Can Pre-Flight Testing Help Restore International Travel?

[PilotLZ]

The problem is that people's short memories of bad events aren't necessarily a good thing. Insofar as an individual is concerned, not suffering for an extended period after the distressing circumstances are over is a good thing, showing a healthy coping strategy that preserves said individual's mental health long-term. But, on a larger scale, forgetfulness of past hiccups often costs a lot. Back in the days of SARS, there was a lot of research into prevention of infectious disease spread by air transport. There were many industry-leading scientists coming up with all sorts of smart and totally realistic ideas of how to make aviation safe from a contagious disease perspective. Self-disinfecting materials for aircraft interiors, HEPA filters, remote thermometer control in airport terminals, ozone or UV disinfection of suitcases - you name it, it was on the table. But guess what - as soon as SARS went away, funding for all those programmes was axed and lots of the brilliant concepts were shelved in favour of "why invest into improving something which works just fine the way it is". There was a short resurgence in interest towards some of those projects during the Ebola outbreaks of 2014-2016 - but again, more was said than done. Until the chickens came home to roost in 2020.

[WillowRun 6-3]

COVID-19 Aviation Health Safety Protocol - EASA & ECDC

PilotLZ thank you for offering a context for decreasing my level of cynicism. (About usefulness of some international groups...)

Coincidentally yesterday, during the first day of the EASA Annual Safety Conference which of course was conducted virtually, reference was made to the Aviation Health Safety Protocol issued by that agency and the ECDC. A link follows -- posted here just for information, without any claim that the joint effort by EASA and ECDC merits any specific level of approval or shrug.
(I observed yesterday that some of the presenters described work their organizations had done which, it appeared, had made good use of this document and its contents, but that's just an SLF/attorney's view, as typically from the cheap seats.)
"COVID-19 Aviation Health Safety Protocol", subtitle Operational Guidelines for the management of air passengers and aviation personnel in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic -- issued by EASA and ECDC as of June 30 2020

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...sengers_v2.pdf

[foxcharliep2]

Originally Posted by etudiant

Dealing effectively with this virus while we do not even now have a clear understanding of how it is transmitted seems unlikely.
Airlines will have a hard time convincing people that travel is safe as long as that uncertainty remains. That suggests this crisis will be resolved only after a vaccine has been proven efficacious.
It will be a two year event in that case at best.

Cannot agree more - just read that 3 days ago 900 Russian tourists landed in Cayo Coco, Cuba.
After testing, 11 of them were Covid-19 positive and have been hospitalized.
Now a total of 20 persons are in quarantine... and they only landed 3 days ago to big fanfare by the Cuban gvmt. declaring the country "safe" for tourism.

https://www.14ymedio.com/cuba/Once-t...980501927.html

[3Greens]

The evidence doesn’t support your claim. Certainly in BA, whenever a route is removed from the quarantine list, demand is very strong. People don’t seem afraid to fly from what has been seen. It’s the quarantine that kills off a route whenever the Gov add it to the naughty list. Remove quarantine somehow and it unlocks the routes.

[RexBanner]

+1 and said it on page one of the thread, the very first reply. The demand is more or less still there, not as it was but not disastrous either. The moment Jersey introduced quarantine for the U.K. regions the LHR-JER loads went from 110 or so (on an A319) to less than 20. Overnight. That’s what’s killing aviation right now, not any perceived threat from the virus, indeed most people are completely over it.

[kcockayne]

The demand for air travel is certainly still there. Went to Madeira on BA two weeks ago on an A320 & there wasn’t a single empty seat on both flights. Maybe this demand can at least be partly attributed to the fact that Madeira was “green” at the time very few other destinations weren’t but, nevertheless, the demand was still there for people to , at least, go somewhere.

[Chris2303]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...ing-early-2021 Jetstar axes trans-Tasman sales, Air NZ sets sights on full bubble opening early 2021

[Lucifer786]

I am most certain of the opinion that a fairly successful COVID vaccine coupled with a rapid preflight covid test is the answer to resumption of a decent level of air travel and in turn will start slow and initial rotation of the cogs of the world economy which in turn will encourage more air travel and so on.
Key being in the two factors above.

[PilotLZ]

3Greens, RexBanner - spot on, gentlemen. People's willingness to travel is still there, it's policy that's preventing them from doing so. Working in the leisure segment myself, I rarely see a load factor below 85-90% wherever free movement is permitted. Nobody seems to be making a fuss out of having to wear a mask - and boarding and disembarkation in an orderly manner, row by row, have actually made the experience better as nobody likes being pushed along and having someone else breathe right in their neck.

Why do people still want to travel amidst a pandemic? Because going somewhere different and nice for a week is one of the most relieving, recharging things you can do even when it's smooth sailing back home. Let alone when people are struck by cabin fever from lockdown and have spent months being deprived of as little pleasures as a walk in the park or a coffee with a colleague. Call it a mental health booster if you want. It's for a reason that confinement to a prison cell is a form of punishment, not a form of reward.

That being said, the news from Pfizer today was seriously good. If a vaccine with an efficiency of over 90% can exist, bringing the public health emergency to an end is a matter of a year or thereabout. And, if it's that efficient and sufficiently widespread within the population, mass testing will eventually become obsolete.

[Longtimer]

Likely because they think they and those who who interact with are immune or perhaps just because they are stupid and / or don't give a damn about the risk to others.

[Radgirl]

I am most certain of the opinion that a fairly successful COVID vaccine coupled with a rapid preflight covid test is the answer to resumption of a decent level of air travel

If we can roll out the vaccine we can suppress the pandemic to an insignificant level and remove fear. Testing is not needed. However that needs

1 an ability to vaccinate all countries not just the UK, europe, north america and australasia so there are enough people to fly both ways
2 politicians who can agree a certification system plus relaxation of the lockdowns for vaccinated passengers - not a done deal
3 management of fake news and the anti vaxxing movements

Cynically, 3 is least important as going on yesterday's 120,000 cases in the USA that country will reach herd immunity in April making vaccination unnecessary, but at the loss of so so many lives

[etudiant]

Researchers from Columbia University are testing a nasal spray which provides 24 hour protection against the virus. https://bgr.com/2020/11/07/coronavir...y-lipopeptide/

This might reassure travelers, all passengers get their nasal spray as part of the boarding process, so the virus won't spread on the plane. Obviously no panacea, does not help those already infected or solve the international travel issues, but could work for domestic routes.

[etudiant]

PilotLZ

The Pfizer vaccine is no picnic, it comes with enough side effects to make it unpleasant for most recipients. including pain, fever, chills and headaches, at least according to the Nature report.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...e-e23f63a5f9ab

[FlightlessParrot]

Thanks for the link. Those look worse than the consequences of an influenza vaccination, but tolerable: certainly would not stop me having the Pfizer. But perhaps enough to deter some people.

[Maoraigh1]

Smallpox vaccine was unpleasant, for several days. Is it any worse? My age group can remember smallpox outbreaks in the UK. Mass vaccination worldwide eradicated it.

[PilotLZ]

Would you prefer an afternoon of headache and fatigue or getting infected, quarantined for two weeks, risking infecting an elderly family member or coworker? To me, the choice is rather obvious, but perhaps the concept of the lesser evil is as subjective as everything in life. The important bit is having good certainty that there will be no long-term damaging side effects. As long as this is assured, a day or two of mild to moderate discomfort is a tiny price to pay.

[FlightlessParrot]

This is indeed true. But one might also ask, "Would you prefer to put up with the mild inconvenience of wearing a mask, or would you rather take the risk of infecting everyone you come into contact with?" I really hope that this and other vaccines will help us get back to normal, but it is not going to be immediate.

[etudiant]

The initial testing was done on healthy volunteers aged 18-55, so for them it sure looks like a good choice. No data yet on how older or less healthy people.react to the vaccine, so keep your fingers crossed.

[Recc]

etudiant

Different vaccine. Pfizer have described two candidate vaccines: BNT162b1 (your link) and BNT162b2. Because of the results that you link to, BNT162b2 (which had lower reactogenicity) was the candidate that was taken forward to the phase II/III trials that are now being reported. Article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2814-7

[etudiant]

Seems the tests were still done on people aged 18-55 'we present antibody and T cell responses after vaccination with BNT162b1 from a second, non-randomized open-label phase I/II trial in healthy adults, 18–55 years of age'
so no change from before.