Fly Well. New QF Covid procedures

[Princess Fiona]

Kind of like this....

 

[Berlin]

So plenty of excuses to cut a few dollars while avoiding anything that could really cost them- like keeping the middle seat free. Free dirt cheap face masks and hand sanitizers? Even small retail shops are doing better.

Off on my first Domestic flight with AirNZ tomorrow- looks like they somehow find it feasible to keep the middle seat free. One thing is clear once I can book trans-Tasman again: If Qantas serves you a tiny boxed meal in J and has you sit next to some stranger even in Business on the 737s but Air NZ keeps the middle free in Economy, why would I book Qantas? It will be cheaper (and safer even) to just fly in Economy with the competition.

And “enhanced cleaning”: They could double their cleaning time between flights and it would still not make much of a difference given the decades of breadcrumbs and god knows what else can usually be found on and under those seats. All Corporate PR spin, as per usual with Qantas.

 

[jakeseven7]

Off on my first Domestic flight with AirNZ tomorrow- looks like they somehow find it feasible to keep the middle seat free. One thing is clear once I can book trans-Tasman again: If Qantas serves you a tiny boxed meal in J and has you sit next to some stranger even in Business on the 737s but Air NZ keeps the middle free in Economy, why would I book Qantas? It will be cheaper (and safer even) to just fly in Economy with the competition.

Um, because AirNZ are being underwritten by the NZ Gov to do this....

I doubt the AU government are going to support QF and VA2 (if it survives) to do this.

 

[Berlin]

Um, because AirNZ are being underwritten by the NZ Gov to do this....

I doubt the AU government are going to support QF and VA2 (if it survives) to do this.

Oh really, the government (i.e. my taxes) pay for the middle seat to be kept free? That’s a really odd government-subsidy but you never know with the Kiwis...

 

[RooFlyer]

That may well be the case, all I am saying is I will only in most cases follow official advice, not wearing a cheap flimsy "feel good" mask.

As Professor Murphy, Australia's Chief Medical Officer, has stated ad nauseam, a mask (unless it's N95) is unlikely to be any protection at all for an uninfected person, only for the prevention of an infected person spreading the disease to those uninfected. In other words, if you haven't got it you rely on those around you to prevent your getting it.

Both need to appreciate that the 'medical advice' relates to individuals. Like its been said a couple of times, in situations like an airplane. its not to stop you getting infected - its to stop you (or anyone else) potentially infecting others. Big difference. You (nor anyone else) will know if you are a carrier or not when you board that plane. So, given you are going to be up close and personal with a couple of strangers, the strategy is to have everyone treated as though they were a carrier.

I don't know about the 'cheap, flimsy' mask. If its the typical surgical mask, its kinda good enough for surgeons, and seen in just about every doctor's surgery, it'll be good enough for me.

There are a couple of doctors contributing here - if you don't like my comments, take their advice

 

[nutwood]

I'd be looking at the figures for transmission within Australia. I'd then be looking at the figures regarding the effectiveness of masks. I have clients who view the correct use of masks as a serious matter, totally justified in their lines of work. There's a lot more to wearing a mask than simply putting it on.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

So wear a mask yourself if you are worried, problem solved

YOu seem to make a rather telling implicit assumption that I only care about my own health.

 

[kiwitripper64]

Covid is not a simple condition to fix. Since it appeared we have been overwhelmed with scientific reports on the virus. Many papers are not peer reviewed and are being rushed out to help other scientists put pieces into the puzzle. So there has been some confusion in the media about mutations, infection rates, symptoms, testing and false readings, treatment, vaccines second waves and immunity.
We do know that flights help spread the disease.
A traveler in Italy at the start of the outbreak would reasonably want to escape and get home. They may even have a small itchy throat, self diagnose as a cold, take Panadol to reduce body temp and come home to Aus.
They may have covid19, but probably do just have a cold virus.
How will this affect other travellers? If the person wears a mask, it will massively reduce the risk of passing on airborne virus. If they are not wearing a mask, other passengers can slightly reduce their risk by wearing a mask. But the risk depends on the type of mask, if it is worn correctly, facial hair and NOT touching mask. So, if you have a drink or something to eat, you need to clean your hands and use a fresh mask. As for touching surfaces, I would be concerned about bathrooms, espresso the doors. Damp hands are really good for dropping of and picking up bugs. People often wash their hands incompletely, have a quick dry and open the door.
Despite all this, very few air travellers seem to have become infected.
But getting back to risk, the average infected person infects 1-4 others. There are not a lot of Infected covid people in the Aus / NZ community, so the risk of getting infected in this setting is low. How much is the risk reduced in this situation by CORRECTLY wearing a face mask?
This is a bit long but I am trying to look at risks vs costs vs behaviour
As a final note, I remember when HIV/Aids hit the world. We were told no contact sport, aids patients were locked in quarantine, aids children were not allowed to attend school. Better understanding of risk and the disease, with new medication have changed the way we dealt with that disease.

 

[justinbrett]

For those who are afraid to fly without social distancing and mandatory masks, the best solution is - don’t. Stay home. Those of us rational people who are prepared to accept the minuscule chance of catching a virus can get on with life and see if we can save what is left of our economy.

 

[RooFlyer]

Many papers are not peer reviewed and are being rushed out to help other scientists put pieces into the puzzle.

They will be peer-reviewed, but are released early in 'pre-print' to get it out quicker. Those reading/using take the appropriate caution.

But getting back to risk, the average infected person infects 1-4 others. There are not a lot of Infected covid people in the Aus / NZ community, so the risk of getting infected in this setting is low. How much is the risk reduced in this situation by CORRECTLY wearing a face mask?
This is a bit long but I am trying to look at risks vs costs vs behaviour

Well, maybe we can absorb a simple lesson on how to correctly wear a mask - maybe include in the safety briefing. Yes, the risk is low, but the consequences of that low-risk occurrence are pretty substantial. How about also looking at the tiny inconvenience Vs social good? Selfish behavior Vs acting in the common good?

I remember when HIV/Aids hit the world. We were told no contact sport, aids patients were locked in quarantine, aids children were not allowed to attend school.

I don't remember being told any of that?

For those who are afraid to fly without social distancing and mandatory masks, the best solution is - don’t. Stay home. Those of us rational people who are prepared to accept the minuscule chance of catching a virus can get on with life and see if we can save what is left of our economy.

Again! Its not about the minuscule risk of catching it (I agree) , its mitigating the low risk of spreading it, and not just on a plane. Can rational people appreciate the difference? Can rational people act for a common good and not just what suits them?

 

[justinbrett]

They will be peer-reviewed, but are released early in 'pre-print' to get it out quicker. Those reading/using take the appropriate caution.



Well, maybe we can absorb a simple lesson on how to correctly wear a mask - maybe include in the safety briefing. Yes, the risk is low, but the consequences of that low-risk occurrence are pretty substantial. How about also looking at the tiny inconvenience Vs social good? Selfish behavior Vs acting in the common good?

I don't remember being told any of that?





Again! Its not about the minuscule risk of catching it (I agree) , its mitigating the low risk of spreading it, and not just on a plane. Can rational people appreciate the difference? Can rational people act for a common good and not just what suits them?

You’re only looking at the physical health side. When airlines and the wider tourism Industry goes to the wall because people insisted on face masks and social distancing, many more lives will be lost for mental health, let alone the livelyhoods and economic pain we’ll be in for a generation. Time to go back to work.

 

[Economy_Gold]

Again! Its not about the minuscule risk of catching it (I agree) , its mitigating the low risk of spreading it, and not just on a plane. Can rational people appreciate the difference? Can rational people act for a common good and not just what suits them?

I think of myself as a very rational person - that is exactly the reason why I understand risk management. Life is full of risks and unintended consequences.
When very respected institutions such as the Sydney Brain and Mind Centre clearly say that Australia will have significantly more death from mental health related issues due to the economic downturn than from COVID-19, my logic priority is to open up the economy up as soon as possible. This includes keeping airfaires reasonable (no free middle seat) and no disincentive to fly (mandatory masks).

 

[GoldCanyon340]

As a final note, I remember when HIV/Aids hit the world. We were told no contact sport, aids patients were locked in quarantine, aids children were not allowed to attend school. Better understanding of risk and the disease, with new medication have changed the way we dealt with that disease.

Certainly the "blood rule" in sport is a result of HIV/AIDS but I don't remember any edicts banning contact sport.

 

[drron]

I think of myself as a very rational person - that is exactly the reason why I understand risk management. Life is full of risks and unintended consequences.
When very respected institutions such as the Sydney Brain and Mind Centre clearly say that Australia will have significantly more death from mental health related issues due to the economic downturn than from COVID-19, my logic priority is to open up the economy up as soon as possible. This includes keeping airfaires reasonable (no free middle seat) and no disincentive to fly (mandatory masks).

Spot on.NSW has admitted they have done no studies on the health risks of lockdown.The other States have probably not given any thought to it.It is not just Mental Health. There will be many more premature cancer deaths over the next few years.One of the major causes of a bad result with cancer is a delayed diagnosis.There will be many delayed diagnoses.

Nearly every day I see a health outcome that is less than desirable because of the changes in Medicine during this lockdown.

The continued closure of borders is something that is going to cause many more Health problems than opening them up.Places like FNQ coastal areas where 10% or more are employed by the tourism sectors will see mass unemployment.More disturbingly it is the sectors that employ large number os younger workers that will be bearing the largest effect.We are likely to see youth unemployment at record levels for some years into the future.

Surely time for some research being done by State governments into this health problem.

 

[moa999]

Certainly the "blood rule" in sport is a result of HIV/AIDS but I don't remember any edicts banning contact sport.

Just players being forced out.. eg. NBAs Magic Johnson

 

[kiwitripper64]

AIDS hit a long time ago. I cannot access all the reports from media at the time, but I recall the very few patients having AIDS being placed in negative pressure rooms and full PPE being required. Privacy was often given a lesser priority as it was thought staff needed to know who the infected people were. A joke at the time was " What do AIDS patients eat? Pizza. Because it is the only food they can slip under the door" As it turned out this was over the top behaviour and we were told not to identify, vilify or treat aids patients differently. Rather we were encouraged to look at procedures and treat all people with respect while being aware that anyone is a possible reservoir of a virus, be it AIDS, hepatitis etc.
For sport, we were supposed to change every time blood made it onto clothing. In a dark, wet muddy Dunedin rugby field, the refs soon stopped looking for blood stains. Missing limbs would stop play.
Most sports had the approach that only homosexuals go AIDS, they didn't have homos playing, so there was no risk. Not healthy for player or our general community
I have found an article describing a boy banned from school in the US. I also remember a pre-schooler in NZ who was denied access.

1985- Ryan White Banned From School Because of AIDS

In July of 1995, Kokomo, Indiana student Ryan White was denied entry to his school because he tested positive foe AIDS.

www.hemophiliafed.org

The point is there were some similarities in the diseases. Both were novel, little understood with huge media hype and lots of good and false information. We did get through, and a little empathy went a long way.

 

[p--and--t]

What type of masks?

Basic paper ones that look pretty and hide ugly faces? Or effective ones such as N95/P2?

Will there be guidance on how to wear them properly and disposal bins? Or will they be dumped on the seat when people disembark?

So plenty of excuses to cut a few dollars while avoiding anything that could really cost them- like keeping the middle seat free. Free dirt cheap face masks and hand sanitizers? Even small retail shops are doing better.

United announced today they are doing very similar(same). A pack on your seat with water, snack, throwaway mask. Hand sanitiser before you get on plane and on the plane.

Private prediction: No public commuter airline in the world will provide free N95/P2 aerosol protective masks. Some airlines already stated cheapy surgical style (suspect not hospital grade) will be available on board or at check-in for a fee.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I think of myself as a very rational person - that is exactly the reason why I understand risk management. Life is full of risks and unintended consequences.
When very respected institutions such as the Sydney Brain and Mind Centre clearly say that Australia will have significantly more death from mental health related issues due to the economic downturn than from COVID-19, my logic priority is to open up the economy up as soon as possible. This includes keeping airfaires reasonable (no free middle seat) and no disincentive to fly (mandatory masks).

I also want air travel to recommence as soon as possible.
Like most on this forum my lifestyle has been annihilated by the pandemic.
I have already missed two planned trips to Nouméa (one for work and one for leisure), a work trip to NZ, a work trip to Paris and a leisure trip to Chile.
I can't count the domestic flights because they would have been spur of the moment rather than planned.

However resuming air travel as soon as possible on as wide a scope as possible requires more, not fewer precautions.
I find it difficult to believe that wearing face masks would be such a huge disincentive to fly as to have serious economic repercussions.
It's a very mild inconvenience. Masks are commonplace in m any Asian countries. Australia seems to have a cultural aversion to them.
All cultural biases can be overcome.

However I wonder why the best sort of precautions are not even being considered.
The best precaution would be a COVID19 test (or two) before travel.
If we can be reasonably certain no one on the aircraft is infected, then precautions on board could be relaxed.
This should become the norm for international travel.
PAX could be required to check in a day (or two) before the flight and undergo a test (or two). Airport hotels could be used to accomodate them while they wait for test results. Then only passengers free of the virus would be allowed to embark.
I know testing isn't perfect (hence the "or two"s), but nothing is!

 

[RooFlyer]

The best precaution would be a COVID19 test (or two) before travel.
If we can be reasonably certain no one on the aircraft is infected, then precautions on board could be relaxed.
This should become the norm for international travel.
PAX could be required to check in a day (or two) before the flight and undergo a test (or two). Airport hotels could be used to accommodate them while they wait for test results. Then only passengers free of the virus would be allowed to embark.
I know testing isn't perfect (hence the "or two"s), but nothing is!

Yes! I canvassed something like that up-thread (or maybe a different one). The result would be sent to most people's phone and would be inspectable on entering the airport (like many around the world, they become flyers-and-employees-only). I wouldn't go so far as to have airport accommodation - if the test is negative, then a couple of days is unlikely to see a virus caught and be transmissible.

 

[BD1959]

Indeed, the time of AIDS being initially identified in the US resulted in paranoia, prejudice and suggestions of quarantine, pupils banned from schools - even a suggestion that AIDS patients should be tattooed.

For those who cannot remember - or are too young - here's a review by the New England Journal of Medicine. It compares the responses in the mid-80s to those of the mid-2010s with Ebola (remember when that was going to trample civilization as we know it?) ... parallels continue.

Regards,

BD