すべて
← Back to Squawk list
'Bad math': Airlines' COVID safety analysis challenged by expert
A campaign by coronavirus-stricken aviation giants to persuade the world it’s safe to fly has been questioned by one of the scientists whose research it draws upon. (www.reuters.com) さらに...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Let doctors and virologists do independent research about safety about cabin air samples randomly
How though? Are doctors gonna run up and down the aisle on random flights waving containers around to collect air samples? In order to get a valid result from a test you need repeatable conditions and a control to establish a baseline.
It’s funny how people will blindly follow “science” when it supports their perspective, but when it challenges it they all of a sudden need more testing or further proof, or if they really don’t want to accept it just attack it as “junk science”.
It’s funny how people will blindly follow “science” when it supports their perspective, but when it challenges it they all of a sudden need more testing or further proof, or if they really don’t want to accept it just attack it as “junk science”.
Exactly. If one cannot get a repeated result using the same method, or different methods, then is the original result accurate? At least the United/Boeing test tries to show such, but just that one test is not enough. Similar and enhanced (more dummies emitting aerosols or mists) tests are needed to see if the results are the same, or if something else happens.
The DOD study recently completed does a really good job of identifying and examining airborne particle spread thru cabin air ion both narrow and wide body aircraft.
Based on this very subjective and granular data, 45 hours of continuous flight time is required to obtain a particle load consistent with infectious transmission (via airborne particles).
This report is worth a read, and has a lot of good data in it, and the methodology is solid, using measures of particles for modeling the dispersion of chem-bio hazards.
Based on this very subjective and granular data, 45 hours of continuous flight time is required to obtain a particle load consistent with infectious transmission (via airborne particles).
This report is worth a read, and has a lot of good data in it, and the methodology is solid, using measures of particles for modeling the dispersion of chem-bio hazards.
I expect airline's Covid safety assertions to be self-serving, but that was not much of a 'challenge' by that particular expert. Citing known infections is not bad math, it's just a limitation that's shared by all testing for all diseases, ever. There has been some analysis of the total prevalence of Covid-19 in a population compared to the number of positive Covid tests. While it seems to vary somewhat, a factor of 10 to 1 is a decent ballpark figure. That would put the estimate of the number of infected airline passengers at 450-500 out of 1.2 billion, which means the IATA statement is still reasonable.
Long after covid is gone many other infectious respiratory ailments that have always been with us will still be with us. They're not in the news and serve no political purpose so they are no big deal to travelers. As has always been the case, the elderly and compromised among us must always be vigilant during travel and others vigilant of them.
