Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Risk of COVID-19 exposure on planes 'virtually nonexistent' when masked, study shows
The study, conducted by the Department of Defense in partnership with United Airlines, was published Thursday. They ran 300 tests in a little over six months with a mannequin on a United plane. (abcnews.go.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The concern is much broader. To get to an airline seat has many many more hazard hurdles. Just waiting in lines and getting through TSA and security is the danger zone.
That's exactly the point. It isn't the aircraft that worries me, it's the herding in the terminal, TSA lines, etc. Tell me when there's no risk there please.
If you waiting until there is no risk to travel, you will never leave your home.
And the airport restrooms too!
But everyone, with a few minor exceptions, is wearing a mask at the airport. And since masks are so effective the risk should be minimal right? Plus airports are generally somewhat spacious and have constant airflow which helps mitigate spread. Let’s be honest, when you consider the risk of getting COVID, and then the risk of getting seriously sick or dying from COVID, driving to and from the airport most likely remains the most dangerous part of your journey.
I was really interested in this, so I located and read through the actual study today.
For context, this study appears to have been commissioned by DOD in order to assess risks for troop transport and make recommendations for use within DOD to minimize transmission risks for personnel being transported by air. It was not really designed to have applicability to the general public, but we can probably make some limited extrapolations.
The test focused on 1-3 micron particles, and the airframes were 767 and 777.
The study assumes an infected person sheds 4,000 virions per hour and that you need 1,000 virions to become infected. (People can argue about the actual ID50 for SARS-CoV-2, but 1,000 is what was assumed by the study for its calculations. For reference, I think SARS-CoV-1 was estimated to be around 280 but I might be wrong about that.)
The methodology typically did 3 breaths in different settings/configurations and then examined the airflow from those 3 breaths. Modeling/calculations were then used to extrapolate airflow over a longer period of time. This might be good enough, but it would have been interesting to see what happens with sustained breathing for an hour, or maybe testing around 700 breaths, since sometimes unexpected things happen in actual testing that aren't contemplated by modeling. Additionally, the study was careful to emphasize that it assumed one infected person instead of 2 or 3 (or more) scattered around the cabin.
When looking at the data more closely, there are some odd things happening in the tests (which highlight the limitations of models vs actual testing). Here's an example:
A simulated infectious person was installed in seat 37E, with sensors around it.
Six breaths were simulated (3 with mask and 3 without).
Some time later, six coughs were simulated (3 with masks and 3 without).
As expected, the sensors logged more particles without mask than with mask.
What was strange is that the sensor placed in seat 38D detected about half as many particles each time a cough (without mask) was simulated, compared to each time a breath (without mask) was simulated. I think we'd normally expect a cough to expel a lot more viral particles than a breath, so there is something a bit unusual happening with these results. Maybe in this case they were expelled forward, so the row behind got less, but I'm just guessing at the possible cause.
Anyway, it's an interesting study.
You can find it by googling "TRANSCOM/AMC Commercial Aircraft Cabin Aerosol Dispersion Tests"
For context, this study appears to have been commissioned by DOD in order to assess risks for troop transport and make recommendations for use within DOD to minimize transmission risks for personnel being transported by air. It was not really designed to have applicability to the general public, but we can probably make some limited extrapolations.
The test focused on 1-3 micron particles, and the airframes were 767 and 777.
The study assumes an infected person sheds 4,000 virions per hour and that you need 1,000 virions to become infected. (People can argue about the actual ID50 for SARS-CoV-2, but 1,000 is what was assumed by the study for its calculations. For reference, I think SARS-CoV-1 was estimated to be around 280 but I might be wrong about that.)
The methodology typically did 3 breaths in different settings/configurations and then examined the airflow from those 3 breaths. Modeling/calculations were then used to extrapolate airflow over a longer period of time. This might be good enough, but it would have been interesting to see what happens with sustained breathing for an hour, or maybe testing around 700 breaths, since sometimes unexpected things happen in actual testing that aren't contemplated by modeling. Additionally, the study was careful to emphasize that it assumed one infected person instead of 2 or 3 (or more) scattered around the cabin.
When looking at the data more closely, there are some odd things happening in the tests (which highlight the limitations of models vs actual testing). Here's an example:
A simulated infectious person was installed in seat 37E, with sensors around it.
Six breaths were simulated (3 with mask and 3 without).
Some time later, six coughs were simulated (3 with masks and 3 without).
As expected, the sensors logged more particles without mask than with mask.
What was strange is that the sensor placed in seat 38D detected about half as many particles each time a cough (without mask) was simulated, compared to each time a breath (without mask) was simulated. I think we'd normally expect a cough to expel a lot more viral particles than a breath, so there is something a bit unusual happening with these results. Maybe in this case they were expelled forward, so the row behind got less, but I'm just guessing at the possible cause.
Anyway, it's an interesting study.
You can find it by googling "TRANSCOM/AMC Commercial Aircraft Cabin Aerosol Dispersion Tests"