Jump to content

'Bad math': Airlines' COVID safety analysis challenged by expert


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

"With only 44 identified potential cases of flight-related transmission among 1.2 billion travellers, that's one case for every 27 million,"

I would think that Thailand alone has more potential cases of flight-related transmission.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the plane is in the air and the ventilation systems are on, especially if they added UV-C lamps at the HEPA filters that circulate the air, the probability of infection would be close to 0. I think each infected person cold only infect one person sitting in front, and side of him, due to the way the air flow works on a modern jet. However... that's not the case in airports, and certainly not on the way to the plane (boarding tunnel or a bus), queue of people in close proximity getting into the plane and to their seats... And same for disembarking. It would be my humble opinion that these are likely cause for most infections and far less sitting in your seat 35k ft above the ground.

 

As for the scientist's claim of bad maths... He's also using bad maths for his research, unless he's tested all 7+ billion people at the same time. And since he hasn't - how can he say how many percent of people are really infected? How many of infected are having severe symptoms or die? Hence good to call it out, but he's doing exactly the same.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup I am also not going on a long flight until at least next Winter.  Maybe by then

more research will have been done, and a vaccine will be out and being used by then.

I will still wear a mask ,N95 model on the flight just to be a little more sure.

Geezer

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Yup I am also not going on a long flight until at least next Winter.  Maybe by then

more research will have been done, and a vaccine will be out and being used by then.

I will still wear a mask ,N95 model on the flight just to be a little more sure.

Geezer

COVID is a lot smaller than what even best HEPA filters can stop. N95 mask filters 95% of pm2.5, where COVID is pm0.15.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with tomazbodner above. Pre-this year I suffered a common cold or flu (the snotty nose, headaches, coughing etc) about 3-4 times per year, usually within a day of arrival at my destination. (An annual flu jab took that down to 1-2 times a year, but I still get them). I always put this down to the 8 to 12 long haul flights in/out of Thailand I made to get to work. The general crowding in the queues to board flights as well as the packing in of passengers must be a factor. Then an aircraft recycles... I forget. I think it's 50% of it's air. So the 300 odd people are always breathing each others air for 6-18hours at, what 20 air changes per hour? 

 

Then we add in that many of the airlines fly aging aircraft and we all know horror stories on important maintenance, let alone something like the air systems. Those filters will not get cleaned often, if they ever had HEPA filters that is.

 

Nope, flying is still the best way to spread disease. How do they think it spread from Wuhan in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

COVID is a lot smaller than what even best HEPA filters can stop. N95 mask filters 95% of pm2.5, where COVID is pm0.15.

No!

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-n-95-filters-not-too-large-stop-covid-19-particles/5343537002/

"The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well."

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two observations:

 

1. People who do a lot of flying catch a lot of colds.

 

2. The drive by airlines for ‘smoke free’ flights was driven by economics - Aircraft regulations required ‘smoking permitted’ flights to change the cabin air 20 times per hour v 12 times per hour for ‘non smoking’ flights.  The reduction in required ‘air changes’ permits a reduction in the size and energy requirements of the air handling units.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 6:21 AM, from the home of CC said:

I'll pass  on flying for now..

 

It's great that you can make that personal choice without losing your job or missing your family.  Millions of people aren't in that position.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Narratio said:

I'll agree with tomazbodner above. Pre-this year I suffered a common cold or flu (the snotty nose, headaches, coughing etc) about 3-4 times per year, usually within a day of arrival at my destination. (An annual flu jab took that down to 1-2 times a year, but I still get them). I always put this down to the 8 to 12 long haul flights in/out of Thailand I made to get to work. The general crowding in the queues to board flights as well as the packing in of passengers must be a factor. Then an aircraft recycles... I forget. I think it's 50% of it's air. So the 300 odd people are always breathing each others air for 6-18hours at, what 20 air changes per hour? 

 

Then we add in that many of the airlines fly aging aircraft and we all know horror stories on important maintenance, let alone something like the air systems. Those filters will not get cleaned often, if they ever had HEPA filters that is.

 

Nope, flying is still the best way to spread disease. How do they think it spread from Wuhan in the first place?

Very doubtful it was spread from wuhan on the plane.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Nomad said:

No!

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-n-95-filters-not-too-large-stop-covid-19-particles/5343537002/

"The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well."

Thank you for the article. Very insightful. The only issue is that N95 is only effective for 2 hours before it needs to be changed. I would dare to bet people reuse them or use them far longer than 2 hours, which, as article suggests, could discharge the masks and lower their efficiency. Regardless, very good article. Appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomazbodner said:

Thank you for the article. Very insightful. The only issue is that N95 is only effective for 2 hours before it needs to be changed. I would dare to bet people reuse them or use them far longer than 2 hours, which, as article suggests, could discharge the masks and lower their efficiency. Regardless, very good article. Appreciated.

I took a look at how long N95 masks can be used.   I suspect this for those who are using it in a medical-type situation:

 

When practicing extended use of N95 respirators, the maximum recommended extended use period is 8–12 hours. Respirators should not be worn for multiple work shifts and should not be reused after extended use. N95 respirators should be removed (doffed) and discarded before activities such as meals and restroom breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...