Live data from Hacker News

Flight Attendants and Covid-19

confessionsfromaflightattendant.wordpress.com

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#81
post #60

I think flight attendants is probably a job that should be for people that have had CV and have recovered already. I can't imagine anyone doing that job without becoming infected.

At least for now, it's believable they could work safely. There's very few people on the aircraft, and snacks/beverages are mostly stopped. Also, contrary to popular belief, the air in the aircraft is refreshed fairly often from the outside (via the engines).

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. We don't have conclusive data that you can only get COVID-19 once. We don't have conclusive evidence that viral load / exposure volume is what controls the severity of the disease. Right now, it simply looks too risky to attempt; people will volunteer to die painfully, and the ones that survive might not even be spare…

> I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. Counterpoint: I would volunteer for this today if it was an option.

Perhaps you would. But with our present state of knowledge, it might be medical malpractice for a hospital to help you to do so.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#83
post #4

Since hospitals are practically empty right now, have we thought of allowing people to voluntarily get infected/quarantined (using a tiny viral load)? Obviously no old, immuno-compromised, or other vulnerable people. But for healthy "essential" workers it would mean not living in fear that they might get it... because they already got over it.

> But for healthy "essential" workers it would mean not living in fear that they might get it... because they already got over it.

That does seem to be the prevailing public understanding, but it's not actually yet known to be the case.

Of course it's possible, but it would be gambling not just on successful recovery (as it always would) but also that it would end up being effective anyway.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#84
post #48

"That woman by the way was traveling by herself with a dog kennel, a baby, a car seat and two carry-on bags, and yet the airport was in the wrong for not having anything or anyone ready to assist her as she deplaned" I actually think it's reasonable that the woman expects more from the airport. They levy very high margin charges for landing, departure, parking, rent for vendors, and so on. Reasonable service seems ex…

I think that it is reasonable to expect the woman to check in the car seat and at least one of the carry-ons as baggage. I also think it is reasonable for the flight attendant and other passengers to expect the airline to enforce their rules on this, although maybe with more leniency now, but do not then expect extra service for breaking common curtesy.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#85
post #7

The days of carefree travel will return. It'll be a while, but it will be back. In early March, looking for a park to sit quietly with my thoughts in the sunshine but away from others, I found myself in a local cemetery. Alone, but not far from a great many people. Seattle's a pretty young place on the scale of things. I was surprised to find that our local graveyard had a substantial contingent that had lived throug…

Can I just say how refreshing it is to see this perspective on HN instead of the "denialist/open-up" faction warring with the "no really this is serious" folks? Indeed, this will pass. It's bad, we have a lot of work to do before it does. There's more suffering to come. But it's not the end of anything.

Might be the end of you though.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. Counterpoint: I would volunteer for this today if it was an option.

I'm curious about your reasoning for that

As is, the prime of my life is effectively being wasted; none of my regular pursuits are possible and I can't visit any of my family or friends. For healthy people in my age group there's roughly a 0.1% IFR and with about six decades of life remaining, that works out to about a three week expected loss of my lifespan if I'm infected. If I were able to visit my parents I could do most of their regular shopping/errands for them, decreasing their risk profile.

I feel that I'm well informed on the potential risks to myself.

Put in reverse - what duration and severity of restrictions to your life would you be willing to endure in exchange for a three-week boost to your life expectancy?

I'd even sign up for periodic attempts at re-infection to ensure that I'm (still) immune.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#87
post #15
post #6

> ... the gate agent is not going to be your personal valet because you didn’t have enough god-given common sense to plan your travels accordingly. You can call ahead and arrange for a sky cap to assist you with luggage, or if you ambulatory help, such as a wheel chair. This is well worth it if walking through an airport will be challenging for you. The sky cap will get you past the lines and through the airport in r…

The mobility assistance services (in this case, American Airlines) are a godsend. My father has a terminal illness (well, we all do, but his is more advanced) -- they made it possible for him to travel everywhere on a complicated itinerary to see family. I traveled with him on much of the journey; their assistance was incredible. Tip high. They exceeded expectations in every airport.

As a kid I used to do that job. Paid minimum wage plus the occasional tip. The flight attendants and gate staff sometimes offer minimal assistance moving a traveler into a stair chair when the person cannot even get out of their seats, but usually they left even that to us. At least at US airports, those guys work for the airport, not the airline.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#88
post #7

The days of carefree travel will return. It'll be a while, but it will be back. In early March, looking for a park to sit quietly with my thoughts in the sunshine but away from others, I found myself in a local cemetery. Alone, but not far from a great many people. Seattle's a pretty young place on the scale of things. I was surprised to find that our local graveyard had a substantial contingent that had lived throug…

There will be some sense of normalcy, but not the old normal. For example, even an event like 9/11, which is small in the scale of a pandemic, had deep consequences for travel and related industries. There will be traveling after the current pandemic, but it will be much different from what we're used to.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#89
post #48

"That woman by the way was traveling by herself with a dog kennel, a baby, a car seat and two carry-on bags, and yet the airport was in the wrong for not having anything or anyone ready to assist her as she deplaned" I actually think it's reasonable that the woman expects more from the airport. They levy very high margin charges for landing, departure, parking, rent for vendors, and so on. Reasonable service seems ex…

I think that it is reasonable to expect the woman to check in the car seat and at least one of the carry-ons as baggage. I also think it is reasonable for the flight attendant and other passengers to expect the airline to enforce their rules on this, although maybe with more leniency now, but do not then expect extra service for breaking common curtesy.

Lots of people have stopped flying infant in arms because it’s far safer for babies to be properly secured. The FAA is rather clear on that.

That means the car seat wouldn’t be checked: it would be strapped down to a seat and the baby strapped in that.

In this case, it’s very possible - even likely, because airlines like selling seats - that baby was a revenue passenger entitled to a carry-on bag of its own.

Re: Flight Attendants and Covid-19

#90
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still risky for healthy young individuals, while most barely present symptoms some people have a very real risk of dying. "Voluntarily allowing people to get infected" creates a perverse incentive for poor essential workers to put their lives on the line in order to put food on the table.

What's the perverse incentive? I don't think the proposal is that essential workers should have to get infected before they work.

It's not so much a “perverse incentive” for essential workers as a direct attack, as every essential worker who would choose this route to get infected increases the risk profile for everyone they work with (not all of whom are young and otherwise healthy.) But it stops being a problem there if, as most proposals for reopening suggest, general shelter in place is replaced with targeted quarantines of the infected and exposed (and especially if, for this specific option, any resulting lack of employment from choosing voluntary infection by this route is treated as voluntary separation from work and thus not subject to public benefits.)

The perverse incentive would be for non-essential workers, but only if this is coupled with one of the existing proposals for “certificates of immunity” (which there is little scientific basis for, but that's another issue) being a factor in allowing them to return to non-remote work.

Post reply on HN