Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kifot | Hacker News Reader

What I can't wrap my head around: how is being packed with 100s of people inside of a plane a few times a year seen as more dangerous than being even more packed with even more people in the metro every day during commute? I feel like the risk of getting infected in public transport is undermined comparing to planes/hotels/restaurants.

View on HN

I don't know about you, but on a plane I'm definitely closer to other passengers for longer periods of time than I am on most metro rides. It also exposes you to people from a geographically wider spread, and many of those people have likewise been exposed to people from even more different places earlier in their trip.

That really depends. Many many people live in world cities where public transport is cramped and people from all over the world come and go in a constant stream.

And how do those people from all over the world get there?

There are many ways. Boat; train; bus and, yes, flying. International commerce will not stop forever and as long as that's true people will travel.

And border crossings by mode are?

Not every city has a metro so this is apples vs oranges? You’re right, it’s just not clear who you’re talking to.

Oh that's right, what I meant is that probably a huge part of people traveling by plane comes from big cities where there is little to no way to avoid being squeezed with other people on a daily basis

Inter-regional spread is a major factor. Subways, busses, and taxis largely move people around within an existing interchange are -- metropolitan regions. Aircraft move them across and between continents.

In 2003, James Burke revisited his 1978 series "Connections" in a 1-hour interview session, "ReConnections". Asked to describe how he would continue the original series' ending inventions forward, for the jet airplane his answer was immediate: pandemics. Beginning about 47m30s here:

https://archive.org/details/JamesBurkeReConnections_0

Critical to realise: SARS-COV-2 isn't the only, and won't be the last new, virus (or other infectious agent) out there.

s/interchange are/interchange area/

It's probably less dangerous (planes have HEPA ventilation systems, most metro systems don't).

But plane travel carries infected people long distances. There's going to be a bunch of countries insisting on 2 weeks quarantine for any new arrivals.

There are a lot of extremely common myths about how the air on airplanes is "recycled", stale, full of germs, even so far as "they lower the oxygen level to get people to sleep" and stuff like that. https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/cabin-air-qualit...

>even so far as "they lower the oxygen level to get people to sleep"

Is that really a bad thing? My experience on long haul flights is that most people sleep. Some people even voluntarily take drugs so they fall asleep sooner/easier.

Is anyone packing into metros anymore? I doubt this pandemic will be good for public transit.

Yeah. See the pictures of the tube in London, today - people crammed in like sardines, as per usual.

They will be once things open back up.

In non-car-centric cities there simply isn’t any other realistic way to get to work.

Bicycles, for many.

When businesses and stores are even partially open in transit-centric cities, what choice do people have? Even if more walk/cycle, that can involve a lot of crowding too. There's no way that people somewhere like Manhattan can maintain separation from each other indefinitely--other than moving out of the city.

If transmission on the air plane is the risk you worry about, I agree that it doesn't appear that different compared to other risks associated with going outside.

However, travel obviously takes you to a new place, where the every day risks might be much greater or at least less well known than the ones you have to accept by virtue of just staying alive where you live.

Further, you also have the risk of being stranded due to local outbreaks closing borders at some point during your trip, making the duration of the trip itself uncertain. Not many people take lightly the risk of not knowing when they can get home from their vacation.

I'm wondering this too. Air on planes is recirculated every 5-10 minutes. I doubt train cars gets anywhere close to that.

Genuine question: Is that better or worse? I’m assuming the air gets filtered before its recirculated but can the filtering process catch respiratory droplets?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/a...

>On most aircraft, air is also circulated through hospital-grade HEPA filters, which remove 99.97 percent of bacteria, as well as the airborne particles that viruses use for transport (many regional jets lack these filters). Additionally, cabins are divided into separate ventilation sections about every seven rows of seats, which means that you share air only with those in your immediate environment and not with the guy who’s coughing up a lung ten rows back.

First, flying is usually an optional thing. Commuting is not.

Also, I have flown maybe 50 times in my life, but only been on a packed subway maybe once? Not the same for most people.

> but only been on a packed subway maybe once

Can you explain your situation? Naively that sounds like an incredible feat!

Why? Subways are found in larger cities, airports are everywhere. Live and work in the countryside, travel to holiday destinations and you're done. Also, just because there happens to be a subway doesn't mean you need to use it. The times I've been to Washington DC I've managed to avoid using it entirely. The place is fairly compact and lends itself to walking to where you need to go.

Well, sure, if you don't take subways then you're not likely to be on a crowded one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com