Some New Science on Virus Transmission on Airplanes

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by RKsailsolo

What a mazes me are typical reactions I get from others when I politely ask for distance... More often than not I am dismissed, ignored or tsk tsk'd.

No wonder this spreads like wildfire.

Weird. Not like that here at all. All you have to do is look at someone and they back off. Not that they crowd you in the first place. In Finland, the joke is "we Finns have been social distancing for 1000 years"

[Arthur Garfield]

Not just "droplets" mostly "particles".

Covid-19 airborne infectious particles commonly are sized at well under 0.001 mm, or about 0.000039 inch. Its symbol is μm
What this means is that infections occur,commonly, via aerosolized particles
not just "droplets".
How large is a single coronavirus particle?
Virus particle size ranges from 70–90 nm(nanometer). A thousand times smaller than a Micron

Here's from airline association IATA
"According to the International Air Transport Association, air filters can remove very small particles, such as bacteria and viruses. Virtually all viruses and bacteria are removed; even the most difficult particles in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 micron are filtered out"
How large is a single coronavirus particle?
Covid-19 Virus particle size ranges from 70–90 nm. A hundred times smaller than a Micron= 0.00001 =One nanometer = 0.001micron

Here,renowned UK science journal,"The Lancet" published paper .
"Small aerosol particles smaller than 5 μm in aerodynamic size are most likely to remain -->airborne for indefinite periods<--(unless there is removal due to air currents or dilution ventilation), and to be deposited in the lower respiratory tract."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...323-4/fulltext

"Military-grade camera shows risks of airborne coronavirus spread"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...d/?arc404=true

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Arthur Garfield

....Here's from airline association IATA
"According to the International Air Transport Association...

FWIW in early October (2020) IATA reported"
"...with only 44 identified potential cases of flight-related transmission among 1.2 billion travelers...Dr. David Powell, IATA’s Medical Advisor, calls the figures “extremely reassuring.”

I point this out not to say that air travel is good/bad, merely that the doctor for the industry group has no asterisk citing "But the numbers don't pass the sniff test" while the IATA statistics are plainly, from a scientific standpoint, propaganda that relies on public ignorance while engendering the same.
____________________
noun
noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda

1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The other is thermal camera, where colour indicates radiated temp... I haven't yet heard that these cameras are widely used.

IDK how widely used they are but I see them at airports in Asia.

In Taiwan for example (who has one of the best if not the best record with COVID despite their proximity to China) when you head towards Customs and Immigration from the international gates you walk past a manned station that thermally images the entire corridor. Officers will pull you out if your temp is elevated.

Its been there for years, not a COVID response.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Singularity

FWIW in early October (2020) IATA reported"
"...with only 44 identified potential cases of flight-related transmission among 1.2 billion travelers...Dr. David Powell, IATA’s Medical Advisor, calls the figures “extremely reassuring.”

I point this out not to say that air travel is good/bad, merely that the doctor for the industry group has no asterisk citing "But the numbers don't pass the sniff test" while the IATA statistics are plainly, from a scientific standpoint, propaganda that relies on public ignorance while engendering the same.
____________________
noun
noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda

1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The issue isn’t flights , it’s “ travel “

I read where EDCD data suggests the 2nd wave in Europe was largely started by the 4 million tourists that went to Spain this summer and returned home all across Europe.

It doesn’t really matter the actual infection did or didn’t spread on the aircraft. Flights may be safe but travel is the issue.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The issue isn’t flights , it’s “ travel “

I read where EDCD data suggests the 2nd wave in Europe was largely started by the 4 million tourists that went to Spain this summer and returned home all across Europe.

It doesn’t really matter the actual infection did or didn’t spread on the aircraft. Flights may be safe but travel is the issue.

No dispute whatsoever (stated such up-thread...that it's door-to-door statistics that count).

My point was...assuming each of the cited 1.2 billion passengers averaged only 1 hour on a plane with the door closed, that's 1,200,000,000 man-hours locked up in a plane with supposedly only <50 on-airplane suspected or confirmed transmissions. This is beyond improbable.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Singularity

FWIW in early October (2020) IATA reported"
"...with only 44 identified potential cases of flight-related transmission among 1.2 billion travelers...Dr. David Powell, IATA’s Medical Advisor, calls the figures “extremely reassuring.”

I point this out not to say that air travel is good/bad, merely that the doctor for the industry group has no asterisk citing "But the numbers don't pass the sniff test" while the IATA statistics are plainly, from a scientific standpoint, propaganda that relies on public ignorance while engendering the same.
____________________
noun
noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda

1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Let's unpack this.

So Singularity has no contrary data to this, whatsoever.

However, this data does not pass Singularity's subjective "sniff test".

On the basis of Singularity's subjective "sniff test", he is willing not only to dismiss this data without doing any work of his own, but he is happy to go quite further, running further and further ahead of the train, and declare that this data is not only wrong, but that it's "propaganda", harshly impugning the motives of people he doesn't know, asserting that the person is released this data is using existing "public ignorance" to make more "public ignorance". This is not a statement about the data at all, but about the motives of whoever published the data.

This statement: ". . . the IATA statistics are plainly, from a scientific standpoint, propaganda. . . " is gibberish. The "scientific standpoint" is based on facts and reason. The "smell test" is an important part of the scientific method, but is not a basis for stating conclusions. "Smell tests" are one part of "rigorous skepticism" which is a key part of the scientific method -- they are part of the radical modesty which characterizes the scientific point of view.

This on the contrary is radically immodest -- the opposite of the scientific point of view. "Plainly" anything, in science, hardly exists, and where it does exist, it does so only after a lot of people have done a lot of work and reach some kind of consensus. And "plainly wrong" might be the most a scientist could ever say -- "plainly propaganda", from a scientific standpoint, would require not only knowing objectively and based on data, that this data is wrong, but also knowing objectively, and based on data, that the intention of the publishers of the data was to propagate -- something hardly even knowable to science.

This is what happens to dialogue on any issues in the culture wars which now characterizes public debate in our poor United States. Less and less does anyone care about the actual truth -- it's a "post-truth" environment. One's own prejudices are quite enough; then go straight to personal attacks on the enemy camp. This is an extreme case of it -- you don't even pretend to have any different data -- you just go straight to declaring "propaganda", "public ignorance", etc. etc. This is deeply anti-scientific -- the exact opposite of the "scientific standpoint", where truth is NOT indeed equivalent to one's own prejudices, where truth is assumed to be elusive, and requiring skepticism, modesty, and hard work to get at. Respect for contrary opinions is fundamental to the scientific way of knowledge. This sneering arrogance is anti-science, and anti-truth.

Thank God I don't live in that country any more.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Arthur Garfield

Not just "droplets" mostly "particles".

Covid-19 airborne infectious particles commonly are sized at well under 0.001 mm, or about 0.000039 inch. Its symbol is μm
What this means is that infections occur,commonly, via aerosolized particles
not just "droplets".
How large is a single coronavirus particle?
Virus particle size ranges from 70–90 nm(nanometer). A thousand times smaller than a Micron

Here's from airline association IATA
"According to the International Air Transport Association, air filters can remove very small particles, such as bacteria and viruses. Virtually all viruses and bacteria are removed; even the most difficult particles in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 micron are filtered out"
How large is a single coronavirus particle?
Covid-19 Virus particle size ranges from 70–90 nm. A hundred times smaller than a Micron= 0.00001 =One nanometer = 0.001micron
. . .

I will say at the outset that I have no idea whether air travel is actually safe or not.

HOWEVER, I would point out that the fact that viral particles are very small does NOT by itself show that they can't be filtered. Filtration doesn't work like that -- everythign bigger than a certain particle size is filtered, and everything smaller is not, for a given filter type.

It's actually much more interesting than that.

"A HEPA filter’s remarkable effectivity in filtering out small particles the size of viruses has aroused public interest in the time of COVID-19 but how the filter actually works is usually missing or incorrectly reported by popular media. Therefore, most think of filters as sieves impeding small particles by collision or mechanical entrapment. But HEPA filters work because of the physics of diffusion where weak attractive forces of the thin fibers are just strong enough to pull in small particles. The microscopically thin fibers are large relative to small particles the size of viruses. The fibers pull the particles from their path and they get stuck to the surface of the fibers."
https://www.engineering.com/Designer...Cant-Hurt.aspx

This is why HEPA filters are not rated by the smallest particles they can trap -- they trap particles down to extremely small sizes. They do not work like sieves -- they have two different regimes -- "inertial impaction and interception", and "diffusion". The first works sort of like a seive, the second does not. So HEPA filters are rated according to their efficiency in the "problem zone" between the optimum ranges for these two regimes. See here:



So HEPA filters DO capture particles the size of inidividual coronavirus particles.

But that of course does not prove that having a HEPA filter on an airplane stops spread of the virus. That depends on how the air circulates, and I think it's fair to assume that air circulation cannot be so perfect as to solve the problem completely. But I think it's widely believed by scientists that the quality of ventilation is one important factor in whether a given environment is relatively safe, or not.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is what happens to dialogue on any issues in the culture wars which now characterizes public debate in our poor United States.

We have cultural drift to a state in which the confusion of fact and opinion is endemic certainly in the US and apparently in the EU/UK.

Some folks have cited sources and even provided links. I support that. I wish CF had footnotes the way Wikipedia does.

It is worth noting that not all sources are equal. Some are mills for misinformation. Doesn't matter as citing sources allows readers to make their own judgments.

"Everone knows" and "everyone believes" should be grounds for a time-out from CF. (<- opinion)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

We have cultural drift to a state in which the confusion of fact and opinion is endemic certainly in the US and apparently in the EU/UK.

Some folks have cited sources and even provided links. I support that. I wish CF had footnotes the way Wikipedia does.

It is worth noting that not all sources are equal. Some are mills for misinformation. Doesn't matter as citing sources allows readers to make their own judgments.

"Everone knows" and "everyone believes" should be grounds for a time-out from CF. (<- opinion)

Amen.

But the "confusion between fact and opinion", and the substitution of attacks for actual arguments, is much more striking in the U.S., where the character of public discourse is really very different.

Also -- I'm not quite sure that footnotes by themselves improve the situation very much. References to sources of ideas or data can be very helpful, but in the age of Google are also often used as mere decoration, creating a mere appearance that some kind of research goes behind the assertion. The Wikipedian method (and I am a Wikipedian) is different -- texts don't belong to anyone, but are produced collaboratively with a kind of "peer review" method of revision.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

We have cultural drift to a state in which the confusion of fact and opinion is endemic certainly in the US and apparently in the EU/UK.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Amen.

But the "confusion between fact and opinion", and the substitution of attacks for actual arguments, is much more striking in the U.S., where the character of public discourse is really very different.

A double Amen to this boys .

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Let's unpack this.

So Singularity has no contrary data to this, whatsoever.

However, this data does not pass Singularity's subjective "sniff test".

On the basis of Singularity's subjective "sniff test", he is willing not only to dismiss this data without doing any work of his own, but he is happy to go quite further, running further and further ahead of the train, and declare that this data is not only wrong, but that it's "propaganda", harshly impugning the motives of people he doesn't know, asserting that the person is released this data is using existing "public ignorance" to make more "public ignorance". This is not a statement about the data at all, but about the motives of whoever published the data.

This statement: ". . . the IATA statistics are plainly, from a scientific standpoint, propaganda. . . " is gibberish. The "scientific standpoint" is based on facts and reason. The "smell test" is an important part of the scientific method, but is not a basis for stating conclusions. "Smell tests" are one part of "rigorous skepticism" which is a key part of the scientific method -- they are part of the radical modesty which characterizes the scientific point of view.

This on the contrary is radically immodest -- the opposite of the scientific point of view. "Plainly" anything, in science, hardly exists, and where it does exist, it does so only after a lot of people have done a lot of work and reach some kind of consensus. And "plainly wrong" might be the most a scientist could ever say -- "plainly propaganda", from a scientific standpoint, would require not only knowing objectively and based on data, that this data is wrong, but also knowing objectively, and based on data, that the intention of the publishers of the data was to propagate -- something hardly even knowable to science.

This is what happens to dialogue on any issues in the culture wars which now characterizes public debate in our poor United States. Less and less does anyone care about the actual truth -- it's a "post-truth" environment. One's own prejudices are quite enough; then go straight to personal attacks on the enemy camp. This is an extreme case of it -- you don't even pretend to have any different data -- you just go straight to declaring "propaganda", "public ignorance", etc. etc. This is deeply anti-scientific -- the exact opposite of the "scientific standpoint", where truth is NOT indeed equivalent to one's own prejudices, where truth is assumed to be elusive, and requiring skepticism, modesty, and hard work to get at. Respect for contrary opinions is fundamental to the scientific way of knowledge. This sneering arrogance is anti-science, and anti-truth.

Thank God I don't live in that country any more.

I'm sorry but I cited metrics in post 120 that I used in my assessment in post 170 (coupled with professional experience). A post that in post 123 you didn't understand relevance of. I'm qualified/certified/and licensed to make such a superficial assessments specifically about infection disease on aircraft in the manner so described (where the assessment includes other conditions not apparent). Indeed, an ~opposing counsel has the whim of a goat fart's opportunity to bring redress so as to suggest the presence in the world of a ~better fact producer. But for goodness sake the thread title is "some new science on virus transmission on airplanes."

Now I cannot make folks do their homework that they deem irrelevant. I do feel that I have a good sense of the biopsychosocial/neuropsychiatric/evolutionary factors enouraging people to avoid doing research that challenges their belief systems, such that they simply won't do homework that's uncomfortable to them. But delving into that invariable violates the terms of service here, which a sophist can hide behind, as Machiavelli so described (i.e., how the trolls win).

Quite frankly the post-truth world started when the sophists started a run on things with their double-speak-in-lieu of wisdom ~2,300 years ago. Sophistry is no substitute for a working knowledge of science/maths (in the real world outside of a court room). Indeed, it's the order the the day in law where polymaths-for-hire can be selected to buttress the position of the sophist, but here I suggest we keep things to raw science, numbers. Those with expertise speak freely. If one doesn't understand how science/numbers are derived perhaps it's more appropriate to ask questions than re-write War and Peace as an obfuscative diversion.

[cyan]

Another interesting thread among like-minded sailors seems to be going off the tracks. The quirks of each nation could fill such a thread, but an international sailing forum might be an unfortunate place to see them posted.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm sorry but I cited metrics in post 120 that I used in my assessment in post 170 (coupled with professional experience). A post that in post 123 you didn't understand relevance of.

Post 120 is all about flu transmission, not COVID, and about people not wearing masks or taking the other precautions which are now being taken. And a survey of epidemiologists about their subjective feelings about flying during the pandemic. Post 120 contains no metrics, not one single fact, which contradicts the statement you so harshly attacked. In post 123 I stated with some particularity my objections to the relevance of post 120 -- they are valid.

Originally Posted by Singularity

. . . I'm qualified/certified/and licensed to make such a superficial assessments specifically about infection disease on aircraft in the manner so described (where the assessment includes other conditions not apparent). . . .

If you're going to claim special, professional knowledge, then you might want to state your qualifications and certifications.

And if you do have professional knowledge, you might consider sharing actual professional knowledge, rather than just slagging off every person left right and center who says something you don't agree with.

Originally Posted by Singularity

. . Now I cannot make folks do their homework that they deem irrelevant. I do feel that I have a good sense of the biopsychosocial/neuropsychiatric/evolutionary factors enouraging people to avoid doing research that challenges their belief systems, such that they simply won't do homework that's uncomfortable to them. But delving into that invariable violates the terms of service here, which a sophist can hide behind, as Machiavelli so described (i.e., how the trolls win).

OK, let's get this straight. A fact was asserted -- and not by me -- that only X number of people have ever been confirmed to have been infected on airplanes since the pandemic started. Let's be clear -- I don't have any position on whether this fact is true or not. It may be too subtle for some people deeply immersed in the culture wars, but I don't know the truth here, my interest here is in the PROCESS.

So your response to that is, rather than "do homework" of your own, and engage the asserted fact itself with a single fact of your own, to declare that this statement is "propaganda that relies on public ignorance while engendering the same."

And when called out on this, your response is to pile on yet more impugning of people's motives and indeed, their cognitive capacity -- "challenging belief systems -- sophists -- trolls". And with an irrelevant reference to Machievelli like a cherry on top.

Sorry, but it is not I, who did not do homework. And my "belief system" is not involved here -- I don't know whether there are few or many infections on airplanes. My purpose in these posts is to call out a dysfunctional and harmful, indeed nasty mode of argumentation, which is never to offer facts or arguments, but to attack motives and even cognitive ability of people one disagrees with -- relentless argumentum ad hominem without the slightest contribution to the actual scientific or factual knowledge of the forum.

Originally Posted by Singularity

. . . Quite frankly the post-truth world started when the sophists started a run on things with their double-speak-in-lieu of wisdom ~2,300 years ago. Sophistry is no substitute for a working knowledge of science/maths (in the real world outside of a court room). Indeed, it's the order the the day in law where polymaths-for-hire can be selected to buttress the position of the sophist, but here I suggest we keep things to raw science, numbers. Those with expertise speak freely. If one doesn't understand how science/numbers are derived perhaps it's more appropriate to ask questions than re-write War and Peace as an obfuscative diversion.

This really takes the cake. So when someone takes the trouble ("doing homework", if you will) to try to actually put together an argument which has logic and is based on something factual, which is informed by actual curiosity, rather than by an axe to grind, this is "War and Peace" and "obfuscative diversion". I guess a carefully thought through argument seems like War and Peace when it is SO much easier and quicker just to fling sneering phrases like "propaganda that relies on public ignorance while engendering the same" -- so much easier to just denigrate the source of a statement, than to engage the actual facts. So much easier to call names ("sophists") and drop names, than to actually think.

You talk about science and numbers -- halleluja -- at last -- let's have it. Science, numbers, facts, and logic. I'm all for it, and have been all for it from the beginning. What that means is -- address the actual facts and actual arguments, for once, and leave the people out of it, for once. It's a basic rule of civilized discussion.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...If you're going to claim special, professional knowledge, then you might want to state your qualifications and certifications.
...
You talk about science and numbers -- halleluja -- at last -- let's have it. Science, numbers, facts, and logic. I'm all for it, and have been all for it from the beginning. What that means is -- address the actual facts and actual arguments, for once, and leave the people out of it, for once. It's a basic rule of civilized discussion.

On principle I abhor arguments from authority as it's innately caustic to the observer's critical thinking process [besides, your manner is to just discount the speaker's credentials anyway, citing SoandSo to be superlative or whatever]. I don't understand how someone can cite having studied philosophy yet not glean this most fundamental and profoundly important phenomenon. Indeed I can, as most philosophy people think in terms of words, not pictures, relying on other peoples' conceptualizations and not their own. So let me be the master and draw a picture of a 2D object and convert it to 4 dimensions...with this you can draw your own conclusions. This is thousands of years old.

Create set "A" (large circle)
Withing "A" create "a" (small sub-set of set "A")
Into "A" add R & K

R & K are measures of chaos in system "A"
R & K are determined by people in "a"
In fact, the requirement to be an "a" is understanding R & K

And because those in "a" understand R & K, there is less chaos/more order around "a".

When an external force deranges "A" then the R & K increases. When that R & K increase causes death, disability, economic turmoil, people in "A" turn to people in "a"

But a paradox:
-Those in "A" don't understand R & K, or else they would be "a" people
-And, information about R & K inappropriately leaking out of "a" will increase R & K, making the work of "a" more complicated

So it's a numbers game. There's simply a lot more "A" people than "a" people.

So when "A" people go around talking like they are "a" people...there simply is not enough "a" people to untie all the knots (increased R & K) in the system tied by such actors.

So imagine, if you will, premeditatio malorum-style, what things look like when:
1) An "A" goes around giving bad information after talking/reading about "a" information but not fundamentally understanding it
2) Such an "A" person cannot be convinced that they are giving bad information
3) Such an "A" person goes on to say "gosh even the "a" people don't have this figured out [eroding trust in "a"] and the govt is doing everything wrong, making things worse! The "a" people are being uncivil to me!"
Indeed, what would this look like? Wouldn't R and K in the population increase from the behavior of such an "A"?

Fact is, everyone is some amount of "A" and some amount of "a" and it's critical for everyone to know who they are and how to behave.

Fact is, there's always a balance between "A" and "a" in the system. "a" is never fully extinguished, as it's "a" people who lead things in the first place.

But plotted below is a 2D representation. In 3 dimensions it's a toroid where, for visual modelling purposes, the "a" folks are at the core...a tiny core. Adding the dimension of time and the visual model is an ouroboros where the toroid perpetually involutes around "a".

This math (pattern) can be used to describe any practically any feedback system...practically anything in visualizeable pattern nature.

But in this case the "A" who thinks he's an "a" is serving against the common good, cannot be convinced this is so, withstanding his behavior that increases R & K, while squashing information from "a" who literally knows better. Is such an "A" being civilized? Sure. Increasing pathology in society? You-betcha.

So the question is: how to deal with these "A" wanna be "a" actors who draw a little circle around them everywhere they go. That is all.