Even better is to wear a mask (not to prevent virus from coming in that's silly air gets around it) but to keep your nasal passages moist during a high altitude flight. Japanese have known this for years and why they wear masks so much.
On this topic, I recently got officially fit-tested for N95 masks (specifically 3M 9210+). They put a cover over your head and spray in a bitter substance; if you taste it, the mask fit fails. (You can also do this test at home if you have the supplies.)
I started wearing N95s on flights since KF94 ear loop masks would hurt my ears after a few hours. Inadvertently realized during fit-testing that the KF94s let so much air around the edges that they were much less effective than I had assumed, so I basically just use my N95 when needed indoors anywhere. Also found that other 3M mask models didn't fit my face as effectively (failed the test almost immediately).
Highly recommended to go with fit-tested N95s (if not already using something even better like a respirator).
Edit: I should mention I've flown SF to Toronto a few times since the pandemic started and air quality on planes is quite terrible despite what airlines say. Lowest CO2 concentration around 1800 ppm, and highest I've seen has been 3000+ ppm (during boarding). (420ppm outdoor average at sea level, and anything about 1000ppm I'd wear a mask indoors.)
co2 levels are an inverse proxy for incoming fresh air fraction. this is of course inversely correlated with pathogen concentration (presuming that fresh incoming air from outside is relatively pathogen-free).
they aren’t directly correlated, it’s just a proxy. ventilation reduces both.
aranet4 CO2 monitor that I bring with me. 2xAA batteries allow it to go for a year or more, and I can pull the readings via Bluetooth to my phone to look at historical data.
As sneak also replied, it's just a proxy: higher CO2 correlates to higher chance of breathing in pathogens, but doesn't take into consideration filtration.
Physically, the probability that an aerosolized particle enters your body is lower with a mask than without one, as at least some airflow will go through the mask and carry particles onto the mask surface. How much lower, of course, is difficult to predict.
I wear masks on planes for this reason, also with goggle-style glasses. Through inadvertent A/B testing, I have some support that they are effective. I also use eye and nose moisturizers rather than just rely on covering up. I used to catch a bug every time I flew but have now mostly eliminated that.
For a high altitude flight, going straight for the N95 would make sense to me. In such a situation one probably paid good money for the flight and spent time organizing the trip to wherever it was, having it be all for nothing because of catching something would be a waste.
From a cost/benefit perspective, it's definitely slanted towards wearing the N95.
Given all the other discomforts of flying, wearing a respirator is a minor problem. Passengers are not likely to have long, emotional conversations during a flight where a mask might be uncomfortable or inhibit communication. But there is the food/drink issue, if someone considers those to be important.
Fit-tested respirators - not masks - do not allow unfiltered air in, which helps prevents the virus from entering your system at all. People need to differentiate between the generic term "mask" and "respirator".
Airplanes have about 12-15 air changes per hour they are flying, and the air that is recycled, less than half, is going through standard HEPA filters and are rated to capture virus and bacteria particles.
My less empirical info is that airflow in a plane mostly goes from being input above your head, and exhausted from the pressurized cabin at your feet, meaning you have less exposure to anyone not in your row.
Remember that aircraft pressurization systems were designed to be smoked in, other than the newest designs. They needed enough airflow to not totally choke out passengers on a cross country or cross atlantic trip.
Are you able to square the levels of CO2 on planes, which are 1000-1800 ppm, so over 2-3x atmospheric air, with the 12-15 ACH? I don't understand how those two things can be true.
ACH often refers to filtration and not ventilation; that is, recycled air counts for ACH calculations but won't decrease CO2 because that's not scrubbed by the filters. So it's possible you can have high CO2 levels but also no virus or particulate matter in the air; this is why some places will report PM2.5 as well as CO2, as a proxy for filtration. To make it more complicated, you can also use UV-C to inactivate pathogens, which may not decrease PM2.5 and won't decrease CO2.
I'm not saying this is the case necessarily for planes, but I'm just trying to provide context for how proxy measures of air quality may not tell the full story.
IIRC the airlines did improve filtering of air in the cabin, but I think this is basically moot - you’re stuck in a hermetic, pressurized can with hundreds of other people and some percentage of them is exhaling viral droplets into the air that’s force circulated through the cabin. Unless you’re wearing a hazmat suit, you’ll be exposed.
I'm not talking about viral/bacterial factors here, clearly a better filter with a better humidity system doesn't cause you to end up with a dry throat.
I'm not talking about exposure to people your in the same goldfish bowl as, that's a guaranteed to happen when you bump into people getting your bags outside...
In summary, while wearing a face mask might offer minimal benefits in terms of retaining some moisture around your nasal passages due to breath capture and reduced airflow exposure to dry cabin air, it does not effectively keep them moist during high altitude flights. The primary concern remains that airplane cabins are inherently dry environments that can lead to discomfort regardless of whether one wears a mask.
Thus, wearing a face mask will not effectively keep your nasal passages moist during a high altitude flight.
Is there evidence for this? The typical theory is that during winter, you get more people indoors, in close proximity with poor ventilation- similarly planes is just about a large number of people sitting in close proximity for an extended period.
Its common knowledge in regions with stronger winters that indoor humidity needs to be well managed (aka avoid too dry air) since upper breathing tract is more prone to infections. I've experienced it myself numerous times, so did my family and literally everybody in that region I know. Nobody ever bothered to look for peer-reviewed study of something one experiences every winter during ones whole life (just like ie eating raw strong garlic works very well as prevention of infections, not so much once sick).
Now that's not the sole reason for transmissions of course, but weakened outer defenses help infections a lot.
> The typical theory is that during winter, you get more people indoors, in close proximity with poor ventilation
Covid by far is no longer a "winter only" thing. The US has a record covid wave [1], so does Germany [2] and the UK [3].
Unfortunately politicians worldwide have pretty much given up preventing Covid transmission, mostly due to the serious backlash from shortsighted large employers and the far-right - some places like Nassau County (NY, US) even ban people from wearing masks [4] to protect themselves. Not to mention large parts of the population itself - try wearing a mask in public these days, people will either look at you like you're some sort of madman or they'll just outright assault you [5].
And all of that despite serious indicators that even minor measures like air filters in kindergartens and schools massively reduce sick times... it's truly maddening, air filters don't impact anyone, they're cheap to operate. But people don't want any kind of reminder of the lockdown era, they sometimes even violently respond to that.
We regulate literally everything needed for survival... our water gets tested to make sure it's free of contaminants, food and medicine production of all kinds has to comply with very strict requirements, noise polluters such as cars, trucks and heavy machinery get regulated... but the air we breathe? Nothing except particulate emissions from cars and industry gets regulated. Children have to learn in schools no matter how hot, humid, CO2-overloaded or moldy it is. Workers enjoy barely any protection as well. And it takes a massive amount of mold for a residential building to be declared unfit for living, maintaining air-condition installations (especially filters) isn't a requirement, which means landlords can get away with a lot of shit... It's a disgrace how far we have all fallen.
The “record Covid wave” in the US is not evenly distributed across the country.
According to the CDC, “As of August 16, 2024, we estimate that COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 27 states, declining or likely declining in 4 states, and are stable or uncertain in 17 states.”
> They just implemented authoritarian measures such as lockdowns that had little to no effect, but simply served those politicians' own self-serving purposes
Had all states had restrictions/"lockdowns" in 2020-2022 that were as strict as the strictest state's mitigation measures, we would have saved ~360k more lives[1].
Maybe. That's far from certain, though. What's more, this would have come at a tremendous cost - and not just in the strict economic sense of the word. Lockdowns and other restrictions do have severe side effects.
You moved the goal posts. Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing, and I provided a study that shows that simply isn't true. You're now disagreeing (without any evidence) but have shifted to arguing they have side effects that you find too severe.
That's a completely different argument, and one that really can't be objectively measured (e.g., how do you value a life saved?). But lockdowns were effective at saving lives in 2020, and since we knew nothing about SAR-CoV-2 and had limited treatment options there was basically no other option. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.
> Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing
I still stand by that claim. Compared with alternative, less restrictive measures, lockdowns achieve very little, especially when considering the massive downside they come with.
Like you said, lockdowns were justified in early 2020 when we knew very little about COVID-19. Later, though, they amounted to nothing more than authoritarian virtue signalling.
> Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.
Not explicitly. More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.
Multiple citations needed here, but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here, so I'll just point out one thing and then will leave this thread:
> More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.
I know a lot of people in public health and disability spaces, and every person I know that talks about the failure of public health around the covid pandemic is referring to the dismantling of surveillance (e.g., testing), the lack of investment in next generation vaccines and treatments, the failure to upgrade ventilation and filtration, and removing mask mandates in targeted places (like emergency rooms). I haven't heard anybody in the US discuss lockdowns in years. I haven't even heard people talk about broad (i.e., outside healthcare) mask mandates in over a year. You need to get "mitigations = lockdowns" out of your head, that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.
> but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here
I find this kind of argument - which indeed seems to have become quite fashionable during the pandemic - to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive, particularly when recent revelations (e.g., in Germany, since that country has been mentioned in this thread) have shown that quite often mandates were driven by politics rather than being supported by science.
> targeted places (like emergency rooms).
While ERs aren't the first places that come to mind, because for the most part they don't treat patients with communicable diseases, there's nothing that keeps hospitals from implementing such mandates. I'd welcome that, because as should have become obvious from this this thread I'm very much in favour of wearing masks.
> that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.
While they don't have any actual expertise on the matter, there still is a small but very vocal #ZeroCovid bubble (e.g., on the social network formerly known as Twitter) that quite literally implies that - and little else - for fighting COVID-19 today.
> to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive
Unless I missed something, you have yet to share the science that supports your view. I'm not bowing out of discussing this because we have different opinions, I'm bowing out because I shared a study (and could provide more) and you responded by shifting goal posts and standing by your claim, not by responding in kind with similar studies or different interpretations of the data. There's not much discussion to be had if we're not working from a shared understanding of data and facts, and those data and facts aren't driving our opinions and beliefs. Anyway, best of luck out there!
> Anyway, what do you suggest? Lockdowns and civil rights restrictions forever?
I literally wrote what I suggested and what you're asking: mandate air purifiers (and ventilation/AC in general...) for public and educational buildings. Additionally to that and specially for the US: introduce unlimited paid sick time, just like every other Western country already has.
And maaaaybe introduce by law a ban on knowingly sending sick kids to kindergarten/schools. It's utterly insane to watch every year how the weeks after major holidays are filled with "colleague X is out sick, caught a bug from their kids". If there is one thing every parent in my social circle is cursing about, it is all the tons of bugs their kids bring home from school because other parents can't be arsed to let their kid spend a few days at home watching TV - and it's not just covid. Lice, ordinary flu, hand-foot-mouth or whatever it's called in English, measles, ordinary fever, vomit/diarrhea...
> For trying to avoid an illness at all costs that not only wasn't particularly dangerous to begin with for the general population
In the US alone, 1.2 million people died of COVID. That's far from "wasn't particularly dangerous".
> but also is very much manageable today, particularly considering that most people are vaccinated now (or at least have the opportunity to get vaccinated).
Vaccines aren't perfect, even including them about 3-5% of the infected have a risk for debilitating long-covid (i.e. ME/CFS). It's not a gamble I want to take part in.
I'm very much in favour of using (or even mandating) air purifiers and dissuading (or banning) people from going to work or sending their kids to school with a communicable disease (including any respiratory illness, not just COVID-19; people seem to think "It's not Covid. So, it doesn't matter.").
Implementing such highly useful measures hasn't been tried, though, at least not at any meaningful scale. Everything politicians tried was about more restrictions and ever more severe lockdowns.
> Vaccines aren't perfect, even including them about 3-5% of the infected have a risk for debilitating long-covid (i.e. ME/CFS). It's not a gamble I want to take part in.
Again, I'm totally fine with that. I'm myself still getting vaccinated once a year with an updated vaccine and I occasionally still wear masks depending in the setting (cramped indoor spaces, particularly during cold season).
If people personally want to avoid that risk that's perfectly ok. Demanding others behave in a certain way (e.g., by enforcing restrictions on their freedom of movement) is not, though.
> Implementing such highly useful measures hasn't been tried, though, at least not at any meaningful scale. Everything politicians tried was about more restrictions and ever more severe lockdowns.
Oh it has been tried, at least here in Germany the federal government gave financial aids to schools and kindergartens. And public offices like parliaments have had them ever since... but in schools? Parents demanded they be taken offline as "the pandemic ended", or schools bought the loud-ass versions...
> If there is one thing every parent in my social circle is cursing about, it is all the tons of bugs their kids bring home from school because other parents can't be arsed to let their kid spend a few days at home watching TV
Viruses spread prior to any indication of infection. By the time any kid in daycare has a fever, the class is already infected and spreading to others. A huge proportion of viral infections just result in runny noses.
One of my kids’ classes got hand foot mouth a few months ago, and I don’t think even a single kid had a fever, or even any painful spots. Just some red spots for a few days, but otherwise unaffected. Not to say that it should intentionally be spread or ignored, but just providing perspective on how non problematic the vast, vast majority of viral infections could be, especially relative to the cost of preventing them.
Also, schools serve as daycare taking on the legal liability for handling kids, allowing parents to work. The changes you seek would crater the economy of any developed country, and especially so with aging demographics. And I don’t think any country offers unlimited paid sick time. Not to mention that efforts to prevent abuse of this unlimited paid sick time would be another huge resource sink.
It doesn’t sound like a country wide universal benefit (at least as of 2013).
> Florence currently provides support to about 2,000 working families in 23 wards and four cities in Tokyo, Kawasaki, and Yokohama cities in Kanagawa Prefecture, and Urayasu and Ichikawa cities in Chiba Prefecture.
I have read tons of articles on these types of benefits, but never seen them successfully implemented on a national, universal level. The main problem being voters not wanting to prioritize spending on kids, or at least prioritizing spending on older population groups rather than kids (since that is who the voters are).
> Viruses spread prior to any indication of infection. By the time any kid in daycare has a fever, the class is already infected and spreading to others.
Sure but pretty much any daycare worker you ask can tell you stories about a kid barely able to stand that just got dumped on their front door, or ones that have been obviously given quite the hefty dose of medication and "suddenly" get worse in a matter of 2-3 hours once the medication wore off.
And that is frankly anti-social behavior, for me it would be grounds to yeet the parents from the daycare effective immediately.
> Also, schools serve as daycare taking on the legal liability for handling kids, allowing parents to work.
In Germany we have "Kinderkrankentage" - sick days for your child that you as a parent take to care for your kids.
> Not to mention that efforts to prevent abuse of this unlimited paid sick time would be another huge resource sink.
EVERY Western country has such a policy and survives just fine. If the US fears it being abused, well, maybe do the decent thing and give them a similar amount of vacation PTO?!
This wikipedia article is out of date ("There is no federal or state statutory minimum paid vacation or paid public holidays. Paid leave is at the discretion of the employers to their employees."). Illinois law now mandates paid leave: https://labor.illinois.gov/faqs/paidleavefaq.html
So, the ground is shifting on this in the USA, at least at the state level.
Ppp would have been a perfect time and mechanism to employ mandatory universal sick time; only forgive the loans if employers could post a "bond" showing they had accounted for sick time per employee.
It couldn't, structurally not. In the EU a lot is already harmonized by EU law, but in the US? Congress has been gridlocked for decades now thanks to (predominantly Republican) obstructionism and the states can't be arsed to work on constitutional amendments either.
Damn, which countries offer that? And do they actually, in reality, and not just on paper? I live in Europe and while theoretically you can have paid sick time, in reality your employer will just fire you (sometimes), you literally cannot be sick without such dire consequences (so I have heard from the mouth of employers).
Germany, for one. Your employer pays the first 90 days, after that the health insurance takes over (IIRC) 70% of your wage, and many employers that value their employees pay the remaining 30%.
Firing someone is very hard in Germany unless it's about closing up shop or intentional action against the employer (shit like theft or vandalism).
Low humidity drying the nose out seems to be why planes and winter are when SARS-CoV-2 and flus are so contagious.
I've been using a generic nasal inhaler when flying, but it's not clear if that would work in practice.
> nitric oxide nasal spray as the nose is the major area to protect
Reading your comment you would believe a nitric oxide nasal spray would be a good preventative when flying?