TUI Zante to Cardiff - Covid

[SLF3]

Surprised this has not attracted attention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53966897

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/coronavirus-cases-flight-zante-cardiff-18856588

Latest reports say 7 passengers from three separate groups were already infectious when they boarded the flight. Another 9 have now tested positive, with the implication that they were infected while travelling (either at the departure airport, in flight, or on arrival). All 187 passengers have been asked to self isolate.

It would be really interesting to know how many of the 187 on board had completed the UK government arrival questionnaire online. I don't know if they check at Cardiff, but (in my experience) they don't at Heathrow.

A Brit who works for me has just quarantined in Italy (on the company dollar) and it cost (hotels, meals, car hire, flights....) around £3,000. I think there is a fundamental problem in that for many isolating abroad if you think you have COVID is simply not something you can afford, both because of the direct cost of the quarantine and the potential loss of income that results. So people will get on the plane even if they think they have it. And if you can't afford to quarantine you are going to think twice about getting a flight in the first place.

These are very difficult times.

[Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP]

The problem is the hysterical media. About 1500 people are testing positive each day in the UK. Probably caught on buses, trains and just being out and about.

There are twice as many hospitals in the UK than the number of C19 cases actually unwell enough to be in hospital. Only 2 deaths yesterday.

But the utter madness continues from a government that is driven by the media.

[WB627]

I think TUI will be paying loads of compo to the other SLF onboard for this one. Class action, balance of probability being the test in a civil court.

[farefield]

Agreed about the hysterical media. BBC felt it was worth being the lead item on the 10pm news on 31 Aug.

[DaveReidUK]

Surprised this has not attracted attention.

It has:

https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/629647-coronavirus-impact-air-travel.html

[kintyred]

It’s disappointing to read that the crew didn’t seem interested in enforcing the regulations. This is just another reason for passengers to stay away from flying. Airline staff have to make sure that all passengers feel safe while they’re aboard.

[parkfell]

The Crew ~ quarantined as well? Tested? Still at work?

[Wycombe]

It’s disappointing to read that the crew didn’t seem interested in enforcing the regulations

Family members flew AYT-LGW with TUI on a 789 last week and reported much the same. Some pax not bothering to follow the regs properly and crew not enforcing when they weren't.

[Less Hair]

How about stopping drinking and eating on board? This is when people lower their masks, sometimes for hours.
If the industry doesn't deal with it now the public will perceive flying as Covid-19-dangerous and maybe stop travelling even more?

[Contact Approach]

How about just accepting the fact you’re at greater risk boarding an aircraft in the first place?

[OldLurker]

I think TUI will be paying loads of compo to the other SLF onboard for this one. Class action, balance of probability being the test in a civil court.I hope TUI would defend that case, not cave in with a settlement. The SLF in the class action would have to have contracted coronavirus,* and the lawyers hoping for "loads of compo" (most of which would go to the lawyers themselves, under no-win-no-fee) would have to show that on balance of probability their clients contracted coronavirus on the plane and not in Zante airport or Cardiff airport or anywhere else. The passengers' legal contract is probably with TUI UK Limited, under the law of England and Wales, and in the UK civil cases are tried by a judge, not by an impressionable jury.

* Of course lawyers would claim "mental anguish fearing that they might contract coronavirus." I hope that wouldn't work, but in today's world it just might.

[what next]

Hello!

How about stopping drinking and eating on board? This is when people lower their masks, sometimes for hours.

That won't make much differencel because the masks that we "normal people" can buy won't protect anyone during a flight lasting several hours. They are good enough for the queue in the supermarket or a fifteen minute bus ride - but not for anything longer than that.

[OldLurker]

It’s disappointing to read that the crew didn’t seem interested in enforcing the regulations.Frankly, I don't blame them. Pax not wearing masks, despite having been told to do so, are likely to be drunk, or part of the anti-mask brigade, or simply don't give a damn, or all three; they're likely to be aggressive and disruptive if challenged even in the gentlest way; crew is then faced with either escalating to the point of landing and calling police with enormous delay and further aggression and disruption, or continuing anyway; which would the other pax prefer?

[Mooneyboy]

There is more risk contracting it in a supermarket/ restaurant or pub. Most people will spend more than fifteen minutes in a supermarket. Air ventilation on a flight is far superior to many indoor public spaces but let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good story!

[PilotLZ]

Popcorn ready...

Is there any objective proof that any case of infection stemmed directly from the flight? Or, for that purpose, from the holiday location, namely Zante? Maybe those people got infected in the UK before leaving for Greece? Like, on the bus on the way to work on the last day before their one-week holiday? Not showing any symptoms for 8-10 days after infection is not that uncommon.

[SLF3]

The airlines (or airports) could give out KN95 FPP2 face masks (without a valve). Instead of the triple wrapped postage stamp sized wet wipe I was given.

That would make a difference: and show they took their responsibilities seriously. If you look at CFD modelling of air distribution in a commercial jet (and recognise you cannot move away from whoever you are next to for the duration of the flight) it is hard to argue the risk profile is similar to that in a supermarket, restaurant or bar.

[kintyred]

OldLurker

The point I was making is that aviation is in a bad enough place already without yet more things happening to put the public off flying. If the crew wasn’t prepared to tackle the issue then they are doing themselves and their colleagues out of even more revenue = jobs. As a minimum the crew should film the actions of those on board so that they can be prosecuted later...at least everyone would know that there are consequences for not following the rules.

By the way, I wouldn’t allow any exceptions to the mask wearing rule. If you can’t wear one, you can’t fly. The public needs to have total confidence in their own safety before they will fly in big numbers.

[Gulf Julliet Papa]

As a minimum the crew should film the actions of those on board

Seems like a fantastic way to de-escalate a situation. :ugh:

Much like any other business in the UK, I'd imagine the onus is on the public / customers to comply with a mask policy. It's not for workers to have to go round telling people to be socially responsible.

[Boatymcboatface]

The cabin crew are under enough pressure with potential redundancies/pay cuts etc staring them in the face to walk into a cabin with drink fuelled passengers to argue over a mask.

Why did the women giving it both barrels in the press not tell her ‘fellow passenger’ to put the mask on? Probably a case of ‘not my problem, I’m not being paid for that’ - the usual case with joe public.

If you feel at risk anywhere, don’t be there!! Simple. The media love it, they’ll go out there way and step on every industry/business if it generates a reaction (which it always seems to do), they have EVERYTHING to answer for with this ‘pandemic’.

[SID PLATE]

Sometimes the fear of infection can be more dangerous than the infection itself.

In 1990 in Port of Spain (POS) a gay guy had an argument with his partner in an airport hotel room. He bashed him on the head with a table lamp / fire extinguisher, (reports differ), and ran naked towards the airport, scaling the fence. The security guys tied to apprehend him. He knocked them about a bit too, and commandeered their vehicle. He then drove it into the number two engine of a BA 747-236 lined up at the end of the runway. The top of the vehicle went into the engine which coughed a bit, but kept running.. He then exited the vehicle, and chucked himself into the engine. Again, it coughed a bit, but continued to run.
The airport authorities wouldn't go near the aircraft, in fear of contracting AIDS ( big news about this time). The Flight Engineer had to arrange and carry out a hose down of the engine himself.
The lesson is ... infections are here forever, may not be as serious as the media would have you believe, and RB211's are mighty fine aircraft engines.

[a_q]

Family members flew AYT-LGW with TUI on a 789 last week and reported much the same. Some pax not bothering to follow the regs properly and crew not enforcing when they weren't.

What seems irksome is that I heard a quote from TUI about the Zante flight, and they specifically stated that passengers were obeying distancing and PPE requirements. Someone at TUI is being economical with the truth, therefore.

[sky9]

I think the issue is that cabin staff cannot enforce what is government regulations other than the ANO “not complying with a lawful command.” as it is the job of the police under the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

My concern is that the Greek islands are the summer equivalent of Ischgl, people in small local accommodation coming together for a good time in the evenings in the bars that are open until all hours.

It’s a possibility that that the passengers caught the virus in Zante rather than the aircraft, in which case it’s time the government started checking out all passengers that have recently returned from the Greek islands otherwise there could be a rapid increase in numbers. The problem is that 80% of carriers show no symptoms and will only be identified by a Covid test.

[GKOC41]

Frankly, I don't blame them. Pax not wearing masks, despite having been told to do so, are likely to be drunk, or part of the anti-mask brigade, or simply don't give a damn, or all three; they're likely to be aggressive and disruptive if challenged even in the gentlest way; crew is then faced with either escalating to the point of landing and calling police with enormous delay and further aggression and disruption, or continuing anyway; which would the other pax prefer?

Too right. The crew are left trying to enforce the regs. Fact is most of the punters have spent the last week/two weeks ignoring the regulations. I really hope the crews all test negative. They will all lose flight pay whilst isolating though. It doesnt take much to work out folk will ignore the regs unfortuantely those that follow the rules have just got to put up with it or don't go on holiday in the first place - snowflakes

[DaveReidUK]

I think the issue is that cabin staff cannot enforce what is government regulations other than the ANO “not complying with a lawful command.” as it is the job of the police under the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020.

Yes, it's unreasonable to expect cabin crew to put themselves at risk by attempting to enforce the regulations.

But they shouldn't need to. UK airlines could be much more proactive than they currently appear to be.

For example, when passengers book and provide API before flying, they could be given the opportunity to register if they have a medical exemption from wearing a mask.

Anyone who hasn't registered an exemption and who then flies without a mask, or who fails to cover up when asked (only once, and politely) by the cabin crew should simply be added to a no-fly list shared by all UK airlines.

It’s a possibility that that the passengers caught the virus in Zante rather than the aircraft

That seems probable IMHO.

[Widger]

A surprising number of people on here making excuses. There are existing laws that can be used as have already been mentioned. Cabin crew saying that they cannot tell people what to do should realise that if there are more instances of this, the trust of the travelling public will be lost, people will not fly and more of us will lose our jobs. Wake up, smell the coffee, grow a spine and tell the SLF to sit down, shut up, belt up, put their tray away, not smoke in the toilet and all the other lawful instructions otherwise they will find themselves in court. The alternative is not acceptable

[renfrew]

A passenger on a TUI flight from Zante to Glasgow also affected.
Greece goes on the Scotland quarantine list from Thursday.

[White Knight]

As a minimum the crew should film the actions of those on board so that they can be prosecuted later...

When people start supporting a police style state it's gonna end in tears! Filming people against their wishes is illegal in many countries btw!

[togsdragracing]

What seems irksome is that I heard a quote from TUI about the Zante flight, and they specifically stated that passengers were obeying distancing and PPE requirements. Someone at TUI is being economical with the truth, therefore.

Standard practice for corporates to say such things in such situations, and for them to be quoted verbatim and usually uncritically by the media.

[PilotLZ]

Given the nature of the situation, wearing a mask is a safety measure. And it should be written in the contract of carriage. Failure to comply with it shall be treated equally to any other safety offence, e.g. not wearing a seat belt when the sign is on. Therefore, it should give the crew the right to issue a Captain's written warning in case of noncompliance. And the follow-up could be a place on the black list with no right of refund for unused future bookings.

[kintyred]

The cabin crew are under enough pressure with potential redundancies/pay cuts etc staring them in the face to walk into a cabin with drink fuelled passengers to argue over a mask.’.


The pressure comes from not enough people flying.

“If you feel at risk anywhere, don’t be there!!“

That’s why the crew has such an important role in making people feel safe....and thus keep their jobs

[Herod]

I don't know about aeroplanes, but in ground-based situations (shops etc, and in my case, museum) staff can ask that a member of the public wears a mask. However, if they say the magic word; "exempt", nothing can be done. It's even possible to download exemption cards from the NHS website.

[Alsacienne]

As I've mentioned in other threads, is this not the time for an ANO to give the Commander the right to order the individuals concerned to wear a mask and keep it worn, with the consequences if they don't to be offloaded en route, charged for the diversion and put under controlled quarantine on their return to the UK?

[DaveReidUK]

Given the nature of the situation, wearing a mask is a safety measure. And it should be written in the contract of carriage.

Yes, it should, but I'm not aware of any airline that has amended its conditions of carriage to include that provision.

It's by no means certain (as it hasn't yet been tested in court) whether, absent the above, cabin crew have the authority to enforce this part of the coronavirus Regulations.

Does it fall into the same category as an instruction to return to one's seat, belt up, etc, which are lawful commands within the meaning of the ANO/ANRs, or is it akin to asking a passenger to open or close their window blind, which isn't and can be politely declined without fear of sanction ?

[sky9]

Turning on the seat belt sign stops people walking around the cabin; or it should do.

[dohouch]

As the identities of all on board are known (hopefully!) then an announcement that anybody not wearing a mask will be held financially responsible for any resulting financials losses due to infection spread among passengers. May not be be enforceable without enriching too many lawyers , but would put the wind up non-compliant SLF's. I don't think the crew should be enforcing the obvious courtesy involved in someone wearing a mask.

[Out Of Trim]

I'm not sure anyone should be travelling to Greece or Turkey anyway, seeing as they are nearly at war! Never mind any Covid concerns. However, the face-covering rules need to be enforced on every flight regardless.

[Pearly White]

When people start supporting a police style state it's gonna end in tears! Filming people against their wishes is illegal in many countries btw!
Surprising that you can catch a cab in most major countries and be filmed the whole time in case you bash the driver or try to do a runner. But there are no security cameras in aircraft.

Would be easy for cabin crew to note down the seat number and make a report. In Australia the constabulary would likely be waiting at the airbridge to give you a limo ride back to the station for questioning.

[wiggy]

Might work in Aus but the UK police seem to have been highly reluctant to enforce any of the coronavirus social distancing provisions..cf. multiple stories of quarantine blatantly being breeched, mass gatherings..as a result I think the chances of getting the boys in blue to attended a flight arriving at LHR because Mr Bloggs in 13A wasn't wearing a mask would be slim.

And there is the underlying problem, as Dave Reid UK has pointed out - what is the legal situation on the aircraft?

The UK Gov has been very keen on issuing guidance on the precautions to be taken regarding coronavirus but very wary of codifying such guidance into law, even if it is codified there seems to be a whole host of allowable medical reasons for not wearing a mask and no requirement for the non wearee :bored: to be able to provide supporting documentation....

This from Gov UK, face coverings and exemptions.. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own)

Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards. No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.

and then add into that quagmire the issue of would the cabin crew insisting on a mask being worn be a "lawful command".

[NoelEvans]

A surprising number of people on here making excuses. There are existing laws that can be used as have already been mentioned. Cabin crew saying that they cannot tell people what to do should realise that if there are more instances of this, the trust of the travelling public will be lost, people will not fly and more of us will lose our jobs. Wake up, smell the coffee, grow a spine and tell the SLF to sit down, shut up, belt up, put their tray away, not smoke in the toilet and all the other lawful instructions otherwise they will find themselves in court. The alternative is not acceptable
I fully agree.

Failure to be heavy handed on these Covidiots (I liked that term when I heard that one on the other passengers had called them that!) will erode the trust of all the decent travellers and that will help to bring the industry to its knees with resultant loss of jobs. No excuses, that heavy hand is vital. Some lengthy jail sentences would be very useful. Why let a handful of brainless yobs wreck so many peoples' livelihoods?

(And film them for evidence if need be. I don't care if they haven't "given permission" to be filmed. If I was in that situation of being a decent fellow pax, or crew, I haven't given them my permission to wreck my livelihood.)

Yob free aeroplanes will be one of the best ways to build up confidence in air travel.

[DaveReidUK]

Some lengthy jail sentences would be very useful.

That's not going to happen.

Apart from practical considerations, the Regulations make it clear that a one-off failure or refusal to wear a mask on public transport without a reasonable excuse gets a £100 Fixed Penalty Notice (reduced to £50 for prompt payment).

Talk of jailing offenders is pure fantasy.

[NeilMaybin]

In August I flew EasyJet LGW-KGS and RHO-LGW and the mask discipline was perfect on both flights.

So what is EasyJet doing that TUI apparently can not do?

[SMT Member]

Appeal to a higher class of traveller?

[DaveReidUK]

Not really a mystery.

Why the Greek island of Zante is tipped to eclipse Magaluf as 2018’s wildest holiday hotspot (https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/5611756/zante-tipped-as-wildest-european-holiday-spot-this-summer-but-brits-should-be-careful-on-greek-island/)

[H44]

So what is EasyJet doing that TUI apparently can not do?

Just for balance I flew GLA-CFU-GLA with TUI and everybody was complying with the mask wearing requirements. Obviously it’s just a snap shot from two flights but I don’t think any one airline has a monopoly on perfect procedures and / or perfect passengers.

[Flying Hi]

Widger

Having had Jet2 EMA - BJV holiday in May cancelled and then a re-booked trip BHX - FUE also cancelled 10 days prior to departure, and reading that to many people Covid doesnt apply to them, we have decided not to book a third trip until it does.
'guidance' doesn't cut it -it needs enforceable Laws. Misbehaving Pax - straight to first possible airport en route or if already due to land, cancel return flight.
So thats probably our flying based trips in the bin.

[wiggy]

I really can't see somebody politely but firmly refusing to wear a mask as being a reason to divert, with all the extra risk and disruption that might entail.. so I guess sadly you are probably correct.

[PilotLZ]

You can cause someone enough inconvenience without diverting. Get him on the black list and offloaded by police on arrival. Two or three of those will be enough of a deterrent to everyone else who decides that COVID doesn't apply to them. The regulators need to wake up and actually make their "recommendations" enforceable until such time that concerns of mass contagion are no longer a thing. The one and only way to actually reinstate some confidence in people that safety measures are not just a salesman's chatter to lure them into booking.

[Flying Hi]

Amen to all that. But until that 'confidence' occurs, Plan 'A' as above applies.

[PilotLZ]

Indeed - and for many other people the same plan applies. The average air passenger will never analyse in detail whose fault it was that whatever was advertised on the booking site didn't come into play on the actual flight. In their view, the airlines are the villains who lie to people that they're taking all necessary precautions while not taking any just because they want money, no matter what the human cost of it. People understandably feel played with, cheated upon and angry as, effectively, they're sold a product under a false trade description. They won't analyse whether it was due to the crew, to the airline management or to the regulator. All they know is that they were sold a "COVID-safe" flight which actually wasn't. And it's high time the CAA took a firm stance on it. COVID is not going to go away tomorrow or next month. If we are to survive it, we as airline personnel need backing from the regulator.

[fergusd]

They are smart enough to understand the risk, and won't be on an aircraft for the forseeable . . .

You're going to be flying neanderthal's who won't comply with recommendations for some time . . .

Unfortunately, but then you reap what you sow . . .

[vickers vanguard]

How about just accepting the fact you’re at greater risk boarding an aircraft in the first place?

exactly....you wanna fly ? take the risk if you think it’s worth it, I do. This mask bull**** in an airplane is useless and provide people with a false sense of security. We all take it off to eat or drink.
i just came back from Sweden yesterday...Linkoping-Amsterdam-London-Toronto-Montreal, all in one freaking day. Was wearing that silly mask for almost 24 hrs, brutal ! And when I think of its lack of real usefulness , it make me grind my teeth !

[Flying Hi]

PilotLZ

History may that TUI single handedly killed the holiday flight industry by ignoring the rules and then lying to the Press about how good they were and being caught out.
"Fool me once - - "

[EastofKoksy]

Considering over 41,000 people died in the UK .....................
More than that die of cancer every year but the media dont focus on it as it is sadly just a routine statistic.

[Vokes55]

Flying Hi

Or, people with a brain will be well aware that COVID cases have come into the U.K. on thousands of flights, people are more likely to catch it in their local shop, and this was just somebody getting their 5 minutes of fame?

The media and the population’s general lack of intelligence is what is going to kill this industry. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a cure for the the virus of stupidity.

[SLF3]

People with a brain know that passing contact with someone in a shop is unlikely to give them COVID. They also know that hanging around in a snake queue for 40 minutes to check in, hanging around in a snake queue at security, hanging around at a gate for an hour, then sitting like a sardine in an air conditioned tube for four hours may well, whether people are wearing (non surgical) masks or not. From my experience of LHR the airline industry (both on the ground and in the air) is self harming: they are simply not taking their responsibilities seriously or taking obvious steps to keep people safe.

[ShotOne]

Unfortunately the government seem to have taken a policy decision to kill the travel industry with stroboscopic rule changes. The risk of contracting the virus on a flight is far lower than many other activities we take for granted; certainly lower than visiting a pub.

[Vokes55]

Another pour soul brainwashed by the sensationalist media then. Out of interest when was the last time you queued 40 minutes for check in? I’m not sure I ever have (maybe in Heraklion on a Friday night in 2009 it may have gotten close to 40 minutes)

I assume your plan would involve banning all public transport then? I mean, crammed onto a bus with limited or no air conditioning? A tube train, not very well ventilated. Ban it all.

And passing contact with somebody in a shop? What about all the products you’ve picked with your hands, were they placed there by robots? Have the products that have been touched by other customers and put back immediately vanished from the shelf? Do the self service screens clean themselves after every customer? And those card machines, are the buttons covered in magic anti-virus film?

I’d say one is far safer sitting on an aircraft personally. But that view doesn’t sell newspapers.

[SLF3]

Heathrow, Terminal 5, Business Class to Italy (no online check in), 4th August, 40 minutes
Heathrow, Terminal 5, Economy to Italy (no online check in), 14th August, 30 minutes

I wash my hands after I go to a shop, and the population density in shops is low. Less than 10% of virus transmission is from surfaces, 90% by inhaling contaminated air.

If we are comparing shops and airports: at check in, hand over my passport, handed back with a boarding pass, self service reader at security, hand over passport and boarding pass at the gate, handed back, handed a wet wipe by cabin crew....

I take the point on pubs (that is what went wrong in Aberdeen), commuter trains and the underground. Buses have restricted numbers (30 on a London bus that normally seats 72) and long distance trains have reserved seating, lower seating density than planes, and 50% of the seats empty.

Have you seen Wizz Air to Luton?

[farefield]

Considering over 41,000 people died in the UK .....................


So, a National Express bus from Victoria to York with people not wearing masks. Is that going to be lead item on the 10pm news?

[SLF3]

https://www.nationalexpress.com/en/help/coronavirus-safety

Looks like they have a better story than most airlines!

[ShotOne]

Restricted capacity on a bus, so that’s two metres then? 😂 Not even one! And if someone takes their mask off what do the crew do about it...oh wait, there’s no crew. So no need to keep front page free then.

[NoelEvans]

SLF3

That 'air conditioned tube' as you call it is by far the safest form of public transport for avoiding virus infection. You are far more likely to be infected in that shop than on a flight. Australia has been using contact tracing to investigate Covid transmission (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/flights-archive.aspx#nsw-domestic) on hundreds of flights, and has found that while infected people got on aeroplanes, nobody got infected on an aeroplane.

[flypaddy]

Less than 10% of virus transmission is from surfaces, 90% by inhaling contaminated air.


That’s a really interesting statistic; do you know where this research came from? I had always assumed touching surfaces would be the main offender.

[SLF3]

From an interview with Christian Drosten, a virologist and principal advisor to Angela Merkel on COVID who works at the Charite hospital in Berlin. He is a heavyweight. Here is an interview with him in English:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pw_O9jsJxk

If you get past the dreadful introduction and the chummy Americanisms its really very interesting. And he gives very detailed and nuanced answers to good questions.

[DaveReidUK]

NoelEvans

The most recent study that I've seen (August 2020), from MIT, calculated that the odds of contracting Covid on a 2-hour US domestic flight range from 1:4300 to 1:7700. The latter figure is for a flight with middle seats left empty.

So low, but not zero.

Covid-19 Risk Among Airline Passengers: Should the Middle Seat Stay Empty? (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.20143826v3.full.pdf)

[SLF3]

is that assuming there is someone on the flight with Covid, or does it factor in the probability that the flight is Covid free? Likely the latter, because On the Zante flight 3% boarded with it and 4.5% got it somewhere during the journey. Further, for cash, leaving the centre seat empty halves the risk. Which takes us back to coaches and long distance trains where every other seat is blocked.... I do not understand why KN95 masks are not mandatory on flights.

[Vokes55]

On the Zante flight 3% boarded with it and 4.5% got it somewhere during the journey.

Did they? How do you know they didn’t catch it at their local BP the next day? Or is that what The Sun said so it must be true?

Interesting that you decided to ignore NoelEvans’ post.

[Downwind_Left]

On the Zante flight 3% boarded with it and 4.5% got it somewhere during the journey.

How do you know 4.5% caught it during their journey? They are far more likely to have contracted it during their 2 weeks on the island than in 3 hours sitting in the highly filtered air of the aircraft cabin, mostly it would seem, wearing masks. There have been 6 UK clusters linked to Zante now, I suspect the common link is not the journey but the destination.

[SLF3]

Go back to the start of the thread. The inference that seven were contagious when they boarded and nine caught it during the journey was from the Welsh public health authorities.

Air may be effectively filtered entering the cabin but CFD modelling shows it moves around quite a lot before exiting. Google it.

I haven’t ignored the Quantas post: I’m just not sure I understand it or what it is telling me.

The public health authorities obviously think you can catch Covid travelling by air: otherwise they wouldn’t have quarantined 186 passengers and the crew. And even if you don’t believe Covid is transmissible in flight the idea that if you are on a flight where someone has it you will have to quarantine for 14 days means the consequence is pretty much the same.

I don’t think the fig leaf masks currently required make a material difference in the context of a flight, so mask compliance (and getting up to go to the toilet) is not the real issue.

I know this view is not popular: but the validity of the message is not changed by shooting at the messenger. The industry is in denial, in a world of pain but self harming. It needs to eliminate queueing (end to end), improve terminal layouts, minimise contact, improve staff PPE compliance, take sanitation seriously, issue higher specification masks and ensure they are worn. What I see right now (limited sample, but particularly in the UK) is lip service and bluster.

[DaveReidUK]

Go back to the start of the thread. The inference that seven were contagious when they boarded and nine caught it during the journey was from the Welsh public health authorities.

Neither of the reports that you linked to quote any evidence for that inference.

[AirUK]

3% of 186 = 5 pax
4.5% of 186 = 8 pax.

So, based upon those figures you provided, ‘supposedly’ 3 contracted the virus during the flight... not 9. And I expect they picked it up in resort, not on the aeroplane where a few people weren’t adhering to mask policy and of which are given far thorough cleaning between flights now than your prized buses/trains, I don’t think they get sanitised at every stop! And what’s more, I’ve travelled by train twice since lockdown and people are ignoring the policy there too. Staff aren’t allowed to enforce it there either... Want to stop everyone travelling and watch the travel industry fail for the sake of the disrespectful few? :rolleyes:

I feel sorry for you - you’re clearly watching/reading too many scaremongering news sources and have been sucked in by all the hype. COVID-19 exists, yes. It’s beyond unpleasant for some, yes. It’s life-threatening for a few, yes. But it isn’t floating all around us 24/7, waiting to pounce. Most wont even know they’ve had it. Those unfortunate enough to be vulnerable should mitigate their risk by continuing to shield and let the other 99%, within the current hygiene framework and whilst ‘doing their bit to help’, get on with their lives. There are far worse things out there. I recommend you go and get yourself a hobby (other than being glued to the news and a keyboard) and take that opportunity to calm down a bit.

[SLF3]

There were (early reports, numbers may have changed) a total of 16. 7 boarded with it, 9 likely got to the airport without it, had it shortly after landing.

I appreciate the mentoring, but don't worry - I have hobbies (trains and buses are not on the list) and don't need you to feel sorry for me!

What I have seen does not encourage me to fly, although I would like to: I repeat my point, the airline industry is paying lip service to Covid and self harming by doing so.

[DaveReidUK]

More unsupported assertions.

Please cite some evidence that those 9 people were clear of infection when they got on the flight.

[Hipennine]

There seems to be quite a lot of views that are basically following a logic of " situation in aviation may not be OK, but it's not OK on other forms of transport, therefore sitaution in aviation is OK". In my world, two wrongs don't make a right.

[PilotLZ]

Well, we also need to be looking into how far it is practical and reasonable to go. Perhaps a full lockdown could reduce the number of cases, but, given the enormous collateral damage it causes, can it be a sustainable option? No way. The combination of those and their effects might eventually end up killing far more people than the virus.

Masks are a reasonable compromise between enhancing safety and keeping the world going. And a sustainable one. However, they will only work if their wearing is enforced properly. It should be as non-negotiable as emptying your pockets at security.

And, for those craving an empty middle seat, Eurowings have got the right fix for that. They offer an option to book the middle seat at a reduced cost (i.e. the air fare only, without all the handling fees and taxes which would be part of the ticket price for a passenger but would not go to the airline). In this way, whoever is concerned with sitting next to a stranger can alleviate their concerns at a not-so-large extra cost - and the airline is not flying with a number of unsold seats which can only pave the road towards insolvency.

[double-oscar]

I find it interesting that despite the publicity this incident attracted, as far as I can see in the various media reports only one person has actually complained about the behaviour of the crew and passengers on this flight. There were at least another 185 people on board who didn’t think it was an issue worth raising. I know the level of acceptance of the new rules by passengers can vary by flight and destination and we can only encourage people to follow the rules. However, you also have to realise there are loop-holes in the rules. Some people are exempt from wearing a mask and how do you deal with a person who is continually sipping the bottle of water they brought on board or taking an age to eat their sandwich.
However, this is a real opportunity to test the effectiveness of the aeroplane air systems. If somebody can be bothered to the research it should be possible to identify where everybody involved was infected. This would help show whether air travel is safe in the current environment.

[250 kts]

Why are airlines flying from what are deemed to be high risk areas by the govt allowed to operate at anything but normal social distancing rules? It would seem there is no difference coming back from say, Spain (high risk ) as there is coming back from Germany (low).

[STN Ramp Rat]

Its only in the news because it’s involves aviation. Using the same social distancing arguments we should be closing all the pubs again because there have been more outbreaks In pubs than on aircraft.

We really need to get a grip and start returning to normality again.

[Vokes55]

There were (early reports, numbers may have changed) a total of 16. 7 boarded with it, 9 likely got to the airport without it, had it shortly after landing.

I appreciate the mentoring, but don't worry - I have hobbies (trains and buses are not on the list) and don't need you to feel sorry for me!

What I have seen does not encourage me to fly, although I would like to: I repeat my point, the airline industry is paying lip service to Covid and self harming by doing so.


Where's the evidence that they're able to detect within a 3 hour time frame when people contracted COVID-19? Last I heard the incubation period was 2-14 days.

If it doesn't encourage you to fly then don't fly. But just because you don't want to, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't. Typical 2020 attitude: I have an opinion and if yours is different it must be wrong.

From my experience, the silent majority of people want life to return to normal and believe the continued global obsession with this virus is an overreaction that's causing far more damage than the virus itself. The majority will wear a mask on a flight because they have to, not because they think it "keeps them safe" or stops them spreading illnesses. Of course you won't read that in The Sun so you probably won't be aware of that.

[TOM100]

Having flown through CWL twice recently I can say that Border Force are extremely zealous in checking your PLF is completed properly (a bit over zealous but I guess that is better than not bothering).

[Pistonprop]

"Normality" right now would be nothing short of catastrophic.

[R T Jones]

From my experience, the silent majority of people want life to return to normal and believe the continued global obsession with this virus is an overreaction that's causing far more damage than the virus itself. The majority will wear a mask on a flight because they have to, not because they think it "keeps them safe" or stops them spreading illnesses. Of course you won't read that in The Sun so you probably won't be aware of that.[/QUOTE]

More and more people I talk to are thinking much the same.

[250 kts]

Vokes55

Of course the majority want to get back to how things were. But the fact remains there is a highly contagious virus in the community that, in many cases is asymptomatic, that you can catch from anyone in close proximity for which there is no vaccine. It's only an overreaction for those that haven't been directly affected by those that have lost a loved one or close colleague.

[Vokes55]

There are always highly contagious viruses and illnesses in the community. Do we need to decimate the economy, people’s livelihoods and future prospects and mental health for every single one of them? Especially as, as you rightly mention, the majority of people don’t even know they have it, let alone get sick from it.

The constant referrals to people who have lost family members is all well and good, I don’t think the aforementioned silent majority disagree with the fact that action had to be taken when the virus was new, rife, out of control and being fought blind. But we are 7 months on, we know exactly where the virus is, how it affects (or doesn’t) people, how to treat it (and how not to treat it) and most importantly, the fact that for the majority of people, it doesn’t even make them sick.

How long does this go on for? If there’s no vaccine and the virus takes years to burn out, do we continue with a crippled economy? Do we continue not doing all the things that make life worth living? Seeing loved ones, watching live sport/music/shows, travelling, working? Do we continue sitting at home, “staying safe”?

Newsflash, life is unsafe and nobody makes it out alive. Time to move on.

[PilotLZ]

Safety measures are necessary in almost any human activity, be it to avoid slipping and falling or to avoid getting infected - but staying put and doing nothing for what can potentially be a couple of years because of a virus with a true mortality rate of less than 1% is not an option. A "new normal" full of isolation, policing, ever-changing restrictions, ill mental health, poverty and despair will ultimately cause far more damage. Lockdowns kill people. Depression and anxiety kill people. Stress over what's going to happen tomorrow and how to make ends meet kills people. Poverty and growing inequality will result in millions of deaths and many people's life expectancy significantly reduced. But few talk of that.

The latest development of the situation is downright appalling. Putting Greece and Zante on the quarantine lists of Wales and Scotland will create another logistical nightmare - but will not do anything useful. What can possibly stop people from landing at Newcastle, Leeds or Manchester and then getting the train to Edinburgh, thus avoiding quarantine? Nothing, I think. But it's going to create even more inconvenience in a world where all sorts of inconvenience have been plentiful in the past 6 months.

[wiggy]

Vokes55

Agreed..

I think we (and especially the politicians) have backed themselves into a corner here..as testing is ramping up many countries are seeing an increased number of cases, and that seems to be the key metric for imposing quarantine and/or similar...not "symptomatic cases", not "cases in hospital", not "cases in ICU", simply "cases"..look at the MSM, every ***** evening, it's all about the daily number of "cases", " Breaking news - will the UK or who ever reintroduce quarantine from X or Y because of the number of "cases"?

In the UK and elsewhere schools have reopen and within days we are starting to hear of closures because somebody has tested positive. Closure,...schools shut, sent home, even though they and their cohort are rarely if ever seriously impacted by the virus.

This has all the shades of the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash airspace closure where, having put draconic flight bans in place some of the NAAs/ governments were very reluctant to reduced restrictions, despite the evidence, because nobody wanted to be the politician who signed off on the relaxations in case it bit them in the behind.

For the sakes of the general population we simply cannot go on like this...I'm of an age where I'm at elevated risk - I'm happy enough to reduce contact, continue with social distancing, etc, but my working age kids, and former colleagues, really need the economies of the world to get moving again...and that in part means air travel.

[Gipsy Queen]

Vokes55

A welcome dose of pragmatism, but try explaining that on the Jet Blast Covid thread.

[etudiant]

Sadly it simply confirms what we all know. The vast bulk of what we do is non essential. Tourism was the world's premier employer, now prostrate because of the virus.
Is this kind of shutdown a rational answer to the disease? I suspect not, but it sort of worked in China, so it must be appropriate for us as well.
Why is no one looking at Sweden or Taiwan, countries that have moved on past the lockdown stage?

[infrequentflyer789]

Agreed..

I think we (and especially the politicians) have backed themselves into a corner here..as testing is ramping up many countries are seeing an increased number of cases, and that seems to be the key metric for imposing quarantine and/or similar...not "symptomatic cases", not "cases in hospital", not "cases in ICU", simply "cases"..look at the MSM, every ***** evening, it's all about the daily number of "cases", "

UK testing has been fairly static for at least a month now, but positives are rising. Hospital admissions lag cases by at least 10 days or so, ICU by a bit more and deaths by 4-6 weeks (although you only get 4 weeks in the UK then you are considered "recovered" even if still in hospital). In Spain, hospital admissions have already followed cases upwards and deaths are now starting to rise too, France looks similar. Both were arguably doing better than UK, what they did was go back (close) to "normal" pretty much all at once, while UK lifted restrictions more slowly. Cases are ticking up here now though and it is starting to look like hospital admissions might be too (too early to determine trend).

There isn't an easy answer, because by the time you actually see a clear rise in hospital admissions the time to act has passed, cases will have risen much further, and many more hospital admissions and deaths are already baked in.


In the UK and elsewhere schools have reopen and within days we are starting to hear of closures because somebody has tested positive. Closure,...schools shut, sent home, even though they and their cohort are rarely if ever seriously impacted by the virus.

The real worry about schools going back isn't the kids, it is the fact that kids pretty much always live with people older than them, they are more often asymptomatic and are less good a social distancing. The risk is not to them, it is from them infecting those that they live with. Well, at least that is my worry, I do have the perspective of being classified extremely clinically vulnerable and having two teenagers going back to school next week, they need to go back, but I do NOT need covid. Too little data/knowledge to guess how bad it would be (doctors basically saying "we don't know, do NOT get it"), but hospital is apparently almost certain and generally it's russian roulette odds from there.

For the sakes of the general population we simply cannot go on like this...I'm of an age where I'm at elevated risk - I'm happy enough to reduce contact, continue with social distancing, etc, but my working age kids, and former colleagues, really need the economies of the world to get moving again...and that in part means air travel.

There are really three things we (talking about UK) can do:

1. Go back to "normal" and let it run. 6-7% or so infected so far according to antibody tests, 60-70% according to the same tests in worst affected areas of Italy, so we're 10% of the way through in terms of infections and deaths, and who knows what long term consequences. To get through it in any reasonable timescale to hit herd immunity before immunity runs out (and first reinfections are starting to be confirmed now) you are looking at health care completely overwhelmed (killign many more in collateral damage), possibly collapsing, and quite possibly taking the rest of the system down too. "Normal" would last a few months at most.

2. Go for a "zero covid" strategy (see e.g. https://www.independentsage.org/a-better-way-to-go-towards-a-zero-covid-uk/ ) - much more effort (apparently more than we can be bothered to do as a nation) and pain in the short term, but then allows a return to "Normal" after elimination - but would require tight border control and quarantine on probably all international travel to keep it out, until the rest of the world catches up. This is NZ strategy. I'm fairly sure NZ tourism and travel industry is ****ed right now and for foreseeable future, I'm not sure that the population is screaming at the government for doing a bad job.

3. Try and find a "new normal" that will keep it suppressed at a level where we can cope with it, test, trace, play whack-a-mole with local outbreaks and quarantine zones, and hope people carry on complying with the restrictions until we can buy enough time to find a vaccine or treatment(*). This is the UK strategy, or directionless drift. Some sectors of the economy will come back, some won't. Some planes are flying, I don't have to go outside to hear them, but those I know who work in theatre have been told there is nothing until next April at earliest.

If you "can't go on like this" with the new normal option, I would suggest there are really no good choices at all for you. Move to NZ maybe, but I missed that boat long ago.

(*)No, "dex" is not a treatment, thousands of vets (older ones at least) collectively went "well Duh!" at the news that whacking in a load of dex as a last resort when things are dying tends to postpone death, sometimes, for a while. It doesn't treat anything or fix anything and you will be in a pretty bad way with plenty of long term or permanent damage by the time it is of any use, but remember you can't die of covid in the UK after 28 days, that's all they have to keep you alive for. Covid docs have it easy, cancer docs have to keep you alive for 5 years before you are a survivor, covid? - 4 weeks. If you though the govt. was devoid of strategy think again, it's right there in that 4 week cut off, we find a way to keep most patients alive for that long and suddenly almost nobody dies. Conveniently solves the re-infection problem as well, no one is ever going to (officially) die of covid re-infection in the UK.

[250 kts]

Vokes55]There are always highly contagious viruses and illnesses in the community. Do we need to decimate the economy, people’s livelihoods and future prospects and mental health for every single one of them? Especially as, as you rightly mention, the majority of people don’t even know they have it, let alone get sick from it.

The constant referrals to people who have lost family members is all well and good, I don’t think the aforementioned silent majority disagree with the fact that action had to be taken when the virus was new, rife, out of control and being fought blind. But we are 7 months on, we know exactly where the virus is, how it affects (or doesn’t) people, how to treat it (and how not to treat it) and most importantly, the fact that for the majority of people, it doesn’t even make them sick.

How long does this go on for? If there’s no vaccine and the virus takes years to burn out, do we continue with a crippled economy? Do we continue not doing all the things that make life worth living? Seeing loved ones, watching live sport/music/shows, travelling, working? Do we continue sitting at home, “staying safe”?

Newsflash, life is unsafe and nobody makes it out alive. Time to move on.[/QUOTE]
Not that we don't have a vaccine for. You're right life is unsafe, but does that mean you are actually prepared to put yourself at unnecessary risk by having to sit next to someone on a train, bus etc. that could be infected? Yes, we have to get on with things but with appropriate precautions, something many already seem to be forgetting.

[ara01jbb]

Why is no one looking at Sweden or Taiwan, countries that have moved on past the lockdown stage?

“Hej” from Sweden, where I can provide your periodic reminder that just because we had no lockdown, things are not so rosy here. The country is in just as deep a recession as our Nordic neighbours, our aviation industry is on life support (and now Norwegian needs more state aid) and more people per capita have died than most other European countries. It’s easy for Brits to say that we’ve done better than the UK, Spain or Italy, but that’s not saying much.

[Radgirl]

As I have posted before, a vaccine is coming. I dont know which one, its efficacy or approval date, but we will get there and the vaccine, even if only 50% efficacious (which is the FDA requirement for a license) will obtund and effectively terminate the epidemic. The question is what do we do in the interim. My concern is that Europe, and now the UK, is seeing a similar picture to the US when the US stopped lockdown. A steady increase in incidence in the young but very few hospital admissions or deaths. The incidence then reached a critical level and effectively spilt over into the vulnerable. Houston for example then went from very few admissions to an overloaded healthcare system in a couple of weeks. Now I dont think European healthcare will ever be stressed but I do worry we will see more ill and dead. Whether we do depends on the will and determination of politicians to restrict the population again.

Sadly whatever happens, aviation is in dire straights. I for one am angry because I believe society can be back to normal in the western world by Q4 2021 so 'all' we need to do is support the industry for another year. The money spent on a blunderbuss approach where some got grants, some got furlough, some got cheap meals, but others got nothing and the industries at risk were not targeted will be the downfall of our woeful leaders

[Vokes55]

Not that we don't have a vaccine for. You're right life is unsafe, but does that mean you are actually prepared to put yourself at unnecessary risk by having to sit next to someone on a train, bus etc. that could be infected? Yes, we have to get on with things but with appropriate precautions, something many already seem to be forgetting.

You put yourself at “unnecessary risk” every time you wake up in the morning. Last month a train derailed in Scotland. People died walking down the street from being hit by cars or being stabbed (sorry I cannot provide specific examples as I don’t watch the news).

And don’t scoff at that last one, because one of the biggest results of economic catastrophe is an increase in crime and unrest. If 2million plus end up in the dole queue, how many of those will turn to crime, alcohol, drugs when they cannot make ends meet and feel a lack of purpose, worth and direction?

The modern world, and particularly the U.K., has become obsessed with risk. Everything requires a risk assessment because people can’t take ownership for their actions, possibly fuelled by the boom in “no win, no fee” legal cases. If somebody falls over in the street, it must be somebody else’s fault. If you hit your head on a low beam, it must be somebody else’s fault for not making it clear the beam was there. If people could take ownership for their actions, whereby people at “risk” would keep themselves out of busy pubs, away from public gatherings, off crammed tube trains, then the 90+% that aren’t “at risk” could get on with life as normal and keep the economy going, avoiding the aforementioned socioeconomic collapse whilst preventing the NHS from being “overwhelmed” (which, speak to any doctor, it never came remotely close to during the initial spike in March).

Everyone loves to blame the government for going into lockdown too late. But the virus was known about for at least two months previous, why did those “at risk” not take themselves out of society? Why didn’t people take responsibility for their own health and lives if they believed this was a serious risk to them? Of course some parts of society (care homes...) had no choice, but plenty did.

Its this blame blame blame attitude that’s the reason we now have this pointless quarantine system that’s crippling the aviation, travel, tourism and a number of other industries. The government have been blamed for every aspect of their response to this pandemic, sometimes rightly so but often unfairly. But they know that if somebody “at risk” goes to Spain, catches coronavirus and becomes seriously ill, they’ll almost certainly blame the government for saying it’s okay to go to Spain, rather than themselves for going somewhere with an increasing number of cases.

If society could take responsibility and ownership for their actions, we wouldn’t need draconian measures like lockdowns and restrictions. Those that see risk would stay away from busy public places, tube trains, Spain etc, and the rest of us could get on with life.

[Radgirl]

If people could take ownership for their actions, whereby people at “risk” would keep themselves out of busy pubs, away from public gatherings, off crammed tube trains, then the 90+% that aren’t “at risk” could get on with life as normal and keep the economy going

The problem is that the 90% are also at risk: at risk of infecting those over 40, BAME or with comorbidities and upon whom the economy also relies. I cant run my hospital with only 20 year olds and nor can most businesses manage. society is interconnected

Everyone loves to blame the government for going into lockdown too late. But the virus was known about for at least two months previous, why did those “at risk” not take themselves out of society?

In the UK because the government failed to inform or properly inform. The average 50 year old worker couldnt simply tell his employer he was not going to work even if he did have the training to call out the government's propaganda and wrong decisions. In relation to the elderly, the government ordered hospitals to get rid of them back to care homes even if they were covid positive. Care homes were threatened with police action when they resisted. The government could have closed the borders. It could have locked down selectively if done earlier. Dont blame the man in the street with no training in epidemiology or infectious diseases.

[Tartiflette Fan]

From my experience, the silent majority of people want life to return to normal and believe the continued global obsession with this virus is an overreaction that's causing far more damage than the virus itself. The majority will wear a mask on a flight because they have to, not because they think it "keeps them safe" or stops them spreading illnesses. Of course you won't read that in The Sun so you probably won't be aware of that.

and just how many have you canvassed/heard expressing an opinion ? Seems unlikely to be 30 000 000+.

[infrequentflyer789]

why did those “at risk” not take themselves out of society?In the UK because the government failed to inform or properly inform.

Not so, the correct messages were out there more than a week before lockdown, I followed them, planned, and prepared. Many, possibly most, people did not, some didn't listen, some actively worked against it, some woudl actively do the opposite of what Boris says on principle. The week I assessed myself as "at risk" and began, in effect, "shielding" (before shielding was officially put in place and weeks before I was actually notified I was on the list) a bunch of my neighbours were planning a "lets all catch covid" street party (lockdown thankfully intervened), and that is in a very middle-class highly educated professional neighbourhood, :mad: knows what it was like on the council estates.

Problem was the government assumed that brits today are still stiff-upper-lip do-the-right-thing keep-calm women-and-children-first all-in-this-together, whereas in fact it turns out (entirely predictably really) that brits today have the collective intelligence and social responsibility of a bunch of lemmings going mountain climbing blind drunk after dark for an eye test. We were asked, nicely, well before lockdown, to be responsible, and restrict socialising and non-essential travel (i.e. the Swedish way), the result was massive crowds crammed into the pubs and the biggest crowds in decades at beauty spots like Snowdon.

The average 50 year old worker couldnt simply tell his employer he was not going to work even if he did have the training to call out the government's propaganda and wrong decisions.

Not strictly true, under English law you can (civilians at least) walk out of an unsafe working environment. My wife did exactly that in the week before lockdown having clashed with management over their "business as usual" attitude and lack of covid precautions in direct contravention of then govt. guidance and in fact their own head-office guidance. Having told her she was scaring people and causing panic, the following week they implemented practically everything she'd asked for. Too late for her, not job wise, she still in fact has same job, but because at that point she was already infected, mostly likely from work since we'd already stopped all social engagements. I have stayed covid-free, because we were proactive and prepared.

I've had similar stories (with and without walk-out) from others, including health professionals, with a common theme that the other people were about a week behind the curve, in the end that's all the difference of opinion was. Trouble is, when you are on an exponential doubling every 2 days, a week is a long, long, way behind the curve.

[NoelEvans]

This has all the shades of the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash airspace closure where, having put draconic flight bans in place some of the NAAs/ governments were very reluctant to reduced restrictions, despite the evidence, because nobody wanted to be the politician who signed off on the relaxations in case it bit them in the behind.

Very close parallels. It has all been done on 'modelling'. In both cases quite rightly there was a very, very cautious initial reaction. With this nasty bug there was an increase in deaths, which fortunately was avoided with the volcanic ash. One big difference: Iceland couldn't/didn't hide the problem, so people could respond quickly. Everyone is so quick to criticise 'the government' but all governments doing much the same with a few variations (looking at outcomes, this one probably better than lots of others). Thousands of 'instant experts' doing the criticising, but no real ideas.

I have been to a few pubs and restaurants recently, all very well behaved and organised. The 'better' supermarkets are also a pleasure to go to but there is one of the 'ordinary' ones near us that we avoid due to the behaviour of the clientele, although we are happy with one from the same chain a bit further away. There is sensible behaviour from a lot of the population and appalling behaviour from some. We will be avoiding chavs for quite some time, especially the younger ones and especially in pubs and restaurants and on trains and flights. We pay more attention to the sort of clientele that a business attracts and those attracting chavs have lost our business.

I agree with infrequentflyer789's post. Employers could sort themselves out to deal with this. My wife and I have both worked at separate places that were very, very good at making early, sensible decisions.

The fundamental problem at the very beginning of all of this? We didn't get the same warning that we got from Iceland about their volcanic ash...

[PilotLZ]

And there wasn't any analogue of the WHO behind Iceland, singing along "don't worry, they've got this very well under control" right until everyone saw that they haven't.

I do agree that the type of clientele which a business attracts will now be more important than ever in consumer choice. However, the problem is that some people might get too quick-handed to judge an entire airline on one flight only. In the supermarket, you can see day after day that their type of clients remains unchanged. With an airline, people who only fly once or twice a year do not have the luxury of making long-term observations. Hence the importance of a very high level of adherence to the rules. Everything necessary to enforce the safety rules needs to be done with the assumption that there's no tomorrow and no second chance.

[NoelEvans]

And there wasn't any analogue of the WHO behind Iceland, singing along "don't worry, they've got this very well under control" right until everyone saw that they haven't.
It's one step before WHO in this whole debacle that was the fundamental problem. It was them who was singing along "don't worry, they've got this very well under control". And they are still misleading everyone by sticking to that 'song'. They mislead WHO and we are all suffering the consequences. As I have said elsewhere, that controls all my purchasing choices now.

I do agree that the type of clientele which a business attracts will now be more important than ever in consumer choice. However, the problem is that some people might get too quick-handed to judge an entire airline on one flight only. In the supermarket, you can see day after day that their type of clients remains unchanged. With an airline, people who only fly once or twice a year do not have the luxury of making long-term observations. Hence the importance of a very high level of adherence to the rules. Everything necessary to enforce the safety rules needs to be done with the assumption that there's no tomorrow and no second chance.
Spot on. Our local pub is really good with their new 'ways' so I am happy to go there. A pub full of chavs would now never get my business. You are right about airlines, people judge them on very few 'samples'. For that reason it is so important for airlines to be very, very heavy-handed with transgressions of their infection safety rules. Airlines, or any other businesses, do not need bad headlines like this Thread title.

[250 kts]

Vokes55

So now you compare a pandemic which has killed many 000s with the same risk factor as getting on a train?

[Le Chiffre]

Vokes55

Fabulous post advocating a sensible balanced approach where people are invited to make their own personal risk assessment and take action accordingly.

The neurotic hysteria has to end.

I'm not booking any leisure travel until the mask / social distancing / quarantine madness ends. And the worrying thing is I think about 80% of the public feel the same way.

The reality will, of course, only really hit when pilots start getting laid off en masse. This is going to happen unless things pick up very quickly. Easyjet have set the ball rolling, round 2 at BA is probably coming early next year and there is a 50% chance Virgin will collapse when the money runs out in 18 months.

In order to solve all of the above people need to be reassured that travel and holidaying are safe for the overwhelming majority. You can't do that whilst people are wearing nappies on their face and demanding 2m distance at all times.

[NoelEvans]

If those idiots who were wearing bum-nappies around two decades ago behaved decently we would be able to get on top of this a lot faster and people would no longer need to be 'wearing nappies on their face'. (I know that the idiot young are really infuriating the sensible young who are being given a collective bad name due to the idiots.) Quarantining for travel from other countries will only go away when the idiots in those other countries learn to behave too.

Don't go 'blaming' our (collective) governments for this mess. Blame the PRC for their gross ineptitude in letting their most famous ever export get out to infect the world. And blame the idiots who aren't behaving properly and putting so many peoples' jobs and futures (and their own) at risk

Airlines should be very, very heavy-handed with idiots who misbehave and put the livelihoods of those in the industry at risk.

[Le Chiffre]

There is an early document from SAGE where it is openly stated that their aim is / was to convince the general public into being afraid of the virus through highly emotive messaging painting an extremely bleak picture.

Covid has gone from UK ICU wards. Most have not seen a patient for weeks. The real problem is now mass neurotic hysteria.

[Nil by mouth]

Airlines should be very, very heavy-handed with idiots who misbehave and put the livelihoods of those in the industry at risk.

Post 9/11 a"Air Marshals" were deployed on flights!
Maybe "Covid Marshals" should be deployed to identify and detain those irresponsible pax who flout the rules for keeping others safe?

[Livesinafield]

The whole thing now is becoming a farcical joke, lack of info changing of minds constantly, silly quarantine rules that are based on testing (if you test more, you get more infections... its not rocket science we are all built the same way) so countries testing more get put on quarantine lists yet those that don't, stay off it. If you want infections to go down then stop the testing

Its time for everyone to just grow up and get on with life, the majority of people happy to live in fear of this Illness are people who have not yet had their lives turned upside down by it, when that time comes they too will be raging

[Le Chiffre]

If they want people to wear face masks the way they could to it would be to change their conditions of carriage.

I'm looking forward to a remake of 'Passenger 57' and Covid Marshals.

+1 to what 'Livesinafield' said. Whole thing is a joke - we need to send a strong signal that the travel and tourism industry us open, and restore public confidence in getting on a plane.

[Tartiflette Fan]

Livesinafield

That seems particularly inapt in relation to this virus. Many people are symptomless, others experience some of a wide variety of effects including lung, joint, neurological problems which may persist for months ( so far ) after the infection has passed. In addition to that tens of thousands have died (UK )

[STN Ramp Rat]

COVID in simplistic terms ....

Serious cases are more likely to be in the elderly, retired, population. They are mostly in receipt of pensions so are economically secure. They are frightened by the potential impact of the virus on them and therefore mostly believe that the everyone should stay indoors and the world should stop until the virus is eradicated.

The rest of the population is less likely to be affected seriously, they mostly have rent or mortgage payments and want to recover their economic situations and their “right to party”. They want the older generation to stay indoors, allowing the rest of the world to move on and get back to the “new normal” as soon as possible.

In the middle is the government who are trying to walk a tightrope between the two views.
That fairly much sums up the debate on this thread as well.

[Livesinafield]

Tartiflette Fan

Well we can continue like this if you like for the rest of our lives if you like, until we all have no money and there is mass poverty, or we can just learn to live with it , be sensible and carry on...shutting down industries is not a way to carry on

[DaveReidUK]

If they want people to wear face masks the way they could to it would be to change their conditions of carriage.

Which many have already done. EZY, for example.

[Le Chiffre]

The furlough 'free munny' ends next month and mass redundancies across all sectors will follow shortly thereafter.

A mortgage company will generally give you 2 or 3 months to sort your life out before they come knocking for the keys. You can get another 3 months if you can convince a Court that you have a realistic prospect of salvaging the situation, i.e. that you have gainful employment lined up.

By March there will be 3 million + unemployed with all the associated economic and social problems.

We have to learn to deal with this and live with it, or alternatively accept that 50% of people in travel and tourism are going to lose their jobs over the next 18 months.

[PilotLZ]

Further to what you said, travel, hospitality, tourism, entertainment and all other industries that cannot function normally right now account for a good 20% of all jobs out there. Do we just make 20% of all people obsolete and with no means to survive because, you know, in the "new normal" we no longer do what used to be their livelihood? And can all those jobs be replaced by alternative, "COVID-safe" roles? The answer is NO.

Staying put is only semi-attractive for as long as there's someone to pay you for it. Once you lose all your income, you will have to get out there and do something, otherwise you'll starve. And, if things go that far, COVID will be the last thing on your mind. But do we have to learn it the hard way?

[Pistonprop]

PilotLZ: I think that a proportion have just put things on hold in the hope of an eventual vaccine. Of course, if that proves impossible (and it may well be so) we are going to learn to live with Covid-19. However, it does require sensible precautions to be maintained and respected by all whatever their age. This is what is failing at present and that's why I for one will not travel to typical holiday destinations. My wife and I go out and support local business including cafes, restaurants and such like establishments. Right now we feel safer being close to home and not to have to mix with the (mainly younger) idiots that show no common sense whatsoever and who are now basically responsible for the recent surges in many countries. In short, your philosophy is fine, but only if basic precautions are maintained and adhered to. For me that's a key factor to get through this.

[PilotLZ]

Exactly. As I previously mentioned, safety measures are essential for making activities inclusive for as many people as possible. The better those measures are adhered to, the more people will feel safe and confident undertaking the activities in question. And everyone will benefit from it.

[SamYeager]

COVID in simplistic terms ....

Serious cases are more likely to be in the elderly, retired, population. They are mostly in receipt of pensions so are economically secure. They are frightened by the potential impact of the virus on them and therefore mostly believe that the everyone should stay indoors and the world should stop until the virus is eradicated.


Simplistic is the right description for that vast over generalisation. I'm over 60 and retired. I most certainly do not believe that "everyone should stay indoors and the world should stop until the virus is eradicated". Large numbers of people have died or will shortly die of cancer and other diseases because a large proportion of the NHS is not treating them due to keeping beds clear just in case the mythical "second wave" turns up.

[Pistonprop]

Nothing mythical about the second wave. It's happening right now!

[Vokes55]

Another one who needs to put the paper down and get a hobby. During the "First wave", around 100,000 people per day were being infected all across the country, not 3500 in a selection of local areas.

[infrequentflyer789]

SamYeager

Simplistic? Yes - I'm well under 60, years off being able to retire, but I am still being advised by government (central and local) and doctors to go out as little as possible, and only return to work if I can assure it is "covid secure" - which I can't, so I can't work (or at least not the type of job I had before). That is current guidance for the "extremely clinically vulnerable" category (and in a local area heading towards another lockdown right now because of idiots going out and spreading it), and I am sticking to it because in March being proactive and acting in advance of being told to shield saved me when it spread through my wife's workplace and she brought it home. Some of her colleagues family members got it. Yep, they had "pre-existing conditions", so do I. like me they were not dying any time soon (until covid). Like me they were probably looking forward to retiring in another decade or two. I still am, if we can get through this, they aren't.

Second wave "mythical"? - not if you actually look at the data rather than the headline "deaths" rate. We (some of us, not me) ignored the warnings from Italy before the first wave with the result that we followed them a few weeks behind. We can ignore the warnings from Spain and France now, or we can follow them a few weeks behind (which is where our cases are). Deaths are a lagging indicator, by 3-4 weeks plus reporting delays, and with the rise in cases being driven by the less-vulnerable young, the lag will be even bigger. Eventually the case load amongst the young will reach a critical mass and start to spill over into the old and vulnerable - this is apparently now showing in the test data today (seen reports stating that, but not checked today's data myself yet). Rise in hospitalizations will follow (some increase already showing in the data) and then, inevitably, rise in deaths - Spain is already there. Problem is that on a exponential curve (currently said to be doubling every week) with a four week lag, by the time the death rate hits a worrying level, it's too late to prevent a level at least an order of magnitude higher. We have ample warning and ample understanding now of how this goes, will we brake in time or will we leave it too late and inexorably go of the end of the runway, again?

[Longtimer]

Another one who needs to put the paper down and get a hobby. During the "First wave", around 100,000 people per day were being infected all across the country, not 3500 in a selection of local areas.
Here we have the problem, infected does not mean suffering from the virus. All it means is that you have tested positive, not that you are in danger, require hospital care or indeed die from the infection. 'The real number to be quoted should be..... x number infected, x number hospitalized and x number died. ....... all of course in percentages vs other health risks.

[Livesinafield]

There is no second wave... You can't have a second wave until the first is gone.

In march the virus was spreading like a virus does and infecting millions across the UK, and we were testing 10,000 a day, now we have massively ramped up the testing to over 25 times that, and some local infections are appearing as expected with the relaxation of lockdown rules, as long as those numbers are manageable which for now they appear to be.

I just don't think people appreciate how many infections were active during March and April in the UK

If you are clinically vulnerable to this then you're doing the right thing shielding to keep safe but the other 99.74% are going to be just fine and need to carry on with their lives and learn to live with it

[NoelEvans]

Agreed, "infected does not mean suffering from the virus."

"All it means is that you have tested positive, not that you are in danger, require hospital care or indeed die from the infection." also agreed.

However, if you have tested positive you are a risk to everyone that you come in contact with as you could be passing on an infection that could mean to them that they could be "in danger, require hospital care or indeed die from the infection." This is important as I have seen a criticism, by a medical professional, of a Risk Assessment that had put the risks of the consequences of infection as 'medium' whereas it should be assuming the worst-case individual becoming infected where the risk of the consequence is logically high.

We know someone (in another country) who was tested as positive but with no symptoms (she was in close contact with two family members who were ill and had tested positive) -- her primary concern was that she could have already passed it on to work-mates.


People should behave sensibly and avoid the risk of spreading this nasty virus, that is the only way that we will be able to get back to normal and save airline jobs.

[Livesinafield]

The issue I have with testing (happy to be corrected)...if you have no reason to suspect you have the virus said person will not get tested, Once symptoms develop they may get a test and be told yes you have it, which by then you will have infected countless numbers of people, If you have symptoms its wise to assume you have the virus and isolate, my point is once you have symptoms is there really a need for a test

Add to this that you could be tested at 9am and be negative and tested again at 3pm and be positive, I suspect that is one of many reasons why they are not bothering with airport testing in the UK right now

[NoelEvans]

Which all emphasises the importance of maintaining hygiene and 'social distancing', doesn't it? And could people please get it into their heads that just because they are 'wearing a mask' they are not protected (they are primarily protecting others from them), so bloody keep your distance!

[etrang]

"If you feel at risk anywhere, don’t be there!! Simple"

Not so simple after the plane is airborne.