Live data from Hacker News

U.S. fines airlines more than $7M for not providing refunds

nytimes.com

241–242 of 242 posts

Re: U.S. fines airlines more than $7M for not providing refunds

#241
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Surgicals are not meant for protection against airborne contaminants.

I am surprised to see this type of reply in 2022. When I Google "do masks reduce COVID-19 transmission?", I get huge number of hits for peer reviewed published scientific papers. And most of the papers are focused on less-than-N95 masks. For the ones that I reviewed, the answer is overwhelming "yes", and a statistically significant reduction.

So we have a few issues with that query.

Do they reduce COVID 19 transmision is basically the same question as does a book stop a bullet. Yes. Is if sufficient? No. (Safe vs Safe-er)

With aerosols, it's a lot out there, they're light, move from low pressure to high, and they float. (You need better protection, and you have to ensure that the filter does it's job, surgical don't and can't do that.. although the CDC tried to hack their way through that with "fit adjustments")

With droplet, it requires those being projected, more affected by gravity, and it requires an entry point into entering you. (They're heavilier particles, and typically this is less likely to spread)

All of the masking in the US is regulated by OSHA for the work world. (And is only for the working world.. no N95s for children) That's why N95s are required in hospitals (with workers, and only for workers are N95s required to be fit tested) in this case. Unfortuantely with a lot of the papers you see .. they tend to minimize what other country's population standards. I think they (KF94s, FFP2s, KN95 [if you have a trust worthy regulation body] etc) would be a better fit for the general population.

Re: U.S. fines airlines more than $7M for not providing refunds

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the spam calling companies keep appearing and disappearing so quickly that it's hard for the government to find them. That's not the case for airlines.

It isn't that it is hard to find them but politicians are afraid of setting limits on cold calling because politicians themselves frequently use questionable call lists to robocall people. Also, they are too weak to sanction countries where spam calls are mostly originating. I believe the should start treating robocallers like terrorists, maybe drone a couple call centers and watch as they stop almost overnight.

>politicians are afraid of setting limits on cold calling because politicians themselves frequently use questionable call lists to robocall people.

I think they sometimes avoid this problem by only putting restrictions on commercial entities, not on political or charitable entities:

>In Michigan, commercial vendors are not permitted to robocall individuals without prior consent, but political campaigns and charitable organizations are exempt from any such restrictions.[1]

There does seem to be some bipartisan support for fighting spam calls.[2]

[1] https://www.michiganelectionlaw.com/political-spam-text-emai...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/31/traced-act-signed-into-law...

Post reply on HN