, most of it was designed with the idea of maximising the utilisation of some expensive and often scarce square metres. And none of it can handle a level of mobility anywhere close to the normal while observing social distancing. Think urban public transport. Can you always keep even a "one-metre-plus" on the Tube in rush hour? Maybe in lockdown it was manageable, but definitely not now. Can you do the same on a public transport bus? Sure you can't. So, why should planes and airports be lambasted for something that appears perfectly acceptable in other settings? Isn't this double standard?

So, if avoiding the risk altogether is not possible, the other option remains mitigation. Wear a mask. And not one from the checkout counter of your local supermarket but a professional one, the likes of Respro. Maybe a face shield over it will make you even more comfortable.

towerview
16th Jul 2020, 11:39
The discussion of relative risks and mitigation measures will continue for the duration of the pandemic, but it is really secondary.

The initial questions that most travellers are asking, for all means of transport, First- Is my journey really necessary? Second, for long haul particularly, - will it wait until next year? For the time being I feel that 80% of people are staying put. If an effective vaccine becomes available in September, this year, as Oxford/Imperial reports suggest today we may see a better 2021.

​​​​​​https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-could-provide-double-protection-report-12029406

Less Hair
16th Jul 2020, 14:08
I would certainly wait before I try any instant vaccine. It normally takes several years to test and certify it for a reason.

Jet II
16th Jul 2020, 14:55
You mean that you wouldn't take a vaccine developed and produced in China in just 9 months? - what could possibly go wrong? :uhoh:

towrope
17th Jul 2020, 17:37
A family member who lives in the Burbank area just returned from Seattle - flew for the first time since March. He does a week there a month. He's no nervous-nellie and said that his two real concerns were 1) the pax who declared out load their disbelief in the pandemic, why should they wear a mask, my rights, etc., and 2) baggage claim. He said no change with the usual feral responses to barge through and grab your bag as soon as it plops onto the carousel. Although he'll continue flying he did enjoy the drive, even if it meant an overnight in northern California.

etudiant
18th Jul 2020, 00:03
Airplane air is reportedly changed every 90 seconds, so for a 30' diameter wide body, air is moving about 1' every 3 seconds.
That is not reassuring as one squeezes past the guy in the middle seat on the way to the window seat. One will be well within the middle seat person's breath radius long before any air change has taken place.
I don't think the airlines understand the problem, judging by their public reactions to date.

b1lanc
18th Jul 2020, 00:25
In the US, it is somewhat confusing on how each of the airlines and states are dealing with this pandemic. My son was told to fly to Dallas for work - one day event. Hotels were empty and restaurant closed in the hotel. The flights back to Boston were 100% full on American. Delta (who I usually fly) are restricting to 60% coach and 50% 1st class or so they say. I have guidance from work (same employer) that if I travel via air (not likely given the high level or permission required), 14 days self quarantine on arrival back home IF there is someone next to me or in the same seat in front of or behind me, in other words if we can't space 6 feet apart. This is entirely dependent upon state regs and guidance for folks in other states is completely different. I don't see how this is can possibly deter spread. It is utterly confusing.

fergusd
18th Jul 2020, 00:27
Nobody in business is budgeting for air travel, at all. We used to put significant amounts of budget provision into project budgets for air travel, the last few projects have zero provision for air travel (or any travel for that matter) for at least the next 6 months. Business has adapted and I suspect it won't go back to air travel for a long time if ever.

So, you may want people to believe air travel is 'safe', but almost nobody believes that this is the case, and times have changed . . .

Imagegear
18th Jul 2020, 07:07
Recent information also suggests that the efficacy of "HEPA" air filters when presented with even a small viral load is not as good as the airlines would have us believe.

PilotLZ
18th Jul 2020, 08:57
If you had seen what a regular cabin filter looks like or what gunk can be found behind the panels of the average transport aircraft, you would have grown scared of flying long before COVID-19. And the nice and hopefully long-term habit of frequent aircraft cabin disinfection only took off a couple of months ago. Right until then, nobody even thought about what surprises might be hiding on board.

dogsridewith
18th Jul 2020, 15:52
Image gear

Fake/counterfeit or damaged HEPA cartridges?
Bad ducting/seals/seating in the distribution system?

etudiant
18th Jul 2020, 20:46
It does seem that the airline industry is in denial.
As Fergusd has pointed out, business travel is drastically curtailed and anecdotally I can testify that finance industry professionals think this is not likely to changed this year.
As for leisure travel, it is staggering trying to deal with quarantines and medical insurance issues, not to mention the impact of increasing global tensions.
A system reset appears inevitable once the current wave of panic stimulus funding is spent. As is, airlines the world over look to become government wards once again.
Is anyone offering any coherent proposals to wind up in a better place?

PilotLZ
18th Jul 2020, 23:27
Well, how can we mitigate the risk any further? By limiting load factors to the level permitting social distancing at all stages of the trip, including the airport? A 180-seat A320 alone would make for a 360-metre queue, should 1,5 metres between passengers be respected. Or 4 90-metre queues. That's only one aircraft. And a relatively small one. What about a wide-body with 300-400 passengers? What airport terminal where about in the world can handle this? Not to mention that no private airline can survive for a long time if the load factor is limited to the amount providing PROPER social distancing. And that cannot be achieved by leaving the middle seat empty. It's only attainable with passengers sitting in the window seats of alternating rows only - which makes for a maximum load factor of 16,67% for a 3-3 seating arrangement and 25% for a 2-2 one.

And then comes the question - won't this sort of impact on aviation be disproportionate, as compared to other venues which also compromise the 1,5-metre rule because they're not designed to handle it? Should they also be required to match the same level of sacrifice? Or should aviation be lambasted as the only "bad guy" out there while bars, taxis and whatnot else are quietly allowed to disregard the 1,5-metre rule?

fergusd
19th Jul 2020, 00:25
Well, how can we mitigate the risk any further?

Probably you cannot . . . and that is not a criticism of the aviation industry or antbody in it . . .

The business sector has had to continue without (any) travel for the last 3 months in the uk, we have made it work, many have been pleasantly surprised at how effective things can be. I think almost nobody with budget authority will go back to air travel. None of my customers will . . . I won't, no matter how much I enjoy(ed) the social side of business . . . The demographic of business travellers makes them particularly exposed t cv-19 - they simply will not get on planes . . .

I've flown a couple of million miles in my life, almost all business, but I think I may not fly again for a long time . . . lets face it, for a pax it has become a cost reduced hellish experience which many people can do without in their lives (I will not miss it) . . . add in cv-19 . . . I may never fly again . .

Times are changing, best of luck to all involved.

etudiant
19th Jul 2020, 00:26
PilotLZ

I'd surely agree that the distancing rules are haphazard and very unevenly applied, but think aviation stands out as a fairly uniform globally regulated service, hence unavoidably the poster child for whatever rules are eventually set. In that context, the adjacent or middle seat is probably toast.
As an aside, here in NYC, restaurants and bars are outdoor seating only and cabs already have separation barriers, so the curtailments are not aviation only.,

lilpilot
19th Jul 2020, 06:02
The industry failed to realize the burden on the passangers already before covid. There is considerable prep time, administration, coordination going into airline travel on the customers side. Everyone is their own travel agent these days. The amount of work and the cost and the nagging with check-in and security and boarding has its limits. The traveling public already made their threat assessment and risk-reward analysis, so they ditched all unnecessary travel. They have no patience for gimmicks, non-refund policies, while the airlines are stil seemingly trying to sell an old product.

There is a trust breakdown as well. Airlines and airports were all about safetysafetymoresafety and now they spectacularly failed to mitigate the biggest safety matter of the day, this may add to the perceived threat. Travelers are possibly consciously or unconsciously holding airlines responsible for their contribution to the pandemic.

flyingfemme
19th Jul 2020, 09:02
A large proportion of travel is for pleasure and liesure. If it ain’t fun and not necessary, it can be deleted. Travel and hospitality is going to suffer for a long time. No way round it.

PilotLZ
19th Jul 2020, 12:45
The short-term situation is not pretty. But, long-term, it seems less and less likely that many people will embrace some weird "new normal", devoid of mobility and live human contact.

Lack of live interaction on the job has a serious impact on both relationships between workers and job satisfaction, which, in turn, reduces productivity. Work is not solely about performing some menial tasks to get a paycheck in the end of the month. It's something far broader than that. And, while many are not allowed to hold live meetings now and go for dinners with their business partners, this will likely not go on forever. Routine tasks will be transferred online (and that has been a trend for many years now, so it doesn't come as a surprise). But live interaction will still remain an essential part of the deal - just because this is how humans function.

It's not just a matter of individual choice but also of policy. While many governments encouraged home office at first, now the trend has already been reversed in many places. People start being encouraged to return to their workplaces - and for a couple of very good reasons. If everyone starts working from home, this will bring a lot of damage to the local economy. Commuting will no longer be a thing, so transport companies will shrink and fire personnel. Small businesses in business areas, e.g. coffee shops and barber shops, will fold up because there won't be anyone going there. Office buildings will become empty, resulting not only in job losses among the personnel managing and running them, but also in turning entire once-prosperous areas into eerie ghost towns - which, in turn, will depreciate any property situated there. Construction and real estate companies will start going under en masse. Banks will wake up to the news that the equity which secures their loans is now worth just a fraction of what it used to be.

Does this sound desirable so far? If yes, here's the possible continuation of the story... If the worker is working online and doesn't have to be physically present at any given place, then why pay them a first-world level salary? Instead, you can fire all the local workers and hire people from third-world countries instead, who are just as qualified but will be happy to do the online job for a half, a third or a quarter of the money the local will be asking for. If you think that this cannot happen, do some research on where about the call centres of many major Western companies are located. Outsourcing distance work to lower-standard countries is already a fact.

So, if we allow ourselves to become deluded enough to allow for "the new normal" to happen... Well, then we probably deserve it.

homonculus
19th Jul 2020, 13:55
Lets concentrate on what we know about - aviation - and not speculate on coffee bars.

As I have posted before, I believe a vaccine is imminent. There are three vaccines in P3 trials which are known to produce a relevant immune response, and only one has significant side effects. Many more are but a few months behind. Regulators in the UK and US have indicated they will look at awarding a EUA (emergency use authorisation) based on what are known as ~50 and ~100 events - basically interim results. Meantime vaccine is being manufactured on a risk basis by the pharmaceutical companies.

I will stick my neck out further and say critical workers may be vaccinated in Q4 2020 and potentially the US public by January. The issue will be persuading people to fly en masse. As has been said above, business travel may be dramatically reduced by new working patterns, whilst pleasure flying may be reduced by anti vaxxers plus more interest in domestic holidays plus reduced spending power and increased unemployment.

The airline industry could do worse then plan to maximise take up from this reducing customer pool by dealing with lilpilot's spot on post about the burden on passengers. Quite frankly flying as a pax is a pain, is uncomfortable, and stressful. How about a flying passport with all your passport data, visa or ESTA data, frequent flyer, Covid-19 vaccine status etc etc loaded. If airlines provided a smart card where you enter the membership number to book and simply show it with your passport we could remove so much hassle. Then look at pricing software, terminal handling etc etc.

The airlines arent flying planes. If they dont spend the time planning the new normal for those passengers who are willing to return, they deserve to fail.

etudiant
19th Jul 2020, 16:37
Agree entirely, this is one of the few posts to focus on the potential for alleviating many of the headaches afflicting air travel.
Obviously the passport idea has merit, making it robust should be a priority for the global air transport industry. Does IATA still function as a forward looking body?

Longer term, it may be that even with a vaccine passengers will reject current crowding. Although more draggy, perhaps much wider aircraft designs will be needed.

guy_incognito
19th Jul 2020, 17:27
A large proportion of travel is for pleasure and liesure. If it aint fun and not necessary, it can be deleted. Travel and hospitality is going to suffer for a long time. No way round it.

Really depends which travel market were talking about.

Specifically thinking about the UK: the British public have consistently demonstrated that their two weeks in the sun is sacrosanct, and theyll do whatever they can to get their Summer holiday. With that in mind, and bearing in my mind the huge consolidation in the leisure travel market in the UK over the past decade or so, I tend to think the UK package travel industry is likely to prove fairly robust.

ldo
19th Jul 2020, 17:48
One possible solution that I am seriously considering this fully enclosed hazmat suit my upcoming transatlantic flight - at $245 it does not seem to be too expensive in terms of peace of mind. The question is whether it will be approved by the FAA (issues with flammability/evacuations?).

I cannot post links, please google "Can This ‘Hazmat Suit For Flying’ Save Air Travel".

NoelEvans
19th Jul 2020, 19:05
There is a trust breakdown as well. Airlines and airports were all about safetysafetymoresafety and now they spectacularly failed to mitigate the biggest safety matter of the day, this may add to the perceived threat. Travelers are possibly consciously or unconsciously holding airlines responsible for their contribution to the pandemic.
Let's not lay all the blame on the airlines. They, just like almost everyone else, were taken by surprise on this. And they were probably helping to spread this 'thing' a lot earlier than almost anyone thought. I have used the word 'almost' twice. This came from somewhere and someone was not being open and honest about the problem at source. You cannot blame the airlines for that.

IATA and WHO have both used EASA information to show that the air purity inside a modern airliner is similar to that in an operating theatre.Masks can be of use to stop someone unwittingly (or otherwise?) being on board with this 'thing' from spreading it to anyone in their immediate vicinity. (I have flown as pax on a full airliner with everyone wearing masks most of the time, showing that it can be done.) Maybe this is a way of increasing passenger confidence? However, even though air travel is demonstrably by far the safest form of travel, you still have those with an irrational fear of it. This, even though it may be shown to be as safe, will have those with yet another layer of irrational fear to add to the problems of confidence. Some form of 'health passport' may help alleviate this?

PilotLZ is perfectly correct. Humans need interaction. And travel is important to that interaction. The world needs travel. Economies need travel. It needs to get going again as fast as possible.

(Future travel should possibly restrict travel from areas that are not as open and honest about health problems.)

To sum up, the risk of contracting virus on aeroplanes is much, much lower than in all sorts of other activities that people seem quite happy to want to take part in.

fergusd
19th Jul 2020, 21:34
To sum up, the risk of contracting virus on aeroplanes is much, much lower than in all sorts of other activities that people seem quite happy to want to take part in.

You're obsessed with blame, I don't think anybody is blaming aviation for covid-19 - blame the pangolins . . .

However I think your statement is absolute BS. Without exception every time I sit (well sat) on a flight near a snot drooling chimp I end up with whatever said snot drooling chimp has a few days later . . . anybody who has ever travelled know this is the case. In the olden days this was a pain, now it may kill me . . .

So, I, and many others, will use this learned data to determine risk, not some BS you pulled off a website . . . ;-)

homonculus
19th Jul 2020, 21:47
the air purity inside a modern airliner is similar to that in an operating theatre

The air changes may be as many, and the filters may be almost as good as in a theatre air handling unit, but purity is quite different as it includes fumes etc which are not filtered. Purity isnt the issue, it is the virus particle. The need is to remove virus in aerosol in the air and that is where data is lacking. In an operating theatre we wear full PPE and deep clean between cases because we recognise that staff can spread virus to each other by droplets and aerosol because they are working indoors and in close proximity to each other - just like an aircraft.

Masks can be of use to stop someone unwittingly (or otherwise?) being on board with this 'thing' from spreading it to anyone in their immediate vicinity

No, the masks passengers wear reduce but do not eliminate the virus getting into the air. That is why we wear FFP3 masks or respirators in operating theatres so we dont inhale the aerosol potentially produced by others. Importantly, the masks passengers wear give little or no protection to the wearer

So an aircraft is only 'safe' if you guarantee nobody is shedding virus (in practice that means 14 days isolation, a PCR swab and nobody from a high attack rate area - impossible) and everyone is trained and fitted with full PPE. Again impossible.

the risk of contracting virus on aeroplanes is much, much lower than in all sorts of other activities that people seem quite happy to want to take part in.

Depends on the activity and the risk you are prepared to take :*

NoelEvans
19th Jul 2020, 22:36
Oh dear. The 'glass half empty' people are back.

(Out of interest, from that quote -- where am I 'obsessed with blame'? I see that logic plays no part in some comments.)

Prove that you "... end up with whatever said snot drooling chimp has a few days later . . .". How do you know exactly what 'he' had and that you didn't catch it from somewhere else?

Flying is still the safest form of transport. If you don't like it I suggest that you stay huddled up at home: Stepping outdoors is not safe for you.

But for everyone else, as soon as you can get back to enjoying travelling again.

Bend alot
19th Jul 2020, 23:10
A good visual here and the news link is worth a watch after the visual - the HEPA filter can only filter the air after it receives the air.

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/634166-has-flying-changed-forever.html

b1lanc
19th Jul 2020, 23:56
Oh dear. The 'glass half empty' people are back.
But for everyone else, as soon as you can get back to enjoying travelling again.
Not at all half empty. I am quite enjoying working from home - 90% of the DoD workforce is teleworking, senior leadership tells us that we are more productive and have no plans to return to full staffing on base, and that teleworking will be a large part of our new normal permanently. I don't have to spend 3 hours in a car to get to/from work, sit in useless meeting after meeting, gulp down lunch while on the phone. I can start work at o-dark-thirty and spend an hour on the treadmill for lunch, complete my day at 4:30 after many productive VTCs and telecons. I have two computers running - one for VTCs and the other for email and document creation. I have better network performance, clearer conversations and visuals which are just as good as personal interactions given the folks I'm talking with are 2500 miles away and not on site in any case and despite being "mission essential" I am prohibited from TDY unless I can get a GO to sign off. I have zero desire to fly despite having hundreds of thousands of miles queued up for a Hawaiian vacation and more. Sorry, Hawaii is closed. I do have a desire to see my children and I love to drive. Camper in the future - bought the truck last weekend. God willing, in five years maybe Hawaii will be open, COVID under control, and I'll still be around and then I'll consider the risk. For now, local food store and outdoor restauranting is enough. Been flying since 1956 and no desire to return. Sorry.

PilotLZ
20th Jul 2020, 03:57
There's one more thing to factor in when it comes to those polar, "avoid flying at all costs" opinions. Those people might still be experiencing PTSD from the entire thing. Understandably so - it was a nightmare for everyone! But, as time passes, less and less people will retain the fears that resulted from lockdown, media hysteria etc.

Less Hair
20th Jul 2020, 04:26
People fear all sorts of things when flying, to crash, bombs on board and now infections. Irrational or not, it's better to not blame them for it or call them stupid but deal with their fears. Travel means many people in tight spots, security lines, people movers, cabins. The entire travel environment is just not set up for any separation. On the other hand practically people just cannot travel to many places as borders are closed or only half open and many people don't have the money to spend now. Corona is far from over it looks like at least local hotspots are coming back. This will go on for a while it seems.

NoelEvans
20th Jul 2020, 07:10
An extremely accurate post. Several other posts on here seem to back up that PTSD situation. PilotLZ's last 3 words in that post are extremely relevant.

old,not bold
20th Jul 2020, 09:47
As reported in today's Times, our friends in Ryanair have predictably been the first to monetise people's preference to avoid sitting next to strangers. They always have done this, of course, but the perception is that the system now deliberately sits those who don't pay as close as possible to the other cheapskates, leaving rows of seats empty. Ryanair's form over the years suggests that this perception is probably accurate.

wiggy
20th Jul 2020, 13:53
An extremely accurate post. Several other posts on here seem to back up that PTSD situation. PilotLZ's last 3 words in that post are extremely relevant.

Maybe.

I get it that if "you" (generic) are young, fit and healthy, you may think this has all been overblown.

OTOH there really are people out there in the community who aren't suffering from PTSD, recognise bad science/bad reporting when they see it but objectively fall into one of the at risk groups..due medical history, whatever. A lot of long haul passengers on some routes would certainly fall into the "at risk due to age" bracket..the way to get them back, flying to see extended family again, is not to berate them for being hysterical or falling for media hype, it's for the airlines/airports to up their game when it comes to being clean and tidy..

sonicbum
20th Jul 2020, 14:02
b1lanc

On the other hand, I personally know an awful lot of office workers of different industries that enjoyed smart working for the first few weeks but as of today totally hate it.
A lot of people are smart working while nannies are taking care of screaming kids at home, You turn your head around You and see nobody but the wall and at the end of the day think to Yourself "well I was home today, worked from home, then spent an hour at my home gym and then went back upstairs for dinner. Finally a bit of tv before bed time, at home". This is not the way people want to spend the rest of their life, people need social interactions and it does not mean only on Friday nights at the bar but on their everyday's life.
Same considerations for vacations and last minutes escapes ; people will just catch any flight when all this mess will be over and enjoy being together again as it has always been.

Pistonprop
20th Jul 2020, 16:32
So, as I understand it, because I choose not to take the risk of using mass transportation including flying, I'm suffering from PTSD! Well no I'm not. I'm in the "at risk" category and, whilst a great deal is still not yet known about this virus and how to eradicate it, I shall continue to avoid using any form of public transport. No paranoia or PTSD, just sensible precautions.

Dryce
20th Jul 2020, 17:42
PTSD? Seriously?

Those who need to fly will still be travelling. That's not many. The reality is that flying is a discretionary pursuit for the majority. And that's the underlying truth of the whole business. Many of those who don't simply don't want to take the risk of infection or imposed bureacacy (domestic or international) or other uncertainty will simply choose not to travel because they don't have to.

While we see offices running at low % occupancy and other forms of public transport running empty then people will hardly be buzzing to get into the air.

The risk for the industry is two fold - firstly that it takes a long time before people *want* to fly and secondly that the number who *want* to fly is significantly less after the hiatus (whether that be because of restrictions due to ongoing effects of the disease or reduced economic circumstances). If pasenger vilume doesn't recover and fares increase due to lack of volume thebn that may have a further knock on regarding how often people who want to fly can afford to fly.

Positives? Well we still have airlines - despite the massive pain the businesse and their staff are taking - they seem intent on surviving in some form. We are now well into the fifth month of this disaster and the big names still haven't capitulated to the economic storm.

DingerX
20th Jul 2020, 20:58
This thread started with an amount of Former Chief Spirit citing a Business School study claiming that flying was relatively safe, even with the middle seat occupied. Of course, everyone was wearing masks, etc.
Alright, now assume we are just talking about aerosols. An effective dose will follow a formula like time(minutes) = (distance from source/n)^3
Where n is the distance at which someone would inhale an effective dose in one minute.
Doubling the distance to an emitter will increase eight-fold the time needed (this is your cube-root problem).

Now, in a pandemic with documented cases of transmission on airplanes, and with a clear public health interest that would facilitate data collection, why are the players in the industry citing hypothetical studies rather than investigating actual cases of transmission, explaining their mechanism, and the countermeasures they have put into place?
Why should we trust a model when we've got plenty of empirical data that seems to say otherwise, but which the modelers completely ignore?

Finally, here's the bad news: the point of business travel is to exploit the value of personal meetings: face-to-face discussions, informal discussions over meals, meeting team members. If, for health reasons, the flight requires masks, restricts meals to a minimum, and discourages unnecessary interaction, then the destination will as well. Then there's no business case for most business travel.

wiggy
21st Jul 2020, 06:15
I think those still trying to hold down a job in aviation are stressed....not surprising, however blaming the general public's lack of interest in flying on PTSD or "hiding behind the sofa" is lazy thinking and shows a lack of awareness.

There are lots of people who are keen to fly right now but having seen what went on in the spring they are aware of the risks of being caught up in a fast changing lockdown situation whilst overseas, and/or have real difficulties with travel insurance...all practical stuff, not imagined.

We have a family friend working overseas who would love to get home briefly but he dare not, because he won't be able to return to his job overseas if he does so because of the host nation's current rules on re-entry to that country by non-nationals...nothing imagined by that.

It's going to be tough for aviation to recover..screaming at the public that are being misled or are the victims of hysteria isn't going to help.

Max Angle
21st Jul 2020, 07:17
Very unscientific snap shot but I have operated a number of "leisure" destination short hauls out of LHR recently and they have all been completely full, the same story from other colleagues. It may be a short lived boost because people are desperate to get away but there seems to be no shortage of takers at the moment.

PilotLZ
21st Jul 2020, 11:28
I don't know how far your observations over the demographics of the travelling public go, but what I am seeing is that those travelling now are mostly people in their 20s, 30s, early 40s. First, they feel a lot less intimidated by the virus. Whether that's because statistically most of those who got seriously ill and died are in higher age groups, because young people are generally more willing to take risk and shake off stress quite quickly or because of a combination of both - well, most probably the last one. Second, those who have spent most of their conscious lives after the low-cost revolution treat leisure travel as an essential and integral part of their daily lives. Probably as integral and natural as going to the gym or grabbing a snack in a cafe. They are so used to this way of living that they cannot imagine otherwise.

Aside from this, society is coming out of the phase of acute stress and avoidance of anything and everything other than staying at home. In my area, in the first week or two after restrictions on visiting parks were lifted, you could see people wearing rubber gloves and face shields over their masks in the park. Now you can't see any of that. That's just one example of how people are recovering from the trauma and looking to resume all their normal activities - albeit with some reasonable safety precautions.

Something to think about when it comes to high-value travellers is that, with the right marketing, a business jet charter company can actually benefit a lot from this situation. It's not just that a business jet often offers by-the-book social distancing. It's also the avoidance of crowds and queues and the generally lesser flow of people through GA terminals, as opposed to scheduled flight terminals. Hence, no wonder that pretty much everyone I know in the corporate charter world are having quite a busy time now. And not with business trips only. Well-off families seem to be coming to the conclusion that sharing a private flight for their vacation in Cannes with their friends is a long way more comfortable, prestigious and fun than any airline flight. So, the premium segment is still there as well - only that it might look different from what we've seen so far for some time.

wiggy
21st Jul 2020, 12:21
Max Angle

I think the way it's working ATM ( from discussion with friends and extended family in the UK) is that people are still concerned with the risk of their plans being stuffed at the last minute by a local sudden lockdown and/or wider scale control.

Some are getting round this by driving to/from -destination instead of flying gives flexibility and an option to get out of Dodge should it suddenly go wrong...

Some I know are happy to fly short haul, but will book last minute and perhaps might not take an extended break.

What has been clobbered however is any thought at all of booking Long Haul holidays TFN...Danger of being too far out on a limb should things hot up again - they saw how hard it was for people to get home from some parts of the world this Spring. There's also the issue of insurance, especially health coverage, once you get outside of EHIC land.

That sort of thinking is probably a big worry fro those airlines with a significant exposure to the Long Haul market.

PilotLZ
21st Jul 2020, 12:39
I agree with you that concern about a possible deterioration in the destination is one considerable deterrent - and airlines and travel agencies need to come up with mitigation measures to increase traveller confidence. Lufthansa with their repatriation guarantee is a very good example for others to look into. Basically, they have issued a customer promise that a return booking with them guarantees your return to Germany, should things in your destination go south while you are there.

wiggy
21st Jul 2020, 13:53
and airlines and travel agencies need to come up with mitigation measures to increase traveller confidence.

I think you're right, but I'm not sure how they can provide a cast iron guarantee.

I operated into a couple of Asian destinations from Europe end Feb/March and with the best will in the world there was no spare capacity to get everybody out who wanted to come back to Europe early/off schedule...

There was then another complication on one flight when the destination imposed very stringent arrival/departure restrictions almost overnight. Local politicians got involved and they considered denying inbound clearance to one of our flights that was actually en-route.....When that sort of nonsense goes on at a political level there's only so much an airline can do in the way of guarantees and mitigation.

PilotLZ
21st Jul 2020, 14:08
What's left is hope that the panic from March will not reappear. A lot of what was done back then was far from rational and created many problems further down the line.

On the matter of virus transmission, some measures are a pain in the back, but I think that I've started to discover the silver lining of it. Having the front lavatory of the A320 blocked off for the passengers is an absolute blessing. No more queues, no more diapers on the floor and toilet paper in the sink. I wonder if all companies have adopted this protocol?

Bend alot
22nd Jul 2020, 07:00
Blocking the number of lavatories for use by the passengers, will certainly not attract more passengers. We need more of them (passengers).

An app or otherwise to request a WC for use, then wait till you are called would be a better plan - get a notice from CC on app to move when WC and isle is clear and clean. (no ques and sanitised).

While at it aircraft - some sheer type curtains between row groups, could help air flow to be extracted to the floor vents.
Order food/drink via app - self remove from trolley when arrives.
No carry on luggage.
Back to front loading.
Remove First, Business and Club boarding as desired privileges.

Terminals - Travelling passengers only (airport staff assistance for kids/disabled - other)
Laptops/tablets checked luggage only (yes has issues to address)
Security checks prior to terminal/check in/baggage drop entry.
App to say your bag/s is ready for collection, proceed to collection point.

occasional
22nd Jul 2020, 07:39
Some I know are happy to fly short haul, but will book last minute and perhaps might not take an extended break.
Even flying short haul is still problematic, particularly getting to and from the airport. I would like to fly Glasgow - Bristol but cannot organise the corresponding car hire.

an.other
22nd Jul 2020, 10:14
Certainly, where I am, the stats say 26-35 year olds (more likely to be men) are travelling, followed by 36-45 year olds. Virtually no one older than 45 years old is travelling and there are relatively few families. My own observations skew a little older than that, but maybe I am just bad at guessing people's age!

Another interesting bit of briefing was that 70% of customers who protested or had to be challenged about wearing a mask have been women. A lot of guessing why, but is smudged make-up that bigger problem?

Mr Mac
22nd Jul 2020, 20:08
an.other
I am not sure where your starts are from but I have flown too and from Germany through out this, with some admittedly strange routes, and long journey times. However my flights, with the exception of the flight crew, have been with people in the age range 35+, but this admittedly has been on business routes, and my long haul is in Business class of which I have only done one. I will have another on Sunday night, and will take further note on the demographic in my cabin and report back. Not sure on the make up, but all female CC ware it and it does not look so smudged to me, though I am 59 ;)

fergusd
22nd Jul 2020, 23:12
NoelEvans

ROFL, muppetry of the highest order . . . good luck, you will need it, flying is a risk many people will choose to no longer take . . . lets see how that pans out for you . . . how is the aviation industry working out at the moment ? . . . hmmm ? . . .

NoelEvans
23rd Jul 2020, 01:18
Thank you for your kind words!

For me, things are going well. But I am concerned about many friends and ex-colleagues elsewhere. Although tonight I heard the most traffic on the radio that I had heard for months. From a good mix of passenger airlines. Almost felt like normal again. And when I say good luck to all those involved, I genuinely mean it.

PilotLZ
23rd Jul 2020, 05:40
fergusd

Very interesting how people seem to find joy in other people's problems. I know that lockdown was frustrating and hard to deal with, but aren't there better ways of coping than calling a muppet someone who might have been affected even worse than you by the situation?

LGW Vulture
23rd Jul 2020, 10:10
I've flown (as pax) three sectors in one month - the mix has been nothing out of the ordinary. Biz pax the same in biz class - and a European loco to Southern Spain from AMS - old and the young, packed in like sardines we were, I hasten to add!

NoelEvans
23rd Jul 2020, 14:26
wiggy, if you look at it I am not 'blaming' anyone, I am recognising a situation. We know a lot of people in everyday life who have been really 'shook up' by all of this. Just going to the shops is a struggle for them. PilotLZ has been quite right to call this PTSD as it has been very, very, very unsettling for a lot of people. But there are a lot of people who want to fly and they shouldn't be put off by emotional scare stories. Going to the shops, going to restaurants, flying, all those things should be shown to be as normal and as safe as they really are. What is known about this 'thing' is hugely more now than it was in March. The extent of it in the population and its locations are all hugely more known now than in March (the UK, with nearly 13.8 million test, is the leading country in the world with a population over 10 million in testing, which is hugely better than in March). A huge amount more is know about treatments that was in March. Precautions taken now are hugely more than in March. I am not blaming anyone, as so little was known about it in March.

The problem was that the population was scared, as they never have been before, very often by unhelpful media sensationalist reporting where good news was ignored in favour of the sensational. We have been really, really surprised at the huge number of people that we have encountered from all walks of life who have just shut off from the media. I don't blame them. I did too for quite some time and life became more 'local' and pleasant (we have supported our local newspaper throughout). The problem now is that trying to get good news through to people who have cut off from news won't be easy. A lot of people have been locked away from the world and haven't seen how bad it got out there (and in many cases, probably a good thing for them that they didn't see it!) but their minds have been 'whirring'. People need to be encouraged back into 'the world' with good news.

I will repeat what I said at "silly o' clock" this morning: "...tonight I heard the most traffic on the radio that I had heard for months. From a good mix of passenger airlines. Almost felt like normal again." And add to that LGW Vulture's comments. Time for some more positive thinking: the glass is half full, let's work on encouraging people to fill it up more!

DaveReidUK
23rd Jul 2020, 16:52
You do know what the T in PTSD stands for ?

I wouldn't dispute for a moment that contracting COVID-19, or losing a loved one or friend to the pandemic, is indeed traumatic. But only a very small percentage of people who are currently declining to fly are in that situation.

The overwhelming majority of the passengers who are, for the time being, turning their backs on the industry are simply exhibiting PTS - Prudent Traveller Syndrome.

Labelling them as trauma sufferers is both lazy and unhelpful.

PilotLZ
23rd Jul 2020, 17:59
Denial that the situation was traumatising also for those who didn't fall seriously ill and didn't lose loved ones doesn't help either. Just think about it:

You live a normal life. The next day, you are suddenly stripped off most of the things which you have been taking for granted ever since. Freedom of movement. Freedom of meeting whoever you like. Freedom of exercising most of the activities you enjoy. You hardly have any clue what's going to happen tomorrow. You can't plan anything - and whatever you have already planned has been scrapped. You are constantly swamped with incoherent and scary info. Your job is on the line. Many around you are scared to death, falling into panic attacks, insomnia and whatnot. The list goes on and on.

It's only human that after something like that many people have lasting trauma which, sadly, will take some time to heal. They are not "snowflakes", they are not weak. The vast majority of them will recover completely within months and will learn something useful from the experience, coming out of it as even better people. But, for sure, the mental health impact of everything that happened shall not be disregarded. Remember the WHO definition of health? "A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, not limited to a lack of illness or infirmity." Hence, how healthy are people whose mental and social well-being are at the bottom of the waste bin? And there's nothing shameful about that.

NoelEvans
23rd Jul 2020, 19:01
“Emotional and psychological trauma is the result of extraordinarily stressful events that shatter your sense of security, making you feel helpless in a dangerous world. Psychological trauma can leave you struggling with upsetting emotions, memories, and anxiety that won’t go away." -- HelpGuide.

Saying that people who have suffered that over the past few months were not traumatised is not helpful, to them.

Radgirl
23rd Jul 2020, 20:23
I am sorry to disappoint some but PTSD is a defined mental health condition with defined symptoms. Not wanting to fly due to the risk of catching a potentially fatal disease is not one of them. Personally I find it a bit offensive to be labelled with PTSD simply because I have a defined risk level I am not willing to exceed to go and lie on a beach in the summer.

nickler
24th Jul 2020, 10:14
I personally agree with both PilotLZ and DaveReidUK points of view ;
It is very likely that a large amount of people could be clinically affected by some sort of raised level of stress due to the pandemic whilst another large amount would not clinically be diagnosed with PTSD but possibly some non clinical mild anxiety induced by that situation leading to very prudent decisions and avoidance of unnecessary threats (to keep it in our language).

NoelEvans
24th Jul 2020, 17:19
Some context is needed with all of this.

Right now in Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Switzerland and Austria there are a total of 613 'Severe/Critical' cases (nearly half in Germany!) out of a total population of 295 million.

For your 'holiday destinations', France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia and Greece there are a total of 1176 'Severe/Critical' cases out of a total population of 197 million.

Those figures are very low. However, people are badly shaken up from everything that was going very, very badly all around them in April (where the rolling average of deaths in Britain alone was around 950 per day). For many, many, many that was stressful and traumatic. They need to recover from that. Being told the good news of how things have improved is needed rather than constant negative stories. People need to be convinced to shop again, people need to be convinced to fly again. Getting back to normal again as soon as possible is the best thing for everyone's minds.

What has been said above is not that one is being labelled as having PTSD 'because one doesn't want to fly', but rather that PTSD is having a huge influence on people not wanting to fly, shop, eat out, etc., etc.

Radgirl, if your location is correct then
a) I'm 'jealous'!
b) The total number of cases that you had around you was less than the total number of deaths in Britain in two days at the height of the problem -- that does affect peoples' minds; and quite understandably.

jvr
24th Jul 2020, 21:37
the number of people in intensive care is not that relevant when it comes to the safety of flying from the perspective of catching the disease in a plane.
the number of infectious people however is.

777JRM
25th Jul 2020, 17:35
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1930x1157/3982b193_335a_410e_8d07_ab1c447fe026_93c0b6d25f67e59ba4d8e7d 6a68eceb9e5d3bd22.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1891x1094/0601b40d_901d_4c61_83e1_19205600003e_f184a8f05fec80194d7ed7d c2d9627ce8dddc275.jpeg

LGW Vulture
25th Jul 2020, 17:59
Ok so the UK Government is reintroducing quarantine from tonight on all arrivals from Spain.


.....panic? Who said anything about panic?

Dear oh dear this industry is going to die at this rate.

etudiant
26th Jul 2020, 00:57
Think this is an optimal situation, would be better shown as a 3x3 config on an A320/737, where the passenger is sitting within a few inches of the two adjoining seatmates for hours on end.
Imho it is useless for the industry to claim that it is perfectly adequate already, they are a global business and need to meet globally acceptable standards. The obvious way forward is to help specify those global standards.
That is actually a serious issue well deserving of the industry's time, because there is reasonable evidence that the virus can spread airborne well over 20 feet, passing through the normal AC filtration.

fergusd
10th Sep 2020, 22:52
DaveReidUK

Bravo ;-)

Update on next 6 months contracts :-

Zero provision for air travel (any travel actually). Not a sausage. Mandatory restrictions on any travel at the behest of multiple customers, i.e. even if you are prepared to travel to us, we're not having you on site so forget it (we're not prepared to travel, we have the internet, it's faster, cheaper and good enough).

Facts.

Prudent is a good word for it.

The neanderthals will continue to fly, get infected, breach quarantine, cause travel bans, let's see how that pans out as a revenue source.

I wish you well . . . it genuinely is absolutely fantastic not having to be up at 0400 to pointlessly travel to somewhere for a meeting, then to get home at 2300 . . . nobody will want to go back to that hellish existence . . . nobody . . .

etudiant
12th Sep 2020, 00:29
The flow is obviously towards the sidewalls, else the A/C would gag on all the spillage that is the norm for aviation catering.
Imho, the key aspect here is the flow time of the filtered air. If the air is exchanged every 90 seconds and the cabin is 13 feet in diameter, the flow rate is only about 1 foot every 7 seconds.
Add to this disturbances from the proximate passengers, traffic down the aisles and perhaps even sneezes, there is ample time to get a full dose of the virus if one comes in the vicinity of an infected passenger.
There is a separate thread here about multiple transmissions on a TUI flight, so I think it is beating a dead horse to claim that somehow there is not a problem when it has been demonstrated in real life.

Longtimer
12th Sep 2020, 02:21
In actual fact, a number of flights have been identified as having virus positive passengers onboard but few if any have shown that any of the other passengers contacted the virus because of being exposed to someone who was positive. I see that Canadian Airlines will provide information that will show if the exposure resulted in infection or not. https://globalnews.ca/news/7329761/coronavirus-flying-contact-tracing/

NoelEvans
12th Sep 2020, 09:43
A recent study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.20143826v3) found that the risk of infection on a flight is 1 in 4,300 for a full flight (becoming 1 in 7,700 if the middle seats are kept empty).

Also, Australia has been using contact tracing on flights (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/flights-archive.aspx#nsw-domestic) and has found that while infected people have travelled on aeroplanes, nobody has been infected on aeroplanes.

DaveReidUK
12th Sep 2020, 11:00
Discussed a week or so ago in the TUI Zante thread.

It's worth reading the whole paper, for anyone who hasn't - it's not that long.

Those calculated probabilities are based on a 2-hour US domestic flight, and factor in the probability that there is one or more infected passenger(s) on the flight. They also assume that all passengers (whether infected or not) are wearing masks.

It's a useful study, but it won't necessarily apply (a) in other parts of the world where the infection rate is higher/lower, and/or (b) to a longer- or shorter-duration flight.

2Planks
12th Sep 2020, 16:08
In the UK it would help the industry a lot if the leaders of the airlines and airports explained the risk of contracting covid 19 on a flight. But WW and MOL strut about like stroppy toddlers. And the Boss at Aberdeen and Glasgow saying the Governments were treating the aviation industry like they treated the miners in the 80s!
Meanwhile Lord Webber (as a luvvie in chief) gets lots of airtime stating he has still not had a satisfactory answer as to why you can fly but not to to one of his sweaty airless Victorian theatres, with raked low backed seating stacked in 4 floors with people singing along. This backed up by Paul Whitehouse in full Only Fools set saying something similar in that you can open a window in a theatre but not on a plane.
A concerted info campaign would help the industry no end, together with a 7 day quarantine period with s test at each end.

inOban
12th Sep 2020, 20:55
The excellent German contact tracing system has also failed to find any case where Covid19 was contracted on a train.

steamchicken
12th Sep 2020, 21:48
2Planks

I can think of shows where I wanted to scramble out of the window but not so many where there was a window to scramble out of...

currawong
13th Sep 2020, 00:59
Not a news site, a scientific paper. 25 pages on -

" This investigation evaluated the performance of three ventilation systems in terms of SARS infection risk by air and thermal comfort in a single aisle commercial airliner and a twin-aisle airliner"

"The transmission of airborne infectious diseases, including influenza1, tuberculosis2 , and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)3, has been observed in commercial airliners."

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~yanchen/paper/2019-9.pdf

Bindair Dundat
13th Sep 2020, 04:23
This study sites SARS from 2003. To date, there has not been one documented case of a transmission of SARS COV 2 on an airline flight. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t or hasn’t happened, it just hasn’t been a major contributor to this pandemic.

However Air travel allowed the disease to spread as China was way late to the party, as usual, and allowed 100’s of thousands of citizens to travel globally when a novel virus was circulating amongst its population in Hubei province. Seeding the entire world. Let’s not forget how this all could have been dramatically curtailed if the CCP wasn’t trying to hide and save face.
Now that the disease has spread globally, the true risks lie in the behaviours before and after the flight, not the flight. If we had efficient, reliable quick testing at airports, suddenly things change quite dramatically.
If the aviation industry collapses, the world economy is in a shyte load of trouble more than what it us now. Not going to happen.....

currawong
13th Sep 2020, 04:46
Was not offering an opinion but since you ask...

"To date, there has not been one documented case of a transmission of SARS COV 2 on an airline flight"

Maybe not in your world.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744235.2020.1800814

Old info BTW.

Bindair Dundat
13th Sep 2020, 06:14
sorry but this study is garbage. Retrospective interviews as their methodology. Not one diagram of seat proximity to the suspected spreader?

currawong
13th Sep 2020, 06:44
You might like this one better.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920303124

Bindair Dundat
13th Sep 2020, 15:49
What’s your point? If actual spread on flights was the issue, thousands of air crew worldwide would have contracted the disease. This hasn’t happened.
The model going forward has to be getting the industry going again and having passengers return. A vaccine is a huge piece of this picture but not the only factor. Airlines and airport authorities have and are rapidly changing hygiene and risk factors. Rapid Testing technology is absolutely required, even with a vaccine. Far UVC light that kills virus on contact but does not harm humans will revolutionize our public spaces. Think hospitals, schools, theatres, airports, airplanes.
Aviation is on its knees. The global economy is dependent on it. Do you find really intelligent solutions to bring it back or keep digging up fairly dubious and pointless studies to prove a point that isn’t really relevant now anyway?

etudiant
13th Sep 2020, 18:07
No argument with any of this, except maybe the far UV, that stuff is not harmless. Fact though is there is no vaccine, there is not even a decent Covid test, so who would allow free as before aviation travel?
A reality check would be New Zealand, tourism is a big part of their economy but is currently dead in the water due to immigration restrictions. Once NZ has enough confidence to allow free air travel, the airlines can adjust. But until then, I think there will be much suffering.

towerview
13th Sep 2020, 18:16
The statistics of infection as presented above are perhaps a convincing argument. But at least 50% of potential passengers have lost overall confidence in the entire supply chain. Trains, airports, aircraft, hotels, cruise ships......air BNB etc. It will be years before these people need to travel again as they did in 2019, and it will be a very gradual return to those numbers. People that I have straw polled say they can do without the hassle and stress. I used to take around 120 flights each year, mainly business. Do I miss it? A bit, but not so much at 4am on a Monday morning when I should be getting in the car.

Bindair Dundat
13th Sep 2020, 22:01
far UVC is harmless and in development well before COVID. Adoption will be accelerated by the pandemic
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w

grizzled
13th Sep 2020, 23:10
I agree that testing has shown that far UVC poses little, if any, risk to humans. Which means it is likely to make a big difference in sanitization of surfaces in any given environment. That will, in turn, likely reduce the numbers of COVID-19 infections from that type of exposure.
But there's the rub... As we gather more information about COVID's most common (preferred) methods of transmission, it is now clear that COVID "spreads from person to person, most commonly through respiratory droplets (e.g., generated by coughing, sneezing, laughing, singing, shouting or talking) during close interactions (i.e., within 2 metres)". Therefore, though far UVC wil provide some mitigation it will not directly address the direct transmission of the disease from one individual to another.

Add in the fact that people "who have COVID-19 may have few to no symptoms, or symptoms may be mild" and one realizes that (until an effective vaccine is available and widely used), the attitudes and actions of individuals -- and corporations such as airlines -- will do more to limit the spread than any other element.

Note: The phrases in quotation marks are from the latest information on the official government of Canada COVID website.

currawong
14th Sep 2020, 05:32
Bindair Dundat

My point is, come up with a decent plan that acknowledges the problem and offers a solution that mitigates the risk.

Be it engineering or procedural or both.

Maybe study the schematic of how your ventilation actually works. That might answer your "thousands of aircrew" comment. Seriously?

Get schooled up on what the science says about the problem. I bought three published, peer reviewed scientific papers to the discussion.

You brought what? Statements that can be proven wrong by anyone with 10 seconds to spare and internet access.

Maybe learn what retrospective means in the scientific/ medical context.

You will have to do better than that to convince the travelling public and in many cases legislators and regulators.

I'm with you - air travel has to get back to normal.

But your standard of reasoning is going to have to go up a couple of notches to be even remotely convincing.

Luray
14th Sep 2020, 13:05
I have a feeling that some of you never heard of viruses and immune system before сovid panic. All your mitigation techniques and cabin sterilization is nothing but a panic farce that will do no good, in fact it already done so much damage that it will take decades to recover.

Just look at 9/11 aftermath and how they build security industry that is merely a preflight show to convince dump people that by confiscating their water and hair pins they will enter the holy ground of absolute safety.

I have a premonition that we entered a decade of kneeling before a herd of uneducated and scared humanoids that don't even know they are mortal. I suggest that before letting someone post anything on the web e.g. -"protect the loved ones" or "save the children" one should complete basic anatomy course.
I lost my job because some of you couldn't get rid of dumb animal instincts. Thank you.

Bindair Dundat
14th Sep 2020, 15:55
currawong

i thought you weren’t offering opinions? You throw up three ‘peer reviewed’ studies that aren’t particularly compelling and then offer this gem “.....come up with a decent plan.” But you never offered any.
The cat is out of the bag. We are here now. Your studies offer no solutions for going forward. At least I was able to offer new technology and changing the perception of risk during travel. That’s the actual goal. Did all the measures after 9/11 ensure the public was or is 💯
safe from terrorism. No. It did allow a measure of confidence though. Enough that the public eventually reverted back to air travel. This is much much bigger problem but the same principle. It’s a confidence game and a time to reshape the industry. If I was writing the cheque’s now, my money would be in on how do we prevent air travel getting into this conundrum in another pandemic situation. That’s the truly relevant t question here. I don’t need to get ‘schooled up’ I’ve read the studies and then some. They are a data point that’s it. They are not the solution.

fergusd
14th Sep 2020, 22:44
The excellent German contact tracing system has also failed to find any case where Covid19 was contracted on a train.
Not sure what the train ocupancy rates are in Germany but if similar to the UK that's not surprising, almost nobody is using them.

infrequentflyer789
15th Sep 2020, 13:02
Bindair Dundat

Interesting, how Boeing must wish the World had done it your way over MAX and MCAS. Read the accident reports, decide there is no solution in there, and that the solution is to adjust the perception of risk instead. Merely tell the travelling pax, bit of marketing and PR, "these are not the plane crashes you are looking for" and everything will be fine. I am in awe.

fergusd

In UK that is in part because they have capacity severely restricted (far more than just "no middle seat") and (possibly related) because ticket prices are now through the roof, anecdotally at least. Various in my family have in recent weeks tried to get tickets to various places without success due to ridiculous prices. We are talking 250 each way cheapest ticket for both mainline and cross country destinations, not London, and willing to book in advance, specific train, and willing to travel any time of day. I never believed Corbyn when he said nationalisation would make trains cheaper, but this is 2-300% increase at least. For one trip you could have hired a decent car, fueled it, and paid for a decent hotel for the same price as going there and back by train (what happened, in fact, was that the trips didn't happen).

NoelEvans
16th Sep 2020, 10:13
Bindair Dundat

THAT is at the very core of this entire problem.

Air travel is the safest form of travel. For both infection and accident safety.

The problem is that it helps to spread infection with people travelling from one place to another and hence pass it on.

That is the problem that we now have. Some countries have infection rates that are hugely out of control. Other countries who are struggling to keep theirs under control are justifiably reluctant to risk adding to their problems by letting people from high-infection countries arrive freely. Hence the quarantine restrictions. The actual air travel itself is not a problem, the problem is who you are allowing to travel from A to B and possibly transmit infection from A to B.

Don't blame any of you local politicians for how they are dealing with this problem that is unlike any that has had to be dealt with for nearly a century (and even then, the 'problem' was very different as there was nowhere near the levels of mass transport that is available now). They have not caused this problem. By the time any of them were made aware of it, it was already well entrenched in our societies. The entire blame lies with Winnie the Pooh and his CCP and their utterly incompetent face saving attempts to hide this from the world until it was far, far, far, far too late.

The best way for us to get back to any sort of normal is for individuals to act sensibly and responsibly to eliminate this pest. (Don't suggest heavy-handed methods as the two countries on the south west of Europe that dealt with the first wave almost tyrannically now have second waves that make the first one look small.)

The problems with air travel are not onboard the aeroplane. The problems are with who is being taken where. And the sooner people can behave and help control this the better.

Airbubba
17th Sep 2020, 22:20
Nice headline.

Coughing Dummies Help Boeing and United Track Viruses on Planes Justin Bachman 1 day ago (Bloomberg) -- For the past four months, United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Boeing Co. have been flying around jetliners loaded with mannequins, aerosol sprays, sensors and scientists in an effort to understand how contaminated air moves through passenger planes.

The research is just one small part of a sweeping global campaign to figure out the threats posed by the coronavirus. But for the airline industry, the results could help determine how quickly carriers bounce back from the edge of disaster after the pandemic made people afraid to get on a plane. U.S. demand for flights remains at less than a third of 2019 levels, based on airport security screening data.

The U.S. military initiated the $1 million study when the spread of Covid-19 raised concerns about infection risks for troops transported on passenger jets. Companies including United, Boeing and Zeteo Tech LLC, a Maryland-based biodefense and medical device maker, are contributing equipment and expertise.

If the findings can show how likely it is for a passenger to be infected by breathing the air on a plane, “it’ll probably drive some policy decisions,” said Mike McLoughlin, Zeteo’s vice president of research.Reassuring Flyers Airlines have sought to reassure the public that flying is safe by implementing an array of onboard cleaning and disinfecting procedures, requiring face masks in the cabin and improving ventilation and filtration systems. But they haven’t been able to show (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-31/airlines-stumble-ahead-with-covid-plans-that-may-heighten-risks) what, precisely, are the chances of infection if that person sitting next to you or across the aisle breaks out into a virus-laden cough.

To collect the data, researchers placed mannequins with human-like heads in various seats throughout seven models of Boeing and Airbus SE jets, then made them cough. Or rather, they simulated a human cough, and how aerosolized particles are expelled and disseminated through the air on the plane, McLoughlin said.

Aerosol particles will behave differently under different cabin scenarios, said Byron Jones, an engineering professor at Kansas State University who studies airline cabin air and was not involved in the project. Gas and particles in a cabin become “a witches’ cauldron,” he said, based on air flows, particulate sizes and other factors. “It just swirls and churns and twists. It’s very chaotic,” he said. But that churning isn’t necessarily a bad thing: “That’s what you want to see in a general ventilation (system).”

Researchers evaluated how factors such as circulation, the exchange rate of cabin air, filtration and forward-facing seats affected the flow of aerosolized particles through the cabin, and who would be most exposed in their proximity to a cougher. Particle sizes and various locations throughout the cabin were considered. Tests were repeated with the dummies wearing disposable surgical masks. October Results The tests were conducted during 30 hours in flight and 24 hours on the ground from May 5 through August. Analysis of the data and peer reviews are expected to be completed this month with a final report issued in October.

Boeing declined to comment on the results they’ve seen so far. In a statement, the company said it’s approaching the question of virus spread “from an engineering perspective by conducting data-driven analysis studies, simulations, modeling and live testing, which will help us all better understand the transmission and risks of COVID-19.”

The project is funded and led in part by the U.S. Transportation Command, based at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, which buys airline seats and charter flights to transport U.S. troops and their families around the world. The Command sees the study as critical to safely mobilizing troops, said Lieutenant Colonel Ellis Gales Jr., a spokesman. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency helped connect the Transportation Command with United and Boeing.

If the analysis shows infection risks through the air can be controlled on a plane, the industry might be able to use those results to help persuade the public to start flying again even before a vaccination for Covid-19 might be widely available.

“Throughout the pandemic, our top priority has been the health and safety of our customers and crew,” Toby Enqvist, United’s chief customer officer, said in an email. Enqvist said he’s encouraged by the early results he’s seen, but did not provide specifics.

“Everybody is keen to get the results out as quickly as possible but we want to make sure that when we release those results we’re painting an accurate picture,” McLoughlin said.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/coughing-dummies-help-boeing-and-united-track-viruses-on-planes/ar-BB196JIA

FlightlessParrot
18th Sep 2020, 05:41
NoelEvans has it right. The risk that would deter me from flying is not the possibility of infection in the aeroplane, but the risk of infection at my destination. I see today an article in the local comic about the difficulty or impossibility of getting travel insurance: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/news/article.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=12366143 Since no one with half a brain would travel to the USA without medical insurance, this means that, unfortunately, international air travel is going to suffer for a significant time ahead, whatever governments do, however brave travellers get, or whatever coughing dummies reveal (at least they're not using beagles).

The pandemic is the problem, not attitudes or reactions to it; unfortunately, the economic damage falls very unevenly, and there is a responsibility to share the burden. But some things are just not going to go back to the way they were.

Adambrau
21st Sep 2020, 04:24
I ride the subway every workday from Manhattan to JFK. I am subject to multiple customer exposures/day who come from/fly to destinations all over the world. I wear a mask and wash my hands. So far no COVID for me after 4 tests. I think if you are healthy with no pre-existing conditions flying is safe enough. People are, in general, much more careful about COVID prevention at the airport and on board aircraft, than in their day to day lives. I think the biggest problem to int'l airlines is the situation of extensive border closures. Many Americans can't travel overseas even if they wanted to, as is the case for many other nationalities.

fergusd
21st Sep 2020, 09:19
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3299_article?ACSTrackingID=USCDC_333-DM38470&ACSTrackingLabel=Latest%20Expedited%20Articles%20-%20Emerging%20Infectious%20Diseases%20Journal%20-%20September%2018%2C%202020&deliveryName=USCDC_333-DM38470

Pistonprop
21st Sep 2020, 10:37
It's a long read but here is the conclusion:

We conclude that the risk for on-board transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during long flights is real and has the potential to cause COVID-19 clusters of substantial size, even in business class–like settings with spacious seating arrangements well beyond the established distance used to define close contact on airplanes. As long as COVID-19 presents a global pandemic threat in the absence of a good point-of-care test, better on-board infection prevention measures and arrival screening procedures are needed to make flying safe.

infrequentflyer789
21st Sep 2020, 13:29
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3299_article?ACSTrackingID=USCDC_333-DM38470&ACSTrackingLabel=Latest%20Expedited%20Articles%20-%20Emerging%20Infectious%20Diseases%20Journal%20-%20September%2018%2C%202020&deliveryName=USCDC_333-DM38470

Thanks, this is the paper referred to in various news articles this morning that I was struggling to find a link to.

In summary: :mad::mad:

Paper looks pretty thorough, on first read through and on the investigation details provided I'd say the conclusions are supported. The figures that result are not pleasant: 92% attack rate (11/12) for those sat within 2m, much lower attack rate outside of that zone (interestingly, actually gives some backing to the choice of 2m distance), cabin crew also infected. The low numbers are because this was business class, in economy I think you might be looking at three times that number within 2m, with current UK prevalence estimates at 1 in 900 (ONS survey) I think that works out around 4-5% chance of catching it per flight. For those like me who are highest covid risk category, that's 4-5% chance of ending up in hospital. Per flight. Personally I still think the greater risk is queues at the airport, but this has knocked that theory a bit.

Confirms my feeling that I won't be flying anywhere any time soon, but regardless of that I can't see that kind of risk being insurable once the actuaries get hold of it. My travel insurance refused renewal this year, and all the providers I have previously used to cover my pre-existing conditions appear to not offer covid cover (I don't think this is a coincidence), so I'm not going anywhere anyway, but it'll be interesting to see if in future I can get cover for travel but not to cover flying. This isn't looking good for aviation.

Caveats:
1. this was before the time of mask wearing on planes (still the risk from those who don't / won't or think we are still before the time of mask wearing)
2. quite possibly not everyone is this infectious - it's becoming clear there are super-spreading types of events / scenarios / locations, but there may also be super-spreading types of people, this is unknown
3. this was long haul, 10 hrs, short haul risk may be different, it seems clear that risk is related to exposure time, but whether it's linear or not is also unknown

Chris2303
22nd Sep 2020, 00:42
Pistonprop

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/122844123/coronavirus-how-one-passenger-infected-15-others-on-a-longhaul-flight

Coronavirus: How one passenger infected 15 others on a long-haul flight

Peter H
26th Sep 2020, 13:38
In https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w

21 September Business-class passenger spreads coronavirus on flight

Genetic evidence strongly suggests that at least one member of a married couple flying from the United States to Hong Kong infected two flight attendants during the trip.

Researchers led by Leo Poon at the University of Hong Kong and Deborah Watson-Jones at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine studied four people on the early-March flight (E. M. Choi et al. Emerg. Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/d9jn; 2020). Two were a husband and wife travelling in business class. The others were crew members: one in business class and one whose cabin assignment is unknown. The passengers had travelled in Canada and the United States before the flight and tested positive for the new coronavirus soon after arriving in Hong Kong. The flight attendants tested positive shortly thereafter.

The team found that the viral genomes of all four were identical and that their virus was a close genetic relative of some North American SARS-CoV-2 samples but not of the SARS-CoV-2 prevalent in Hong Kong. This suggests that one or both of the passengers transmitted the virus to the crew members during the flight, the authors say. The authors add that no previous reports of in-flight spread have been supported by genetic evidence.

n5296s
26th Sep 2020, 15:07
I'm 99.99...% sure that I had "it" back in December before it was fashionable, caught most likely on a flight from HKG to HND (6 hours or so iirc). I was in biz class. I could have caught it at the airport but I spent most of my time there practically alone in the Thai lounge.

Andrewgr2
26th Sep 2020, 16:26
Does the timing of the positive tests prove that the passengers did not contract the virus from the cabin crew? Not sure it makes much difference although an infected crew member seems likely to spread the virus to more pax than vv.

DaveReidUK
26th Sep 2020, 16:37
While there is every reason to suspect that passengers/crew on a flight can catch the virus from others on board, it's pretty well impossible to prove based on on timings alone that a specific infection occurred on a particular flight.

Andrewgr2
26th Sep 2020, 16:59
Indeed, but in this case the genetic evidence seems strong for transmission during the flight. My question was whether the timing evidence demonstrated the likely direction of transmission.

Peter H
26th Sep 2020, 18:11
I can only quote the referenced paper.
Given the case histories and sequencing results, the most likely sequence of events is that one or both of passengers A and B contracted SARS-CoV-2 in North America and transmitted the virus to flight attendants C and D during the flight. The only location where all 4 persons were in close proximity for an extended period was inside the airplane. Passengers and cabin crew do not generally go through the same check-in process at airports before boarding. Although we cannot completely rule out the possibility that patients C and D were infected before boarding, the unique virus sequence and 100% identity across the whole virus genome from the 4 patients makes this scenario highly unlikely. Patient D may have acquired infection from patient C, but because their test results were positive within 1 incubation period, it is more likely that patient D was infected by patient A or B. We therefore conclude that these 4 patients belong to the same in-flight transmission chain.

Our results strongly suggest in-flight transmission of SARS-CoV-2. No other COVID-19 cases associated with this flight have been identified. We were unable to quantify the virus attack rate on this flight because not all passengers were tested.

infrequentflyer789
27th Sep 2020, 13:59
Crew are being quarantined some places, not optionally. Pilots may get away with it (not as dumb as it sounds - being in prolonged contact with anyone not also on flight deck is/should-be unlikely). See e.g.:

https://liveandletsfly.com/hong-kong-quarantine-detention/
https://viewfromthewing.com/british-airways-flight-attendants-held-in-hong-kong-14-day-forced-government-quarantine/

listria
27th Sep 2020, 14:30
The other issue with enforced quarantine for everyone is that accommodation is limited (some Pacific countries with few or no cases are considering quarantining all arrivals). Several hundred people arrive on each plane so the beds soon fill and remain full for two weeks until the next group of people fill the beds.Meanwhile no further arrivals are possible.
Obviously this won't work, so can testing and exemption be used instead?

fergusd
27th Sep 2020, 18:58
Peter H

The great thing about these last two reports is that they are by professionals, with no axe to grind, with significant expertise in the field.
No matter what evidence they have, no matter how irrefutable the data is . . . there will always be a knuckle dragging neanderthal minority who just don't believe them . . . loudly teling everybody who will listen.
Policy is not set by the knuckle draggers.
The evidence will inevitably keep mounting.

Recc
28th Sep 2020, 07:54
Andrewgr2

According to the paper, the two passengers were symptomatic on the day that the flight arrived in Hong Kong which makes it extremely unlikely that they were infected on the flight. One of the cabin crew is described as developing symptoms over a week after the flight arrived making it much more likely that the transmission was in that direction. The authors allow for the (remote) possibility that the infection did not occur on the flight, but not that the cabin crew infected the passengers.

currawong
30th Sep 2020, 12:24
Evidence based on timing? Not really solid. On genomic tracing? Yes, solid.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-30/covid19-ruby-princess-passengers-infected-qantas-coronavirus/12718748

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/12/20-3910_article (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-30/covid19-ruby-princess-passengers-infected-qantas-coronavirus/12718748)

TLoraine
4th Oct 2020, 09:39
An ongoing 'Survey Monkey' survey of airline crew members accessible through the GCAQE 'Cabin Air Quality' facebook page is showing about 25% of crews reporting COVID-19 typical symptoms. Yes, many of those flew before face masks became mandatory but it indicates that HEPA filters will not protect you from close proximity with an infected person.

PilotLZ
4th Oct 2020, 20:39
But did they get it on board, as opposed to the briefing room, the security queue or the crew bus? Or, if it's a company doing layovers, from socialising with other crew members? Thankfully, I haven't seen a COVID-19 outbreak in an airline - but lots of other cases of contagious stuff spreading like wildfire among an entire base. Especially all the flu-like stuff in the winter.

DaveReidUK
4th Oct 2020, 21:15
but it indicates that HEPA filters will not protect you from close proximity with an infected person.

I don't think anyone has claimed that they will.

Klauss
5th Oct 2020, 04:24
Hi, its about the 2 flight attendants and the 2 passengers.
Yes, they were on the same flight - Id say they started at the same airport, and all 4 were in the same city before the flight.
How about the theory that all 4 got the virus in the north american city where the flight started ?
Or....were the flight attendants confined to their hotel-room during layover, China-style , and thus unable to get the virus before the flight ?
Just my 2 bits....

Clay_T
15th Oct 2020, 22:40
Coronavirus exposure risk on airplanes very low, U.S. defense study finds (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-airlines/coronavirus-exposure-risk-on-airplanes-very-low-u-s-defense-study-finds-idINKBN2702S7)(Reuters) - The risk of exposure to the coronavirus on flights is very low, a U.S. Department of Defense study released on Thursday found, a positive sign for the airline industry as it tries to rebound from the pandemic’s crushing effect on travel.

The testing assumed only one infected person on the plane and did not simulate the effects of passenger movement around the cabin.

The study, conducted aboard United Airlines Boeing 777 and 767 aircraft, showed that masks helped minimize exposure to infection when someone coughed, even in neighboring seats.

About 99.99% of particles were filtered out of the cabin within 6 minutes due to fast air circulation, downward air ventilation and the filtration systems on the aircraft.

It estimated that to receive an infectious dose, a passenger would need to fly 54 hours on a plane with an infectious person.

United, which also provided pilots for the test, took pains to present the results in its favor.

“These results ... mean your chances of COVID exposure on a United aircraft are nearly non-existent, even if your flight is full,” said United Airlines Chief Customer Officer Toby Enqvist.

The study was led and funded by Transportation Command, which operates Patriot Express flights that use commercial planes like United’s for members of the military and their families.

The research over six months involved 300 tests during 38 hours of flight time and 45 hours of ground testing. It was done by releasing particles the same size as the novel coronavirus across the entire cabin by section, each of which had 42 sensors representing other passengers who could potentially come in contact with the particles.

Each test released 180 million particles – the number of particles that would be produced by thousands of coughs.

Study participants included the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Boeing Co, among others.

Last week, plane manufacturers Boeing, Airbus SE and Embraer SA released a joint publication showing that cabin air filters limit the spread of viruses on their aircraft.

Their conclusions were based on computational fluid dynamics research that simulated how particles move around the cabin.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said it has identified only 44 flight-related COVID-19 cases since the beginning of 2020 versus some 1.2 billion passengers who have traveled during that time.

While “nothing is completely risk-free,” the published cases of potential inflight COVID-19 transmission show that “the risk of contracting the virus on board appears to be in the same category as being struck by lightning,” IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac said.

OpenCirrus619
16th Oct 2020, 12:07
The testing assumed only one infected person on the plane and did not simulate the effects of passenger movement around the cabin.
... and we've all seen clips of the complete idiots who "know better" / "won't wear a mask" / "won't do as they are asked" and, thus, put the rest of us at risk.

I find the report encouraging in some ways - but, until there is sufficient compliance with the new rules, I'm still not getting on any public transport (aircraft included).

Just my POV.

DaveReidUK
16th Oct 2020, 14:45
Coronavirus exposure risk on airplanes very low, U.S. defense study finds (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-airlines/coronavirus-exposure-risk-on-airplanes-very-low-u-s-defense-study-finds-idINKBN2702S7)

More sloppy reporting.

It estimated that to receive an infectious dose, a passenger would need to fly 54 hours on a plane with an infectious person.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said it has identified only 44 flight-related COVID-19 cases since the beginning of 2020

Spot the contradiction that appears to have gone over the journalist's head.

Is he/she seriously suggesting that those 44 unfortunate individuals took 54-hour flights?

OpenCirrus619
19th Oct 2020, 18:10
If one passenger needs to be on a flight, for 54 hours, with 1 infected person to catch Covid then ...
If there are 108 passengers on a half hour flight, with 1 infected person, then, on average, 1 passenger will be infected

Uses the same numbers!!!

As someone said: "There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics" - you can make them say whatever you want.

infrequentflyer789
20th Oct 2020, 08:54
More sloppy reporting.

Sloppy math behind the presentation too apparently. Latest seems to be that one of the authors of the original research objected to the way it's been used/presented, declined to take part in the presentation and is now publicly stating that the industry's risk analysis is "bad math". https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-airlines-risks/bad-math-airlines-covid-safety-analysis-challenged-by-expert-idUSKBN27411O

Jonty
20th Oct 2020, 13:39
Either way, I think we can safely say the chances of catching COVID on a flight are very low.

TLoraine
20th Oct 2020, 18:11
Curt Lewis Flight Safety Information - October 20, 2020 - No. 212 - has this story.....

Woman in her 30s dies of COVID-19 aboard airplane

Officials confirmed Sunday that a woman in her 30s died of the coronavirus while aboard an airplane awaiting takeoff in July, according to BuzzFeed News.

The unidentified woman was having trouble breathing and was given oxygen before she died, according to NBC 5 Dallas–Fort Worth. It’s unclear if the Garland, Texas, resident was aware she was infected with the virus before boarding the aircraft, which was heading from Arizona to Texas. She did have underlying high-risk health conditions, according to release from Dallas County.

Although the incident occurred three months ago, the Texas county wasn’t alerted that COVID-19 was the cause of death until a few days ago, Judge Clay Jenkins said Sunday.

"I would strongly encourage people to not think they’re invincible from COVID because they don’t think they’re in a high-risk category," Jenkins said.

It’s unclear which Arizona airport or airline was involved in the incident.

Several coronavirus regulations have been put in place to safeguard air travel during the pandemic, including temperature screens and at some airports, COVID-19 testing.

DaveReidUK
20th Oct 2020, 19:58
Officials confirmed Sunday that a woman in her 30s died of the coronavirus while aboard an airplane awaiting takeoff in July, according to BuzzFeed News.

Given that the unfortunate woman was listed among the Dallas County Covid deaths, albeit belatedly, it's more likely that she died after landing rather than before takeoff.

Either way, it's not really relevant to the thread topic, since she obviously didn't contract the disease aboard the flight in question.

archae86
20th Oct 2020, 20:33
The rules here are that COVID-19 deaths are attributed to the location of the individual's domicile, not the place they happen to die. "Here" in my case is New Mexico, USA, so likely the same rules apply to the reported incident.

Pistonprop
20th Oct 2020, 23:26
Either way, it's not really relevant to the thread topic, since she obviously didn't contract the disease aboard the flight in question.

For me it is relevant. She was infected and brought it into the aircraft. Do we know if anyone else on that flight was subsequently diagnosed with Covid? After all, it has only been revealed recently that it was the cause of her death.

b1lanc
21st Oct 2020, 00:17
Maybe we all need to use mouthwash before getting on board.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/human-coronaviruses-inactivated-mouthwash-oral-rinses-study

Landflap
21st Oct 2020, 09:03
David : Absolutely correct statement.
Piston; You argue that it is relevant .The fact that she was infected and bought it into the plane is irrelevant. What is relevant to the thread is your question about anyone else who got the virus because of her infection. You go on to say it was the cause of her death. Really ? She had underlying health conditions. Another case of CV-19 being written up on the Death Cert as the "cause" when it was no such thing.

Pistonprop
21st Oct 2020, 09:47
Landflap, I don't understand how you can say that Covid was not the cause of her death. Your definition of 'cause' I suppose. My definition is that If infection with Covid exacerbates an underlying condition which results in death, than for me Covid becomes the main contributory factor, or 'cause'. She may have lived on for years with her underlying health problems had she not become infected, who knows? Anyway, my point was that she was on that aircraft with the virus unbeknown to all on board. Three months elapsed before this was known. Since then, have all the other passengers been traced? Did any become infected after that flight? Surely, that is relevant?

cats_five
21st Oct 2020, 12:15
Exactly. And I can hear the howls of objection that things are being hushed up if COVID was not put on death certificates where the person tested positive.

Landflap
22nd Oct 2020, 07:48
Piston : Good point about "cause". I stand by my argument though. We do agree, however , that the whole point is;: were others on Board infected by this person (?). That, we do not know and is the point behind this thread.

Cats5 ; No howls. Reasoned thoughts for clarification where CV-19 is placed on DCs where it was not the "cause". See above though in order not to get dragged into what "cause" means. An awful lot is being "hushed" up, Cats. Many of us doubting what we hear on a daily basis are simply asking "why ?". Not too unreasonable is it ?