PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Bad news for us in the industry (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638321-bad-news-us-industry.html)

ATC Watcher 27th Jan 2021 18:24

Bad news for us in the industry
 
Watching German news (ZDF) at 19;00 with a piece on Israel , and there an Israeli medical expert was interviewed about the new UK Covid variant said that in on aircraft from Dubai a single passenger contaminated 184 others in a matter of hours but gave no more details .I cannot find confirmation on Internet other that El al cancelling all flights in and out of Israel. If this is true the whole HEPA filters narrative pushed by IATA falls apart and that will be another major blow to our industry.

the_stranger 27th Jan 2021 19:12

While I can not dispute this one claim, you would think if this story is true and 1 pap infects 180 others on 1 flight, we would have so many more cases like these in the 1000's of flights since match last year.

Combined with no further information, I would not panic just yet..

infrequentflyer789 27th Jan 2021 20:40

I would say the same... except for the fact that there are new. more transmissible, variants around since about Nov/Dec. That and the fact that I have heard similar numbers in warnings from personal contacts who are senior London consultants, specifically about the new variant. Bear in mind that those doctors were working the front line of the first wave in London, they've seen plenty of covid, they haven't seen anything similar that transmits like the new one. Read into that what you will, I don't have any hard data only hearsay and anecdote.

krismiler 27th Jan 2021 23:25

Vaccination is now happening on an industrial scale in many countries which should slow the spread down. Getting a jab will probably be an annual event from now on and vaccines will evolve and improve as more data becomes available. The current vaccines are an emergency rush job but now we’re up and running against the virus more time can be taken to test and develop better versions.

Totally wiping out the virus is an unrealistic goal, at least in the medium term and it’s something we are going to have to live with and adapt to. The price of opening the world up again is that some people will catch the virus and some will die from it but the numbers involved should be manageable. Vaccinated countries won’t see waves of infection and mass deaths with the health services overwhelmed but there will be people in hospitals.

Travel bubbles haven’t worked, they were too fragile and it only took one case to destroy them. However vaccine bubbles could work, once two countries have a sufficient percentage of their population vaccinated, there is no reason why a vaccinated traveller with a negative COVID test couldn’t move freely.

Similar to aviation, it’s about an acceptable level of risk. If the traveller has been vaccinated he probably won’t catch the virus and if he did he wouldn’t get very sick. If he has a negative test result prior to travel he probably doesn’t have the virus but if he does, then if most of the population in the country he’s visiting have been vaccinated they would be protected from catching it from him. If they did catch it they wouldn’t get very sick.

The above would probably be an acceptable scenario for international travel to resume.

ATC Watcher 28th Jan 2021 07:25


Canadian authorities say there are ZERO proven cases of transmission on an airplane
Well, that is not correct , just go to the New Zealand Covid site.
I am not trying to scare people with false rumors, just reporting what I have heard and , again if proven true will likely be a game changer in our efforts to recover in our business.
The guy making that claim is a Professor in an Hospital in Israel , Prof D, Mevorach ,in an interview to German state television ;
you can hear it here :https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute...9-uhr-100.html
go to 09:00 it is German translated but he speaks in English to the reporter , and yes he is speaking about the new variants , UK and SA .

Asturias56 28th Jan 2021 07:33

You often get individual doctors popping up with claims - you can't trust them I'm afraid - you have to look at the large scale trials and people like the national authorities & WHO

ATC Watcher 28th Jan 2021 07:54


You often get individual doctors popping up with claims - you can't trust them I'm afraid
Indeed and the fact that there is nothing reported on Internet about this flight will trend to believe this is the case. Let's hope so at least .

BerndK 28th Jan 2021 08:19

Just reviewed the original news (ZDF Heute). @ATC Watcher, I think that was a misunderstanding. The medical expert said that the person did come from Dubai by plane and that he infected 184 others. The expert did not suggest where the infections took place or that any of the persons infected was passenger on the plane. It was just an example for a person carrying the variant from abroad into the country and there acting as a superspreader, obviously more contagious than the original virus.

Pistonprop 28th Jan 2021 10:28

I might be more inclined to believe what I hear or read if it is supported by a significant percentage of scientific and medical experts. What is said by just one or two so-called professionals doesn't set off my panic button. There are many suspect "experts" in the world who simply come out with BS supported only by their own twisted beliefs and their academic titles.

Rossair 28th Jan 2021 11:43

The New Zealand Evidence is published in the Center for Disease Control Journal Vol 27 under the title

Genomic Evidence of the In Flight Transmission of SARS CoV 2 Despite Predeparture Testing.

The study concludes -

Evidence of in-flight transmission on a flight from the United Arab Emirates to New Zealand is strongly supported by the epidemiologic data, in-flight seating plan, symptom onset dates, and genomic data for this group of travelers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (passengers A–G). Among the 7 passengers, 2 (A and B) were probably index case-patients infected before the flight, 4 (C, D, E, and F) were probably infected during the flight, and the remaining passenger (G) was probably infected while in MIQ.. ( quarantine) All 7 passengers were seated in aisle seats within 2 rows of where the presumed index case-patient(s) were seated.

Combined, these data present a likely scenario of >4 SARS-CoV-2 transmission events during a long-haul flight from Dubai to Auckland. These transmission events occurred despite reported in-flight use of masks and gloves. Further transmission between travel companions then occurred after the flight, in an MIQ facility.

These conclusions are supported by genome sequencing, an in-flight seating plan, and dates of disease onset.

ATC Watcher 28th Jan 2021 13:42

I received now a different interpretation of what the Israeli professor said, the contamination of a single passenger on board of a flight from Dubai had contaminated 184 others, but not clear if that was during the flight ( as I understood it) of after the flight as indeed you can understand his comment both ways.

.

Peter H 28th Jan 2021 14:08

For clarification: does "after" mean that the cross-infection occurred before leaving the transportation system or within the next X days (e.g. at a conference or holiday resort)?

BerndK 28th Jan 2021 15:00

The point of the professor was, that one person, who is infected with the new variant, can infect a real lot of people.
"recently there was one person coming from Dubai by plane, who infected 184 others, 184 people infected from only one person!"
The professor did not mention where the infections happened and did not point to aircraft or airport.

from www dot heute dot de
ZDF Heute Sendung vom 27.01.2021
appx. minute 08:00

Rossair 28th Jan 2021 18:15

I cannot find any report in any medical journal of 184 passengers being infected on any flight.

The New Zealand did find genomic evidence that one or two passengers had infected at least 4 others seated close to them on an EK Dubai to Auckland flight in September. This was in-spite of all 6 passengers having tested negative before boarding and wearing masks and gloves during the flight.

However much more troubling for our industry was today’s interview on the Radio 4 World at One programme with Professor Sharon Peacock.

She is Professor of Public Health and Microbiology in the Department of Medicine. She is also the Executive Director and Chair of the UK Covid Genomics Group.


Professor Peacock says the longer this pandemic lasts, the greater the chance that inside the body of one patient, of the millions of patients , somewhere in the world, a new mutation will develop which cannot be treated by the vaccines.

The news anchor suggested that the clear inference from this was that all borders worldwide should be closed until the pandemic is over to stop the spread of new mutations. Professor Peacock did not disagree.

I believe that this will turn out to be the real reason for continuing the shut down of International flights and not transmission on board.

DaveReidUK 28th Jan 2021 18:24

Probably time to close this thread, based on an unfortunate misunderstanding.

3Greens 28th Jan 2021 18:31

Rossair

well that’s not surprising really, it’s her field of expertise. Scientists and doctors would seemingly lock everyone down and close borders until there is virtually zero cases. The economists on the other hand can see that doing so risks a complete tanking of the local and global economy. The government can’t Keep paying us to stay at home and printing money. It’s a balancing act for the politicians to try and judge. Without a viable eco only, of which business, travel, tourism and airlines and airports contribute massively, there would be no money for NHS, VACCINE research etc.
she may well be right. But there is no way we can keep the world shut down In case there is vaccine evasion. The fallout is going to be horrific if the economy doesn’t restart in the next 6 months. It seems to me the world is giving this one last big push to get it sorted along with the vaccines before accepting a certain level of virus circulating within society.

Pistonprop 28th Jan 2021 18:41

The way I see it is that since cargo flights are not affected and thus goods can continue to be exported/imported I don't think the economy would suffer that much as long as there is freedom to travel within your own country. In the vast majority of countries (there may be some exceptions I concede) the leisure industry would recover quite rapidly through domestic as opposed to international tourism. This would allow more time (i.e. more than 6 months) for a full recovery.

surely not 28th Jan 2021 21:48

Go onto FR24 or similar and see the numbers of aircraft flying. Yes numbers are down since before the virus appeared, but if just 1 passenger could infect a whole aircraft full of passengers and crew I think it would have become very obvious long ago. This has the hallmark of Internet sensationalism.

Pistonprop 28th Jan 2021 22:05

surely not, be aware that a great deal of aircraft flying are cargo flights, many of them operated by what would normally be passenger aircraft. I know because we have them every day at our airport. Yes, there are passenger carrying flights too but they account for roughly about a third of the usual numbers at most. Why do you think so many aircraft are parked up / stored around the world? At my (regional) airport alone we have 22 stored at present.

krismiler 28th Jan 2021 23:30

If one passenger could infect a whole flight then surely with that rate of transmission, rates would rise exponentially. Any cinema or restaurant he visited would result in total infection which would be spread at similar rates by those infected.

We've managed to live with other diseases such as AIDS, TB, Syphilis, Flu, Yellow fever etc without being able to eliminate them and we're going to have to do the same with this one. Shutting down the world for 6 months isn't an option. Vaccination and precautions should keep the problem at a manageable level, total elimination isn't a practical goal at least in the medium term. Closing the borders and locking down just because a single case gets reported isn't realistic. Some people will slip through the cracks and will get sick and die even if they had the vaccine, but in very low numbers which can be coped with. ICUs won't be maxed out and relative normality can return.

White Knight 29th Jan 2021 03:07


Originally Posted by krismiler
Shutting down the world for 6 months isn't an option

Here at least I agree with you. Sadly much of the world has been shut down for more than 6 months and has put over 150,000,000 people OUT of work. Totally ridiculous and it's carrying on now with the UK closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted:rolleyes:

aussiefarmer 29th Jan 2021 04:48

I never believed for a second what IATA claimed. Yes modern airliners carry hepa filters that filter 99.97% of virus etc, but sitting in a cramped cattle class seat for 7 hrs (or 17) next to a person shedding virus is a recipe for guarranteed infection - regardless of masks etc.
From there to infecting the whole airplane that’s just plain stupid and physically impossible.

crewmeal 29th Jan 2021 08:32

Meanwhile the UK government have added the UAE to the hot list meaning EK are operating their last pax flights to the UK today.

blue up 29th Jan 2021 08:49

Those filters MAY filter out 99.97% of virus particles but that is only AFTER it has passed through the filter. Not to sound childish, but if you fart on an aircraft then the number of people who smell it is roughly the same as the number of people who could ingest the virus via your breath? 2 rows back (6 people) sounds right to me. YMMV. I assume you only need one viral particle to contract a disease whilst you need lots of fart to be able to detect it?

Banana Joe 29th Jan 2021 08:55

aussiefarmer

This is why we need a sort of electronic vaccine certificate. It won't completely eliminate the risk of infection, but it helps reduce the risk of infection.

Winemaker 29th Jan 2021 13:41

Experiences may vary. I moved my daughter down to Los Alamos in mid December and had no choice except to fly back. I flew Delta; they had every other seat vacant so I wasn't sitting next to anyone. I wore an N-95 mask the whole time; passengers in the SLC terminal were keeping social distances. This seemed about as safe as it could be made under the circumstances but I was happy to get off the plane. I received the first vaccination about 10 days ago.

osborne 29th Jan 2021 15:00

Keeping every other seat vacant solves nothing.

My wife and I both caught an unpleasant (non-covid) infection from a sneezing passenger sitting behind us on a long-haul flight.

PilotLZ 29th Jan 2021 18:25

There are some scientists who take an extremely single-sided viewpoint on this and preach that lockdown should last for another couple of years and some industries and venues should be permanently shut down even after mass vaccination, just in case. It kind of reminds me of the perverted fantasies of building a "locked-in economy" that circulated in the early days of the pandemic, during the first round of lockdowns. That involved bright suggestions like allowing people to work in cycles of 4 days, followed by 10 days of home detention, correction, quarantine. Needless to say, this is practically impossible for many reasons.

For now, one year into this mess, close to 200 million jobs have been destroyed globally. Many, many others are hanging by a thread and will disappear the moment government support is pulled - and government support cannot last indefinitely. More than two decades of progress in fighting global poverty have been reversed - and poverty happens to bring reduced life expectancy. That's not to mention all the countless deferred scheduled treatments, mental health issues affecting a double-digit percentage of the population, exploding domestic violence and all the other great things brought up by the "new normal".

We're constantly being told that no price is too high when it comes to keeping the numbers low. But when does collateral damage outweigh the direct damage from infection? Nobody seems to have an answer for that - and it should be pivotal to any policies.

jugofpropwash 30th Jan 2021 01:30

ATC Watcher

A further question here - what exactly is meant by "contaminated"? Most here seem to be equating that to "infected" - but IMHO, it's equally likely that they mean "exposed" people who need to be quarantined/tested.

vikingivesterled 30th Jan 2021 12:57

osborne

That is what the mask is for. Stopping distance spread of droplets through the air.
The middle seat free is to avoid you touching a surface, as the armrest, that somebody with CoVid19 have touched plus minimising the risk from sideways expulsion of droplets from the sides of the mask.
And yes you can sanitize your hands, but will you after every time you have come near the passenger beside you through an hours long flight and and for the whole time avoiding touching your face?

anothertyke 30th Jan 2021 13:52


Originally Posted by PilotLZ (Post 10979029)

We're constantly being told that no price is too high when it comes to keeping the numbers low. But when does collateral damage outweigh the direct damage from infection? Nobody seems to have an answer for that - and it should be pivotal to any policies.

If the vaccination strategy proves to be a failure for example because the rate of mutation exceeds the time lag from vaccine formula to delivery, then you will have your answer. For the last year and the rest of this year the objective in most/all Western countries is to avoid health system overcapacity -- the suppression strategy. That cannot go on for ever. But equally, the new normal may be different from the old normal because of voluntary changes in human behaviour and preferences.

ATC Watcher 30th Jan 2021 14:02

jugofpropwash

Good point, but I was not in the head of this Professor. I do not know what he meant. One thing is coming up though is that if you are "exposed" to the new variants your chances of getting "infected" are far higher. Maybe that was his message.

an.other 31st Jan 2021 17:46


Originally Posted by aussiefarmer (Post 10978494)
I never believed for a second what IATA claimed. Yes modern airliners carry hepa filters that filter 99.97% of virus etc, but sitting in a cramped cattle class seat for 7 hrs (or 17) next to a person shedding virus is a recipe for guarranteed infection - regardless of masks etc.
From there to infecting the whole airplane that’s just plain stupid and physically impossible.

That was mostly about the US Department of Defence. If the US can't safely transport soldiers by air, then they can't invade anywhere. So one has to read their conclusions with caution.

What I can say is that since March I've been on an international across industry COVID safety body, initially looking at the risk of transit passengers in terminals. Since then the scope has changed and increased. Within the company I am trying to make sure that SOPs are adapted to COVID. So I do know more than many.

What I can say is that HEPA filters are pretty effective, but there are other factors.

The three big things are:

1. Community rates in the passengers (quite hard to know) If you are flying between two ports with low rates and few transfer pax, then in theory there is very little risk. NB: Quick tests as part of the security process would really help here, because they do pick up the vast majority of people with a high enough viral load to infect someone. They've managed it in Rome, but clearly there's practical issues.

2. Length of sector, the infection rate greatly increases as sector times increase. The latest I've seen was something like add 3 hours and the risk doubles.

3. Air replacement frequency: In theory cabin air is replaced 10-15 times more frequently than a building at ground level. That means you can be closer to someone with less risk than on the ground. Air replacement frequency actually can vary quite a bit proportionately based on a whole heap of factors.

For crew the risk of catching COVID from pax is lowered by air circulation flowing down. Conversely that increases crew to pax transmission. Masks help but really you need medical grade P2 or higher.

Touch transmission looks to be less of a problem than feared and swab samples haven't found any on cabin surfaces, not that I'm aware of anyway.

So if you're a passenger flying to NZ via DXB from Europe or Africa, then you're facing high community rates and very long sectors, putting you right at the top of the risk range.

I think a big risk for air transport are border rules dampening demand. Health will become a prerequisite to international travel and old school style medical checks (remember when vaccines were an entry requirement for many nations?). Add an expensive fitness tests (e.g. private negative test of x type within y hours - all different of course) and you begin to price people out.

lederhosen 1st Feb 2021 05:00

Excellent post an.other. I add a link https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa178 to a article in the journal of travel medicine published in December on the subject. At the start it refers to the China airlines 112 in flight transmission episode, which I have referred to several times on here. The ensuing study looked at the increased risk due to proximity to an infected person.

LTNman 1st Feb 2021 11:07

blue up

Just asking but what are those filters doing when the aircraft is on stand with the engines off?

SaulGoodman 1st Feb 2021 12:57

APU on. Why that isn’t std practice is strange.

lederhosen 1st Feb 2021 13:33

Cost and noise pollution are two reasons for not running the APU on stand. In fact it is often explicitly forbidden longer than for a few minutes before and after flight at a lot of airports.

DaveReidUK 1st Feb 2021 13:34

SaulGoodman

APUs when parked?

Welcome to the 1970s.

LTNman 1st Feb 2021 13:49

Nice to know then when I sit on an aircraft with a delayed departure or even just boarding my Covid risk exposure has increased somewhat while the airlines claim I am protected with non functioning switched off filters.

Flying Clog 1st Feb 2021 13:56

Correct LTNman. Cost above safety. Nothing changes.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.