Ozone generators are a safety hazard to other passengers so I’m glad they are banning the use of those, the EPA states that ozone can:
“ When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath and throat irritation. Ozone may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections.”
> Ozone generators are a safety hazard to other passengers so I’m glad they are banning the use of those
It sounds like they're banning people from bringing them on board, on just from using them. Also there are other types of ozone generators beyond just air the ones used in air filters. There are lots of folks who are mixing ozone with blood and injecting it back into themselves in an attempt to cure covid. Whatever the risks of doing this are, someone having the machine that does this isn't going to harm other people on a flight.
> Why do they need to bring it on board if they aren't going to use it?
No checked luggage? To use at the other side? To deliver to someone else?
Air travel is horrible enough already with the BS restrictions (eg water bottles). Let’s not encourage making it even worse. Airlines are already screwed enough right now without putting off the few people that are still travelling with even more restrictions and surcharges.
No, it objectively isn't. The context of Trump's comments was a presentation by Bill Bryan from the Department of Homeland security on how to fight COVID-19, in which he explicitly discussed that
a) The virus dies quickest in the presence of direct sunlight.
b) Readily available household disinfectants are effective at killing the virus. He specifically mentions that bleach and isopropyl alcohol had been tested.
This is the immediate context in which Trump's comments about putting light inside the body and injecting disinfectant were made. There is absolutely no doubt what he meant here. Stop trying to gaslight people.
You're the one gaslighting people, poorly. It is illustrative that you choose to ignore what Trump said immediately prior to the "inject disinfectant into the body" phrase (which, BTW, is what Atyu does - they have a video on YT).
Direct quote: "Suppose we hit the body with ultraviolet light, and you said, that hasn't been checked, but we're gonna test it, and I said suppose you can bring the light inside the body, which you can do, either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that, too". Then he proceeds to talk about "disinfectant, which knocks it out in a minute". Crucially, at no point has Trump ever suggested anything like "injecting bleach", yet thanks to CNN and gullible people like you half the country believes he did.
I think realistically what happened is, Trump was bombarded with suggestions in his daily briefing, as usual, and used a poor choice of words to describe one of the suggestions. Contemporaneous evidence supports this: Atyu announced their work with Cedars Sinai a day or two before that press conference.
But feel free to believe the CNN version. By the way, I have some excellent build-ready swampland in Florida I'd like to sell. Interested?
> Then he proceeds to talk about "disinfectant, which knocks it out in a minute". Crucially, at no point has Trump ever suggested anything like "injecting bleach", yet thanks to CNN and gullible people like you half the country believes he did.
Really? His direct quote is:
"I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that."
He literally asked about injecting disinfectant into the body, referencing and immediately following a briefing that talks about using household disinfectants like bleach and isopropyl alcohol against SARS-Cov-2. You're either being purposefully disingenuous, or completely failing at listening comprehension. Either way, you're clearly not changing your mind here. But maybe I can inform other people that may end up reading your nonsense.
If the cabin depressurises, a little oxygen mask pops down from the top. You have a few seconds to put this on your face before you're unconscious¹, and a few minutes after that for somebody else to put it on your face before you're dead. Try doing that while inside a tent.
(I'm don't know whether this conclusion is statistically valid, considering how few non-Boeing's have been depressurising v.s. the proportion of the population with COVID-19, but it feels intuitively right, and that's how these decisions have been made lately.)
¹: read "not usefully conscious"; you might still be awake, but your brain won't be doing much thinking or hand-moving.
If the cabin depressurizes, the pilots immediately fly the plane down at a 45 degree angle to quickly move to an altitude with more hospitable air pressure. People who don't put on masks (and most people don't) regain consciousness after a couple minutes.
The real safety hazard is anything that makes it harder to evacuate the plane, such as bulky clothing or eye-wear that make it harder to see in the dark or through smoke.
The point where hypoxia can set in varies from person to person, esp. when accounting for people with respiratory disorders. 10,000 feet is often considered a rough line where the altitude is no longer safe for everyone (that is, particularly susceptible people may begin to show symptoms), but the FAA progressively requires pressurization or supplemental oxygen from 12,500 to 15,000 feet. Altitude sickness (different from hypoxia but sometimes also quite severe) will occur below 10k in some people if there has been a rapid change in altitude, but fortunately it is much more survivable than hypoxia.
IIRC till a few years ago only 4 pilots had authorization to land there. I was more scared while landing in Boston for the first time. It seemed to me that the aircraft was landing on the water, was not expecting that.
There are a few "av-geek" videos that cover operations of airlines in the vicinity of the Tibetan plateau, and they talk about how the pilots have to be qualified and trained for the fact that the plane is never at an altitude where people breathe easily. Even railroad operations require things like the availability of supplemental oxygen for passengers and crew.
This is also an issue for planes landing at the South Pole, where the plateau can have a pressure altitude of up to 12500ft. If you arrive in a Hercules (as opposed to a DC3/Basler which is unpressurised) they have to vent the cabin just before landing.
They’re going to be descending whether atc gives them permission or not. Keep in mind, Southwest has TCAS and already knows of nearby aircraft to a near certainty. The only real goals are get to breathable air and don’t hit anything. Passengers have minutes before they run out of air.
It is true that you would max-rate descend to get to breathable altitudes, but FYI that will not be flying at a 45 degree angle lol.
If you did try to fly an airliner down at a 45 degree angle, you would either have to do it with a falling-leaf stall after slowing to about 150kts (I doubt this is possible in an airliner?) or you would quickly break the speed of sound and the aircraft would disintegrate as the wings and stabilizers were ripped off. A max rate descent feels steep, but it's not that steep lol.
I think the biggest issue is that the relationship between pitch attitude (angle) and rate of ascent/descent in aircraft is tenuous at best. During landing, for example, it is typical to have a healthy descent rate with the nose slightly up from level. I don't think I've ever seen any procedure with a fixed pitch angle, it pretty much always depends on the gross weight anyway.
Emergency descent maneuvers in the C-172 and I believe many other small aircraft actually involve a 45 degree roll angle, and whatever pitch angle achieves a desired speed (e.g. 120 kias in the C-172). This produces a tight downward spiral, the spiral helps because it moves lift off the vertical axis which lets you descend more quickly at a fixed speed - otherwise you'll speed up until the wings fall off. I suspect the 45 degrees above may have come from confusion over which axis it was around. I'm not sure what the exact justification is for the choice of 45 degrees but 60 degrees roll angle is usually considered sort of the upper limit (beyond that is technically aerobatics) so 45 is pretty commonly considered the "steep" extreme.
It looks like the procedure is different for the big boys. A quick google shows that the emergency descent procedure for the 747 is thrust closed, speedbrakes at flight position, gear down, make 320 kias. Pitch angle that produces would depend on weight but it's not going to be 45. No spiraling involved, but then 747 seems to (unsurprisingly) have a lower max bank angle (really max load factor) than smaller planes.
The point is you wouldn't even really pay attention to the pitch attitude, you'd pay attention to airspeed. The answer to "what should the pitch be" is pretty much always "whatever results in the airspeed you want."
AFAIK, passenger oxygen masks on airplanes use a chemical oxygen generator, which only works for a few minutes before it's exhausted (the pilots use a different system with oxygen cylinders, and IIRC the rest of the crew has portable oxygen bottles).
When you hold your breath, oxygenated air remains in your lungs. This allows you to maintain consciousness for potentially a minute or two.
In a decompression event, the air is sucked out of your lungs. The air that remains has a low O2 partial pressure, and so oxygen can leak from your bloodstream into your lungs. As such the body's normal mechanisms for storing oxygen simply don't work.
It's probably worse than that. When you blow out all the air from your lungs, what's left is still at atmospheric pressure. In a decompression event the pressure drops very quickly unless you plug your nose or something. A sibling comment has more concrete numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
When learning to scuba dive, they caution you not to ever hold your breath - not when at a stable depth, not when descending, and most certainly not when ascending - because the pressure differential can cause serious injuries. (This goes to the point of "if you run out of air at the bottom and need to make an emergency ascent, hum for the entire trip up to make sure you're breathing out slowly")
Now, you have larger pressure differentials when scuba diving - every 10m of depth is an atmosphere of pressure - but the half atmosphere that you get from 10k vs 40k feet is probably still enough to cause some serious issues. (10k feet is ~0.69 atm, while 40k is ~0.19)
Suppose you're 2000 feet down, breathing hydrox or hydreliox. It's mostly hydrogen, maybe some helium, and less than 1% oxygen. You suddenly ascend to the surface. Instead of changing gas mixture, you try to hold the gas in your lungs and maintain the pressure.
You won't hold it in. As the pressure drops in your lungs, the dissolved gases in your blood will escape into your lungs. That drops the oxygen content in your blood.
Unconscious is either hyperbole or gross exaggeration.
But you only have a few dozen seconds before you become an idiot incapable of helping yourself. You can survive and be conscious for minutes in this state, but its "game over", you're not going to be helping yourself put on the oxygen mask once the critical period is up.
Given the tradeoffs of the situation (ie: your neighbor will be fine for minutes, although helpless), it makes far more sense to ensure the oxygen safety of yourself before helping other people.
> Unconscious is either hyperbole or gross exaggeration.
No it isn't.
> you can survive and be conscious for minutes in this state
No you can't.
You are not going to remain conscious for more than a few seconds at 35000 or 40000 feet. You could potentially be between 15000 to 20000 feet but there's a reason oxygen supplementation is required above 10k feet in unpressurized cabins.
> It is the period of time from the interruption of the oxygen supply or exposure to an oxygen-poor environment to the time when useful function is lost, and the individual is no longer capable of taking proper corrective and protective action.
> It is not the time to total unconsciousness
35,000 feet is 30-seconds to 1-minute of total useful consciousness, half that for rapid decompression situations.
I stand by my estimate for "Dozens of seconds before you're an idiot". Most people will remain conscious after this time is up: they just will have become such idiots that its unlikely they will ever be able to fix their Hypoxia condition. (Slurred speech, unable to dexterously control your limbs, etc. etc. You're conscious, but no longer capable of putting on a mask even if it is dangling in front of you)
There's also this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IqWal_EmBg) famous recording of a Learjet 25 crew suffering hypoxia at 32,000 feet. I think it demonstrates quite well that you're _not_ going to lost consciousness within a few seconds at that altitude, although the danger is not to be understated.
If I remember correctly, commercial aircraft are pressurized at about 8,000 ft. 25,000 ft is 5.45 psi, resulting in about 5.5 psi overpressure if you are depressurized. You might have a hard time, and you can injure your lungs doing that.
The time until you pass out will depend on your oxygenation situation before the loss of pressure, general health and fitness, activity level (panicking would be a bad idea), and a bunch of other things.
Breathe out completely then stop your lungs and see how long until you get a little dizzy/can't stand it.
Depressurization means oxygen is quickly escaping, but that doesn't mean that people will rationally take a giant breath of air and hold it. I imagine most people continue breathing normally, or more rapidly due to increased stress. Not realizing that they are sucking in less and less oxygen, and begin to lose consciousness.
This personal anecdote doesn't really add to this conversation in a constructive way.
But, for sake of argument, it assumes a few things:
1) That your lungs are healthy enough to hold your breath for >= 1 minute (not all are)
2) You actually have the opportunity to breath in a lungful of oxygen-rich air (depending on the situation/timing, this might not be the case)
3) You have your wits about you while a very stressful situation unfolds around you (let's argue that you, personally, are cool and collected under pressure - this; however, is not universally true for all other passengers)
You can't hold your breath in a low pressure environment. Also the low partial pressure of oxygen causes it to diffuse out of your blood instead of in. Even people who can hold their breath for a couple minutes under normal circumstances will have severe hypoxia impairment in less than a minute above 30K feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
I always assumed it was worse than this: when you breath out your lungs still contain a slightly lowered oxygen concentration at atmospheric pressure, so the partial pressure of O2 is still quite high. In a vacuum this drops to zero, meaning that your lungs become an oxygen sink.
So not only are you unable to get more oxygen, your lungs are actively sucking the remaining oxygen out of your blood.
The problem is that you probably won't notice the lack of oxygen. And after 1 minute you would not have enough mental capacity to put the mask on. There are some funny hypoxia videos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495939
You must not. One of the most important rules of SCUBA diving is to never hold your breath. A breath of air at high pressure (deeper) expands quickly at lower pressure (shallower), which could cause you some problems (a ruptured lung).
There's a bunch of eager grandparents looking forward to seeing their first grandchild born, as well as loved ones going to funerals etc. These people trend towards being over 55 and a cross country solo road trip for a widowed grandmother is not always an option for them, and covid isn't going to stop them from getting on a plane if possible.
Most air travel is for a good reason, and most of it is avoidable in the current environment. There are other ways to see a grandchild or pay respects to the deceased. It sucks, but we're all in the same boat
A grandparent who wants to visit a newborn is the epitome of "neither of you should travel". It's like people don't even consider the option of actually adjusting their expectations based on changed world conditions.
Easy for me to say, of course, since I live far enough away from my family that I've already become used to missing funerals and weddings and babies, and now I couldn't go home if I wanted to.
I've a parent that died just before COVID started and I'm not allowed to go there (travel ban).
While I disagree with the risk of COVID, I would agree that if the risk was so great I should make a choice between minimum safety and my convenience of being able to mourn properly. Having a person that died or whatever shouldn't suddenly mean I'm the victim of the day and everyone else should bend over to make my day better. If anything, that wouldn't even scale.
That said it's moot because I personally have neither option heh.
There's a difference between people's own weight which they can't easily control or change and excessive personal protection which can be swapped for a mask and a bottle of hand sanitizer.
I don't see the reason for banning these outright though, maybe just choose a section of the cabin where people wearing these can be grouped. It's convenient for everyone and doesn't pose any extra risks for the rest of the passengers.
I think the concern with the pods is different from large body mass. The pod gets tossed (presumably) in an emergency situation so it can end up somewhere that is blocking someone else from safely evacuating.
It would be less like an obese person than a normal weight person wearing a fat suit which they discard and throw in the aisle if they have to emergency deplane.
Part of the reason is included in the statement: "Advise them that these types of PPE are safety concerns, especially tents / pods which can slow access to critical safety procedures, including emergency evacuations and use of oxygen masks"
Note that in-flight crew are generally tasked with getting everyone evacuated, so making their job more difficult endangers more than just the pod-wearer.
Evacuation doesn't work as smoothly, for one. But more importantly: if healthcare workers people can work inches from ICU patients on ventilators and HFNC's that spray virus particles far and wide, and use only masks and googles/shields, then I think a person in an airplane seat will be fine using the same PPE.
Is there anything that says this kind of "tent" is significantly safer than normal PPE? If not, why use them? This feels like something bought from an infomercial or something.
And most importantly: if you go on a flight, you are at risk of exposure to the virus. Your time in the airplane seat is probably the safest bit of the whole journey, and you aren't going to wear the tent in all the other situations on your journey like check in, boarding,...
Theoretically you could, but in practice I don't know that we can reliably determine either of those probabilities with any accuracy. For instance, COVID risk is highly dependent (even for elderly people) on the presence of comorbidities. Are you going to ask everyone on the flight for their medical history?
I understand, but surely someone with an actual stats background could do a basic calculation on number of recent plane crashes vs. some estimated probability of N people out of 100 on a plane having COVID * the overall mortality rate, etc.
(This is HN, so I fully expect an airport buff to point out that 'spoons is a British chain, and no British airport that flies to Magaluf has a Wetherspoons, except for one month in 2014 when a code change coincided with the grand opening of the Lands End airport Wetherspoons, or something - in fact I encourage it.)
Ha, well I'm sorry if it's a partial disappointment, but Magaluf is a Spanish holiday destination for, stereotypically, drunk-before-they-get-there British yobs; and Wetherspoon's (aka 'spoons') is a large (down-market) pub chain (proprietor J D Wetherspoon).
Land's End is pretty GoT-y though - that's the most Westerly place in England (possibly GB? Probably a Scottish island is further West.) though I'm not sure if the meaning was ever literal, or if it was named after knowing that there did in fact lie other lands out there.
But there's not even an attempt to compare risk quantitatively. Cabin depressurization events are extremely rare, and deaths from people who don't manage to put on the mask (which will exist on every plane) are rarer still. This is a known, negligible risk, while covid is an real and still difficult to bound risk. Passengers should be allowed to make that decision themselves.
(And regarding blocking the way for others: as long as it's easier to get by them than to get by some of the very large people who are allowed to fly, that should be OK too.)
If there's cabin decompression and people need to put on oxygen masks quickly to avoid passing out, that tent is going to be a significant hindrance. While it probably won't kill anyone other than him, that's still a major liability for the airline. Just like not wearing your seatbelt is unlikely to harm anyone else but the airlines can still require it, the airlines can force people to limit things which would interfere with their own safety while in the airline's care.
> these types of PPE are safety concerns, especially tents / pods which can slow access to critical safety procedures, including emergency evacuations and use of oxygen masks
Yet even after quoting that message from the airline, the author recommends they instead sell those items themselves, without addressing the safety issue. I agree that the airline's position here is reasonable. That said, I also wouldn't be taking any non-essential flights.
Because recent news items on plane evacuations, when the thing has literally been on fire, have reported that people will delay to collect their carry on luggage despite it being strongly and explicitly forbidden. Therefore expecting Mr Tent to patiently wait by the window for everyone else to leave first seems like a bit of a stretch.
The US seems to be incredibly polarised. On one hand you have people claiming that COVID is a hoax and refuse to wear masks or anything like that. On the other hand you see people saying they haven't left their house in 6 months and if they do, they wear three layers of latex gloves, an N95 mask with a surgical mask on top and refuse to touch door handles with anything but a 1 metre long stick.
There seems to be a prevalent "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude that seeps through the entire society.
The idea that there may be a middle road somewhere seems to have been completely lost. This is something I noticed in several different areas, and COVID is just one of them. The most obvious example is the political system of course.
These things are bizarre. I can't imagine wearing one out in public since it doesn't actually seem to be a medical device. It's more like an over complicated umbrella/raincoat. I'm shocked this isn't an image from The Onion
If someone wanta to sit on the window and take the body pod risk on themselves, and possibly have a similarly-equipped family member or travel partner adjacent, that’s their business IMO.
Sitting on the aisle where they may impede the escape of another passenger who is a stranger, not acceptable. But that may even be misinformed. Obese people on the aisle present a formidable obstacle as well.
I think the issue would be if you had a plane full of people in body pods, in an emergency deplane scenario all of the pods become obstacles that will end up in random places around the cabin so even if someone is in an aisle seat, they may not be in an aisle seat still if the plane skids off the runway during takeoff and everyone is tossed around a bit.
The issues is if the tent obstructs the cabin staff from providing assistance. Simply saying that "it is on the individual" isn't going to stop the airline from getting, and possible losing, a lawsuit by the family when the passenger dies or suffer hypoxic brain damage, and the cabin staff says "we skipped (or delayed) offering him assistance because he was wearing a tent that would have significantly impeded our ability to provide assistance to other passengers."
This is interesting as not anyone can wear masks for duration of a flight.
Just couple weeks ago there was an incident in my country, where a domestic flight had to emergency land to kick out a person on the ground of cabin disturbances, who was also not wearing a mask.
Story goes as follows: the person refused masks for claimed medical conditions, while pointing out that the mask policies at this point are voluntary basis. Airline crew accepted that and the plane took off, but then the person didn't like voices from other passengers around(?) and started harassing crews to order them to make an apology for the person(??) to the point the plane landed and person was forced out. Damages are estimated at $100k ranges, flight was delayed by couple hours, and the person in question is still standing boldly on media interviews in refusing masks, "defending rights", and demanding apologies. In short I think the person was legitimately bit autistic aside from being a complete jerk.
But clearly the pain of facial masks vary person to person, so be it developmental issues or skin conditions or ear or facial shape issues the masks could be beyond their tolerances. I wonder what will be the best course forward...
Don't fucking mandate wearing masks by law and tell all your citizens to grow the fuck up about it. Wear real protection if you need to protect yourself, don't force everyone to wear masks to create a security theater.
Masks are not a security theater, TSA is an example of security theater.
For the small minority of people who are psychologically unable to wear a mask or have read so much online material that they have become violently against them, they can simply use a car to drive to their destination while the vast majority of the traveling public simply follows the rules.
> Our Clean Commitment was launched to keep every gate area, jetbridge and aircraft clean
> We’ve begun using new breakthrough SurfaceWise2 spraying solution
> We require everyone to wear an approved mask or face covering to reduce the risk of virus transmission
> We also offer extra wipes (where available) for customers to clean the area around them
I think the current science is that there is very little evidence of significant risk of transmission from surfaces. (3 of those 4 points).
Yet we are still obsessed with surface hygiene. I guess because it's something we can do... but if we spent all the money being spent on surface cleaning on things that actually are more likely to reduce transmission (like, say, ventilation; or even on research to learn more), we'd reduce transmission more.
Those things they are banning they probably have to ban for good reasons of safety etc. But surface hygiene is no substitute.
Keeping things clean costs pennies and even if the reduction in the odds of transmitting covid aren't very high, it certainly helps with lots of other diseases, and for the vast majority of us avoiding the common cold or the flu is just as valuable as avoiding covid. A new ventilation system for a plane is many orders of magnitude more expensive and the amount of benefit it would provide is still questionable.
Reallocating such a measly sum to other areas is very unlikely to make a measurable difference. Infinitesimal costs can be justified by even very minor benefit.
How long does it take a team to wipe down a plane? 6 people 20 minutes maybe? That's $14.50 at federal minimum wage. There are 16 million flights per year when there isn't a pandemic reducing air travel, over 6 months that would be about 8 million. That would be 115 Million in labor for the worst case scenario max. There are about 30,000 airliners in the world, so the ventilation systems would have to cost $3800 or less to be cheaper than minimum wage labor. Realistically, such a ventilation system for an airliner is probably going to be more like $50,000; which would mean the units wouldn't break even until 2026.
By saying "break even" you are assuming that the ventilation system and the wiping down are equally effective -- so the question is which is cheaper?
That is not the case. It depends on their effectiveness. If wiping down reduces risk 4% but better ventilation reduces risk 70%, the calculation of "breaking even" is very different. We don't know these exact numbers for covid, but as best as we can tell the risk reduction of this kind of surface cleaning is pretty minimal.
It's hygiene theater.
Hiring someone to pray for health on the plane would be cheaper than actual effective measures too -- hey you could probably hire just one person nationally to pray for health on ALL planes, a bargain! 'at what point will actual effective measures "break even" with hiring someone to pray' is a ridiculous question.
Fine, by that metric, the ventillation would have to be 12 times more effective than wiping down to have the same cost/benefit ratio. So if the wiping is 8.4% or more effective than it will always be the cheaper alternative; and even if wiping is less effective than that, odds are the ventilation system is going to be far less than 100% effective.
And again, wiping surfaces does more than fight covid. The flu, the common cold, and countless more diseases are very effectively countered by washing down surfaces. If you make federal minimum wage and you miss work for 2 days because of the flu, that's $120 in lost earnings. The average person flying probably makes significantly more than that. Even if wiping down your seat only reduces the odds of getting the flu by 0.15% you're still coming out ahead at minimum wage; if you make $100k/yr it need only be 0.02% effective.
Also it's worth noting that contact with contaminated surfaces is still believed to be a major means of transmission of the disease. It is airborne transmission of covid which is still being debated though there seems to be mounting evidence in support of it as an additional transmission pathway.
8 million people live in NYC, and between them and visitors from the surrounding metropolitan area a comparable number of people utilize the public transit system regularly. $500M/yr is 17 cents per person per day. I can think of less useful things I would pay 17 cents for.
I think you should not make such a statement without a citation. With a quick search I could not find any research that supports that claim and the CDC is still recommending surface transmission prevention measures (at the top of the list even).
I suspect you are confusing surface transmission potentially being the cause of a relatively small number of infections with it not being a significant risk.
How could it be a significant risk if it is the cause of very very few infections? I don't understand what you mean by this.
> In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidelines to clarify that while COVID-19 spreads easily among speakers and sneezers in close encounters, touching a surface “isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads.” Other scientists have reached a more forceful conclusion. “Surface transmission of COVID-19 is not justified at all by the science,” Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, told me. He also emphasized the primacy of airborne person-to-person transmission.
The question is how few cases. I would agree at some point extremely few cases would mean not a significant risk, but because single cases can potentially case the virus to be spread widely before they are noticed even fairly small numbers of cases could have a significant impact. Many potential surface exposures would overlap with potential airborne exposure and most places with many cases don't have sufficient contact tracing to really have any idea how a large portion of the cases are occuring.
I don't even disagree that much with you, Goldman, or the Atlantic article. Surface disinfection giving a false sense of security does seem like a major issue to me (and surface coatings and a number of other more extreme measures seem like a bad idea to me). However, I think you, the Atlantic author, and Goldman (unless misquoted, it seems he makes a different argument here than his Lancet article) are being unreasonably certain about it not mattering at all. It seems like the author could only find two people, both from Rutgers, willing to publicly support that argument. It seems like a pure ego thing to be so certain based on so little evidence and potentially quite harmful if not correct.
The title is misleading to the point of being click bait.
No one is getting banned from wearing medically approved PPE.
They are banning people who use 'body tents' (which take up way more space on an aircraft than just your body) and people who are trying to change the air around them (which is shared by other people, and therefore cannot be considered Personal, per the definition of PPE)
A more appropriate title would be: Airlines Ban Personal Tents and Air-Polluting Devises Now Popularly Marketed as Pseudoscientific Antiviral Protection
Of course phrasing it as such would remove the news worthy element and make it seem like the reasonable move it is.
Fully agree. I flew to Asia to visit relatives a few times and I always hated it if people spray their Eucalyptus oil into the air, because it seems to attack my throat. Plus I'm not sure what it would help with/against?
In general, anything that potentially degrades the air quality for other passengers and does not have any provable benefit should be prohibited. Ozone is an obvious candidate, given that it will most likely make Covid spread more, not less.
As far as "mental illness," I'd prefer people go a little overboard than the opposite. If for no other reason than I am safer near someone in an airtight hazmat suit + respirator, whereas I am less safe near someone without PPE.
While I think the balance should be "reasonableness," they aren't hurting anyone else or even themselves. So live and let live.
It's absolutely insane to be flying during a global pandemic unless it's some kind of life-or-death emergency.
Mandating everyone wear a full hazmat suit would be a far, far more reasonable policy than shrugging and letting people wear mostly-useless cloth masks. This is not a normal time and people have to stop acting like it is.
Since they allow CPAP machines to be used in-flight and these are known to aersolize and spread viral particle far and wide, I won't feel comfortable flying until I can wear a full-face mask with N-95 filters.
I've written a letter (I had to Fed-Ex it to get an answer) to United (my usual airline) and they tell me they have to allow CPAP in flight "because of ADA."
I hope they don't restrict the use of full-face masks.
Until when you are going to be stupid and believe this made up situation, it's OK guys, it's not our first time to have a pandemic, why make it such a fuss when it's not, you are acting foolish with this COVID shit...? 1 million deaths by corona, and that is questionable, but because of this made up situation many more millions will suffer and die because you guys decided you are fucking scared and submit like little bitches to the governments... your freedom is taken from you like candy from kids...it's sad to watch this.