Covid-19; Impact on the aviation industry

Nijmegen

I think that the emergence of new and aggressive strains in recent weeks/months has changed the dynamic entirely. Behind a paywall but a good thesis in the FT here, "Vaccines have been oversold as the pandemic exit strategy."

That first wave, the hypothesis goes, produced lots of people with antibodies that then gradually declined over time. In the second wave, some previously infected individuals who re-encountered the virus lacked sufficiently potent immunity to prevent reinfection or kill the virus quickly. In effect, Prof de Oliveira says, a person with waning natural immunity might play the same role as an immunocompromised patient. 

If regions with raging transmission do act as breeding grounds for resistant variants, then failing to control spread will prolong the pandemic.

Basically, so long as the virus has a chance to propagate anywhere, you need to continue with suppression efforts because it will mutate and you're back to square one. Moderna is already testing a booster shot for the South African variant. That means we all now need what, 3 doses? 2 even if we get a J&J 1 shot vaccine that doesn't work against a variant that emerges and goes wild.

The view a few months ago was "Vaccine, control rollout, once the vulnerable are done and dusted go wild." I dunno. I think it's "Vaccinate the population and prepare for whatever brews up in some second or third world country that isn't getting any doses." The timeline is getting pushed back into 2022 to be honest.

Tenger

And this is exactly the benefit of the vaccine. If Covid-19 becomes like the seasonal flu then life (and more importantly aviation!!) can go back to something approaching normal. (Many people seem to think that its a magic wand, misunderstanding the history of vaccine successes)

The threat of mutation or lack of long term vaccine protection is an issue, but we have to wait to see if those materialise.

I look forward to "got a touch of covid" to replacing "dying of manflu"

Nijmegen

Tenger wrote: »

And this is exactly the benefit of the vaccine. If Covid-19 becomes like the seasonal flu then life (and more importantly aviation!!) can go back to something approaching normal. (Many people seem to think that its a magic wand, misunderstanding the history of vaccine successes)

The threat of mutation or lack of long term vaccine protection is an issue, but we have to wait to see if those materialise.

I look forward to "got a touch of covid" to replacing "dying of manflu"

Yeah agreed - I just think that the timeframe is longer than we expected to get there. Right now reference-Covid is deadly and mutation-Covid's are even deadlier for various reasons (even just for being more easily spread). Governments can't stand over accelerating cases and hospitals falling over in the near term, which is why we've seen such a marked shift - abroad as well as here at home - in travel restrictions.

Tenger

I read the articles in the media recently, from the EI CEO a week or so ago and from a trade union yesterday.
While I can see their point of view regarding Irish travel restrictions I think the expressed view misses the point.
Irish restrictions dont change the global nature of the aviation sector. With most countries having restrictions in place the entire industry is on its knees, and will be until 2022.
People arent going to be flying off on jollies this summer.

snotboogie

bk wrote: »

Just to be clear, there is little evidence * yet that the vaccines stop you from catching the virus or passing it on.

What the vaccines are proven to do is to stop SARS-Cov-2 (the virus) from developing into a serious case of Covid19 (the disease) and in particular hospitalisation and death.

This is a subtle but important difference from a public health perspective. What it means is those who are vaccinated still need to take precautions, like wearing masks, etc. so they don't pass it onto non vaccinated people.

* There is some early evidence from Israel that it shows some reduction (in the range of 30 to 60%) in the spread of the virus, but it is still very early days on that evidence, still probably a month or two from knowing.

You are incorrect. The vaccines reduce the risk of the disease, not just of serious cases of the disease. For example, Pfizer/BioNTech reported an efficacy of 95% for the COVID-19 vaccine. This means a 95% reduction in new cases of the disease in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group. It does not mean that there was a 95% reduction in serious cases. The reduction in serious cases is far, far higher.

bk

snotboogie wrote: »

You are incorrect. The vaccines reduce the risk of the disease, not just of serious cases of the disease. For example, Pfizer/BioNTech reported an efficacy of 95% for the COVID-19 vaccine. This means a 95% reduction in new cases of the disease in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group. It does not mean that there was a 95% reduction in serious cases. The reduction in serious cases is far, far higher.

I'm afraid I'm not incorrect. It is a subtle difference, but an important one to understand.

The 95% result was a reduction in symptomatic cases in the vaccinated group versus the placebo group. This, along with an even greater reduction in deaths is a fantastic result of course.

But what the trial didn't tell us, was if the vaccine stops a vaccinated person from continuing to pass along the virus to others or not.

The trails simply weren't designed to look at that aspect. The way the trial was designed was that they only tested people for Covid19 if they reported symptoms. They weren't constantly testing people in the trial.

What this means is that it is possible that the vaccine stops you from developing symptoms, but you could still have a very mild case of the disease and could still be infectious and pass it on to others.

It is important to understand that just because you have been vaccinated, doesn't mean that you couldn't still be infectious and could pass it along to others.

Now again just to be clear, it isn't yet known if this is the case or not, because it wasn't tested or trialled for. We can hope that it stops the virus from spreading, but the evidence isn't there quiet yet and we need to be cautious about it.

This info is direct from the CEO of Pfizer two weeks ago:
https://www.thejournal.ie/pfizer-ceo-5323949-Jan2021/

“Right now we want to see to the vaccine, in addition to protecting people, is also preventing transferring the virus,” Dr Bourla said.

“This is not conclusive yet. We know that in animals, [there is] significant protection from transferring the virus…. We haven’t [proven that in] humans yet.”

acequion

When the level 5 lockdown ends and presumably with it the 5km limit, will they still be fining people for leaving the country? Or will that, ie fining people for travelling, last indefinitely?

I'm struggling to understand the legality of it. How can it be ok to fine somebody €500 for flying from Dublin to London but €100 for driving from Dingle to Donegal?

People are probably no wiser than I am at this point but would anybody have an idea?

NSAman

acequion wrote: »

When the level 5 lockdown ends and presumably with it the 5km limit, will they still be fining people for leaving the country? Or will that, ie fining people for travelling, last indefinitely?

I'm struggling to understand the legality of it. How can it be ok to fine somebody €500 for flying from Dublin to London but €100 for driving from Dingle to Donegal?

People are probably no wiser than I am at this point but would anybody have an idea?

As usual looking to the Government is useless.

They are running around like headless chickens, they have no coherent planning in place.

Like many abroad, it is well over a year now since I have seen my family. Hopefully, I can get this vaccine shortly and be a safer risk than someone without it. Still.. will I fly? I am not so sure!

It is the total uncertainty of the situation and whether I am carrying something.

basill

They said tonight on the news that there will be no big jump from level 5 to 3 as in the past. Given that each of the levels has changed each time around it will probably be 5- or 5 lite then 4 with enhancements etc. Who is to say if the 5km will be dropped, widened or anything in between. In fact I have little faith that the powers that be even have a plan as yet for how we are going to get on with your lives in the short term. The only game in town appears to be vaccinate at a pretty slow pace it has to be said when compared to other nations.

acequion

basill wrote: »

They said tonight on the news that there will be no big jump from level 5 to 3 as in the past. Given that each of the levels has changed each time around it will probably be 5- or 5 lite then 4 with enhancements etc. Who is to say if the 5km will be dropped, widened or anything in between. In fact I have little faith that the powers that be even have a plan as yet for how we are going to get on with your lives in the short term. The only game in town appears to be vaccinate at a pretty slow pace it has to be said when compared to other nations.

If you have little faith in them I have ZERO. Their track record has been abysmal.

But I'm curious as to the legality of charging someone €500 for travelling abroad versus €100 for domestic travel. And is non essential foreign travel an advisory only? Therefore how can it be sustained once we emerge from lockdown?

And how workable is it? They do checkpoints outside the airport. But how about people travelling to the airport by bus? Or people who get to the airport in the middle of the night? Or people who fly to Dublin airport from another Irish airport? Or do they plan to park themselves at Departure gates inside all the airports? And how legal is that? If that can't be challenged then we're definitely in North Korea.

Tenger

acequion wrote: »

If you have little faith in them I have ZERO. Their track record has been abysmal.

But I'm curious as to the legality of charging someone €500 for travelling abroad versus €100 for domestic travel. And is non essential foreign travel an advisory only? Therefore how can it be sustained once we emerge from lockdown?
.......

During the summer it was an advisory.
But looks like they are going to make is mandatory.

An when we emerge from lockdown the travel restrictions will be part of that lifting of restrictions. Personally I would want to keep in place the requirement for a negative test before travel AND some form of quarantine for all arrivals even when the national restrictions are lifted.
No point clearing most of the country and then opening oursleves up again.

Nijmegen

acequion wrote: »

If you have little faith in them I have ZERO. Their track record has been abysmal.

But I'm curious as to the legality of charging someone €500 for travelling abroad versus €100 for domestic travel. And is non essential foreign travel an advisory only? Therefore how can it be sustained once we emerge from lockdown?

And how workable is it? They do checkpoints outside the airport. But how about people travelling to the airport by bus? Or people who get to the airport in the middle of the night? Or people who fly to Dublin airport from another Irish airport? Or do they plan to park themselves at Departure gates inside all the airports? And how legal is that? If that can't be challenged then we're definitely in North Korea.

Speeding is speeding, but doing 200km/h down an 80km/h road can get you a much harsher punishment than doing 60 in a 50 zone.

All throughout this pandemic we’ve been hearing “oh what about this loophole or that loophole,” as if any move that doesn’t 100% work isn’t to be used. Even if we assume they couldn’t be bothered to walk up and check the people getting off at the bus stop, it’s a start! And anyway, as with other countries they could use other infrastructure - airlines are responsible for making sure anyone flying into the US now has their negative test. I imagine they’ll get a fine or something if people are arriving without the document checks.

Dissuasion remains the name of the game, and these measures as announced, Garda pics of checkpoints at the airport etc, will dissuade travel. Each individual dissuaded is a statistical vector removed from the Petri dish.

Captain_Crash

Nijmegen wrote: »

Speeding is speeding, but doing 200km/h down an 80km/h road can get you a much harsher punishment than doing 60 in a 50 zone

This raises the question, is leaving the state more of a risk than travelling 50km from home? The reason the 200km is a harsher punishment is because it’s demonstratably more dangerous than 60 in a 50.

Locker10a

donkey balls wrote: »

Think you're missing the part were they said no direct flights from China to Ireland so no need to worry about the virus getting to Ireland.

Sorry I see what your referring to now

acequion

Tenger wrote: »

During the summer it was an advisory.
But looks like they are going to make is mandatory.

An when we emerge from lockdown the travel restrictions will be part of that lifting of restrictions. Personally I would want to keep in place the requirement for a negative test before travel AND some form of quarantine for all arrivals even when the national restrictions are lifted.
No point clearing most of the country and then opening oursleves up again.

The above is what I'd like clarified. They can obviously make quarantine mandatory but can they legally ban non essential travel? I don't think that's what they're doing and I don't think it would be an easy thing to legislate for. But I'd love to know. Anyone?

And if not doing non essential travel is still an advisory then you would imagine that the €500 fine is not for travelling perse but rather for making non essential journeys beyond 5km in a lockdown. Though €100 for a domestic violation. But do those fines not end once restrictions start to relax? They did before.

The Irish are not just compliant and conservative, we are utterly subservient to authority, but I would be amazed if this fine isn't challenged.

I'm referring to the fine, not to the PCR and quarantine rules which though I find excessive, are understandable.

GT89

IngazZagni wrote: »

I’m not sure I heard the same thing as you?
To me he said international travel can’t happen in a normal way in March and April.

He specifically said he hopes international summer travel can happen in the summer but it will be dependent on the vaccines being effective and there’s no guarantee yet on that.
He also said if we wanted a zero covid approach which he’s against, you’d probably be unlikely to have any international travel for the year and on that point, New Zealand has indicated no international travel will happen without mandatory quarantine for all of 2021.

I can't see the EU allowing member states introduce hotel quarantine on fellow member states. Personally think if we do go down the road of hotel qurantines for people it will be a half arsed approach and won't be effective like Australia/NZ.

faceman

GT89 wrote: »

I can't see the EU allowing member states introduce hotel quarantine on fellow member states. Personally think if we do go down the road of hotel qurantines for people it will be a half arsed approach and won't be effective like Australia/NZ.

This was alluded to by one of the ministers among the noise. The gov are consulting the EU on it. The EU will support it but I think Ursula knows this is a tinderbox waiting to go off. If Ireland pulls the trigger first you won’t have to worry about the Garda checkpoint, it’ll be the ban on entry or reciprocal quarantine on the other end that’ll be the problem. If Ireland goes tier green but puts visitors from Germany in detention centres, no way will Germany not do the same in response

Granted EU leaders want to discourage travel right now but the watershed is post Easter. The med countries are pushing for the 70% vaccination target so they can open up.

jimmycrackcorm

zuutroy wrote: »

Leo's statement is 100% politics and nothing else. It would be too hard to undo, so if this is what you want then say goodbye to summer and Christmas....crazy statement.

It's a reflection on people thinking that magical flight travel bans and quarantines have and should be the solution since the start. The reality is that it's spreading because people cant and don't follow the basic principles of social distancing, wearing masks and hand cleaning.

NSAman

acequion wrote: »

The above is what I'd like clarified. They can obviously make quarantine mandatory but can they legally ban non essential travel? I don't think that's what they're doing and I don't think it would be an easy thing to legislate for. But I'd love to know. Anyone?

And if not doing non essential travel is still an advisory then you would imagine that the €500 fine is not for travelling perse but rather for making non essential journeys beyond 5km in a lockdown. Though €100 for a domestic violation. But do those fines not end once restrictions start to relax? They did before.

The Irish are not just compliant and conservative, we are utterly subservient to authority, but I would be amazed if this fine isn't challenged.

I'm referring to the fine, not to the PCR and quarantine rules which though I find excessive, are understandable.

As stated I am abroad. If I get vaccinated and have a PCR test and arrive in Dublin wearing my mask (as I always have since February last year) how am I suppose to get to my house to self isolate (which I would do anyway) when it is 200 miles away from Dublin. If stopped would I be fined for breaking non-essential travel ?

The fine would certainly not put me off.

The fear of infecting others, no matter how careful I was would still play on my mind. Therefore, for me it is safer NOT to travel.

Tenger

acequion wrote: »

The above is what I'd like clarified. They can obviously make quarantine mandatory but can they legally ban non essential travel? I don't think that's what they're doing and I don't think it would be an easy thing to legislate for. But I'd love to know. Anyone?
............

I doubt you will get a proper clarification here.
But keep in mind that when travelling you are using your passport which is a state provided document. So the state already permits you to travel abroad, it's not "a right" as such.

8m sure many sharp legs minds are looking at the current or proposed legislation.

Hopefully God and John Watters travel abroad in order "to challenge" any restrictions, then we might be rid of them.

LuasSimon

At this stage how many people are going to go abroad this summer?
Talking to neighbours and friends particularly this week everyone seems resigned to not been able to go on foreign holidays so they are all booking Clare, Galway,Wexford etc in recent days.

PommieBast

Captain_Crash wrote: »

This raises the question, is leaving the state more of a risk than travelling 50km from home? The reason the 200km is a harsher punishment is because it’s demonstratably more dangerous than 60 in a 50.

In my case getting out of the state (in mid-December) was if anything demonstrably safer than staying.

Nijmegen

Captain_Crash wrote: »

This raises the question, is leaving the state more of a risk than travelling 50km from home? The reason the 200km is a harsher punishment is because it’s demonstratably more dangerous than 60 in a 50.

We are working in a world of imperfect data. But lets say we knew for a fact there was a new variant springing up in Iceland (say). Banning travel to and from Iceland and demanding anyone coming and going enter a really strict quarantine would indeed reduce the risk to the general population.

Statistically, travel increases novel players into the ecosystem. We can lock down here and try to mitigate control, keep people in geographically locked clusters, etc etc. But if you fly in on a BA flight from anywhere (after connections) we're now introducing someone into the system who could have been in the safest place in the world or could have been licking doorknobs somewhere they don't much have it under control. Accepting that we haven't much had it under control, introducing even more into the system is not a great idea.

It's not really about your risk, it's about the total risk.

acequion wrote: »

The above is what I'd like clarified. They can obviously make quarantine mandatory but can they legally ban non essential travel? I don't think that's what they're doing and I don't think it would be an easy thing to legislate for. But I'd love to know. Anyone?

And if not doing non essential travel is still an advisory then you would imagine that the €500 fine is not for travelling perse but rather for making non essential journeys beyond 5km in a lockdown. Though €100 for a domestic violation. But do those fines not end once restrictions start to relax? They did before.

The Irish are not just compliant and conservative, we are utterly subservient to authority, but I would be amazed if this fine isn't challenged.

I'm referring to the fine, not to the PCR and quarantine rules which though I find excessive, are understandable.

Reading the Statutory Instrument referenced earlier under the 1947 legislation, which I think is being updated and extended, is pretty clear that the government believes it has the power (as yet unsuccessfully challenged in any court) to explicitly tell you that you cannot travel abroad.

an applicable person shall not travel from his or her county of residence to another county or to a state other than the State without reasonable excuse

With a long list of reasonable excuses ranging from essential work, to carry out an office of state, bring you kid to a creche (a lot of the exceptions are focused on the local restrictions but apply equally I suppose - so if you need to bring your kid to a creche outside the state? But the letter versus spirit there...)

There is an explicit out "where the person is not ordinarily resident in the State, leave the State".

Tenzor07

The other issue is that other than a handful of flights a week from Ryanair or Aerlingus, there's going to be little or no other operators flying into Ireland due to lack of demand...
Also puts the reopening of Cork and Shannon Ryanair bases into doubt.... at best they may send a couple of aircraft from the Dublin base..
Whatever limited flights are available will most likely be quite expensive as operators try and maximise the load factors...
If there's mandatory quarantine for all travelers then you may as well close the 3 main airports and just keep a basic staff on for cargo.

The Government need to step in and increase payments to the DAA to keep the operation fully funded and prevent job losses. They could also pay for operator landing fees, storage fees and other subsidies to AerLingus and Ryanair.

If the above doesn't happen then a lot of people are going to quickly realise what a small windswept rock Ireland is on the wrong side of Brexit Britain..

acequion

LuasSimon wrote: »

At this stage how many people are going to go abroad this summer?
Talking to neighbours and friends particularly this week everyone seems resigned to not been able to go on foreign holidays so they are all booking Clare, Galway,Wexford etc in recent days.

Good for them. I hope they'll all have a wonderful time in sunny Clare, Galway, Wexford :pac:

But last time I checked this thread is specifically about the impact on the aviation industry, not about folk going on staycation.

acequion

Nijmegen wrote: »

We are working in a world of imperfect data. But lets say we knew for a fact there was a new variant springing up in Iceland (say). Banning travel to and from Iceland and demanding anyone coming and going enter a really strict quarantine would indeed reduce the risk to the general population.

Statistically, travel increases novel players into the ecosystem. We can lock down here and try to mitigate control, keep people in geographically locked clusters, etc etc. But if you fly in on a BA flight from anywhere (after connections) we're now introducing someone into the system who could have been in the safest place in the world or could have been licking doorknobs somewhere they don't much have it under control. Accepting that we haven't much had it under control, introducing even more into the system is not a great idea.

It's not really about your risk, it's about the total risk.



Reading the Statutory Instrument referenced earlier under the 1947 legislation, which I think is being updated and extended, is pretty clear that the government believes it has the power (as yet unsuccessfully challenged in any court) to explicitly tell you that you cannot travel abroad.



With a long list of reasonable excuses ranging from essential work, to carry out an office of state, bring you kid to a creche (a lot of the exceptions are focused on the local restrictions but apply equally I suppose - so if you need to bring your kid to a creche outside the state? But the letter versus spirit there...)

There is an explicit out "where the person is not ordinarily resident in the State, leave the State".

Thanks for that and I had a read. But again these are temporary restrictions and it seems they can only prevent movement during the periods of temporary restrictions. Once restrictions are relaxed sufficiently to allow movement within the state it seems there is nothing preventing foreign travel. What new measures may yet happen remains to be seen but that would be my reading of it.

Nijmegen

acequion wrote: »

Thanks for that and I had a read. But again these are temporary restrictions and it seems they can only prevent movement during the periods of temporary restrictions. Once restrictions are relaxed sufficiently to allow movement within the state it seems there is nothing preventing foreign travel. What new measures may yet happen remains to be seen but that would be my reading of it.

Yes, the regulations are timed but open to extension. A lot of folks questioning if the govt can prevent you from travelling. The answer is, yes.

acequion

Nijmegen wrote: »

Yes, the regulations are timed but open to extension. A lot of folks questioning if the govt can prevent you from travelling. The answer is, yes.

Yes. But only in times of temporary restriction, to make it fully clear.

DFB BOY

Pal of mine works for the Airport Search Unit in T1,they were finishing their shift on Monday evening at 7pm.They were exiting out through the arrivals hall via customs as they had bought some items in the loop and a Iberia flight from Madrid had landed and he said there was between 40 - 60 Spanish students around the baggage belt collecting their baggage,ive 2 questions to ask

1.Why would they be over here???
2.Why were they allowed in???

Tenzor07

DFB BOY wrote: »

1.Why would they be over here???
2.Why were they allowed in???

Sounds like a job for "Joe Duffy?"