BA cancel all flights to and from China due to Coronavirus
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 29th Jan 2020 at 17:20. Reason: Typo
So who will be the lucky airline/charter company to bring the people from Wuhan home to be sent to a quarantine centre ... so this of course would include the crew ...... any volunteers or would they be press ganged?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO and i must assume that i can be totally wrong, but maybe not only health issues for this BA cutting-route decision, but as well its a route that could be losing money and no profit at all for the incoming times...my humble 2 cents...
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: 370
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 aircraft turned round mid flight, going to PKX and PVG, based of govt. advice. The other aircraft going to PKX continued, but returned to LHR with only crew onboard. Both profitable routes for the airline. Fairly hefty revenue loss with the refunds offered.
I thought the plan last night was for a PKX and the PVG to continue and then return with the outbound crew and any crew who were on slip? Did that change?
I’m not sure why there are comments about BA crew, quarantine and pay, unless it’s just speculation about what might have happened if BA hadn’t pulled the routes.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing said about Virgin- today at least they continue and VS250 is en-route as I write. Website offers options on changing flights for those booked but doesn’t mention cancelled flights
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems that Lufthansa Group is stopping flights, too.
All Lufthansa, Swiss, Austrian flights to mainland China canceled until Feb 9 at this time, the website says:
www.lufthansa.com/de/de/fluginformationen
All Lufthansa, Swiss, Austrian flights to mainland China canceled until Feb 9 at this time, the website says:
www.lufthansa.com/de/de/fluginformationen
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in news just to hand, Australian education Minister Tehan yesterday claimed person to person transmission was not possible.
Oxymoron? An education minister with no knowledge?
Australia's Qantas have not had time to use the latest crisis to berate staff so they will continue flying until their first crew are in ICU.
A spokesperson of unknown gender pronoun, claimed it was simply a cost of doing business.
Oxymoron? An education minister with no knowledge?
Australia's Qantas have not had time to use the latest crisis to berate staff so they will continue flying until their first crew are in ICU.
A spokesperson of unknown gender pronoun, claimed it was simply a cost of doing business.
Portuguese ACMI HIFLY tomorrow will operate the EU flight bringing some European citizens from Wuhan... Will do stops at Paris and Vietnam... Not sure by now if will use 330, 340 or 380...
https://observador.pt/2020/01/29/cor...7-portugueses/
https://observador.pt/2020/01/29/cor...7-portugueses/
Psychophysiological entity
OldnGrounded #22 Spot on. Can't say much more.
Most folk know a virus is very small. It used to be called 'Non filterable'. This came from finding unglazed porcelain could filter bacteria, but let the virus pass.
"Most viral infection is via contagious transmission." Odd statement, but in a publication c 20 years ago. But it's the airborne droplets that get you.
Eyes are an open door for virus laden droplets. Tears have an antibiotic on one or more of their seven layers, but no use at all for the virus which will spread over the eye in seconds.
Some people create a storm of droplets when speaking - easily visible in front of a daytime window. Doctor's waiting rooms are often filled with people that think putting a fist in front of their silly faces will protect the world. We could empty a zillion hospital beds if only people would carry a mini-towel and blast into that. It could become de rigueur. In the meantime, masks will protect (some) others.
Most folk know a virus is very small. It used to be called 'Non filterable'. This came from finding unglazed porcelain could filter bacteria, but let the virus pass.
"Most viral infection is via contagious transmission." Odd statement, but in a publication c 20 years ago. But it's the airborne droplets that get you.
Eyes are an open door for virus laden droplets. Tears have an antibiotic on one or more of their seven layers, but no use at all for the virus which will spread over the eye in seconds.
Some people create a storm of droplets when speaking - easily visible in front of a daytime window. Doctor's waiting rooms are often filled with people that think putting a fist in front of their silly faces will protect the world. We could empty a zillion hospital beds if only people would carry a mini-towel and blast into that. It could become de rigueur. In the meantime, masks will protect (some) others.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be important enough to clarify, at least for some people in some settings.
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Psychophysiological entity
And probably didn't help you at all.
The flight deck air system. Just how much air is mixed with the cabin's air?
The flight deck air system. Just how much air is mixed with the cabin's air?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than you think as the virus appears to be droplet spread rather than airborne. Other measure like washing hands regularly, keeping a distance from other people, not touching handrails etc and refraining from touching your face probably help more.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be important enough to clarify, at least for some people in some settings.
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Very good info. However wearing a mask has some real value, as it makes it less easy to touch mouth/nose, and if a visor mask, eyes.
An N95 with proper use, with eye protection, and with proper hand de-sanitising, and sterile technique helps the wearer reduce likilhood of contracting the virus. The transfer from surface to hand to face is the most problematic action to intervene with, and to that extent, even a surgical mask acts at least as a reminder to be very careful where you put your hands. Being isolated from potential carriers and limiting contact to surfaces is the most effective manner to avoid transmission.
We have entered a new period of awareness, and the Malindo crews (2 B737s) now having holidays in isolation in China as one pax in each return to PRC had a temperature is the new near term norm. Of course, the passengers are also in isolation, so when you next board an A380, even though symptoms apparently (to be confirmed) post date being contagious, any one of your compatriots may result in you needing lots of good Michener books to read for a while. And that is a good outcome, worse is you may become a statistic thereafter. Not being alarmist, until the airlines have appropriate protocols in place, any travel has the potential to go pear shaped. On your A380 with 549 other SLF, what is the likelihood of someone having a temp on arrival post a 14 hr flight? Suspect it isn't zero.
Current case growth is still sitting around 48% per day, and the reported fatality rate appears low on first look, however, that is when comparing current confirmed cases against fatalities. Compared to previous virus pandemics, that appears quite low, but that is also an aberration from the immediate viewpoint. Past outbreaks are effectively concluded, and total fatalities are compared with total confirmed cases. At present, the figures being considered are of todays confirmed cases, not those of a week ago, so there is around a 4 times higher true fatality rate underlying the problem at this time. That is close to the SARS mortality rate. Approximately 1 in 5 confirmed cases ends up with ICU requirements, and somewhere just under 50% of those cases ends badly at present. These are sobering values, and suggest that taking care in travel is important, care in personal hygiene is necessary, and those that have potentially compromised lung function or immunity need to be very careful.
(stats for the above can be found on the JHU website)
We have entered a new period of awareness, and the Malindo crews (2 B737s) now having holidays in isolation in China as one pax in each return to PRC had a temperature is the new near term norm. Of course, the passengers are also in isolation, so when you next board an A380, even though symptoms apparently (to be confirmed) post date being contagious, any one of your compatriots may result in you needing lots of good Michener books to read for a while. And that is a good outcome, worse is you may become a statistic thereafter. Not being alarmist, until the airlines have appropriate protocols in place, any travel has the potential to go pear shaped. On your A380 with 549 other SLF, what is the likelihood of someone having a temp on arrival post a 14 hr flight? Suspect it isn't zero.
Current case growth is still sitting around 48% per day, and the reported fatality rate appears low on first look, however, that is when comparing current confirmed cases against fatalities. Compared to previous virus pandemics, that appears quite low, but that is also an aberration from the immediate viewpoint. Past outbreaks are effectively concluded, and total fatalities are compared with total confirmed cases. At present, the figures being considered are of todays confirmed cases, not those of a week ago, so there is around a 4 times higher true fatality rate underlying the problem at this time. That is close to the SARS mortality rate. Approximately 1 in 5 confirmed cases ends up with ICU requirements, and somewhere just under 50% of those cases ends badly at present. These are sobering values, and suggest that taking care in travel is important, care in personal hygiene is necessary, and those that have potentially compromised lung function or immunity need to be very careful.
(stats for the above can be found on the JHU website)
Last edited by fdr; 29th Jan 2020 at 23:30.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be important enough to clarify, at least for some people in some settings.
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Surgical masks are reasonably good protection against droplets (from sneezing, etc.) but they can't protect against airborne virus particles. For one thing, they don't form a seal. They are best used by people who actually have (or might have) transmissible disease, to provide some measure of protection for others.
N95 respirators (the designation indicates that they block at least 95% of 0.3 micron particles) are much more effective than surgical masks in protecting the wearer. However, that's only true when they are properly fitted, which is seldom the case when they are selected and worn by untrained personnel. And if you've ever worn one for very long, you know that they are very uncomfortable.
Most transmission of "airborne" virus disease is actually the result of contact, e.g., touching a contaminated object/person/surface and subsequently touching nose/eyes/mouth.
The lesson from all of this is that, if you are in a situation where the risk of infection is high, you should be masked, gowned, wear goggles, have a properly-fitted respirator and be trained in infection-control practices. Measures less stringent that those might be helpful -- if you're lucky -- but it's foolish to rely upon them if the risk is high.
If you are interested in "official" guidance, the US Centers for Disease Control provide some here:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topi...espsource.html
Thanks for the superb information.
