7 ms·

Do Masks on Plane Flights Really Cut Your Risk of Catching Covid-19?

35 points by AndrewBissell 6y ago

woliveirajr 6y ago
> masks are working — and working well. One thing that I couldn't find and will re-read the article: seems that they are just concluding this from one airline that enforce masks. Comparing the numbers from other companies would give better information.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  I think the reason Emirates was the main focus is because they are particularly strict in enforcing mask wearing on their flights.
  - ihattendorf 6y ago
    Right, but are the results similar to other airlines that aren't as strict?
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      Ah I see what you mean, good question!
    - cjj 6y ago
      DOD and United Airlines had a study out last week that backs this up. There was also a report from iata with studies from Airbus, Boeing and Embraer. Flying is almost certainly not as dangerous and people perceive it to be.
      - mcguire 6y ago
        Perhaps. But masks are most effective on preventing someone contagious from infecting others and only secondarily in preventing you from being infected. As a result, you may find the risks are higher on airlines that are less strict than Emirates.
psadri 6y ago
I wish airlines would introduce flights that require everyone to test negative before boarding. It could even be a low frequency special flight in their schedule instead of every flight in the route.
- gruez 6y ago
  Can tests be done in a reasonable amount of time prior to boarding? Or would they be using week-old test results?
  - jonshariat 6y ago
    15min tests are possible, we have a health center here in the bay area that does them. I'm guessing the difference is actually having the testing machine present vs sending it out.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Weird. https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-youve-been-exposed-to-the-coronavirus https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-yo... "The FDA recently granted emergency use authorization to a new rapid antigen test for COVID-19. How is it different from other tests on the market? "The FDA recently granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new diagnostic test for COVID-19. Results from this inexpensive test are available within 15 minutes. "The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card, as the test is known, detects antigen proteins on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Unlike other diagnostic tests for COVID-19, BinaxNOW does not require a laboratory or other equipment to process or analyze the test results. This makes it portable and fast. "This test is approved for use in people who are suspected of having COVID-19, and must be done within seven days of when their symptoms began.... "Positive test results are highly specific, meaning that if you test positive you are very likely to be infected, particularly if you are tested during the first week of infection when you are experiencing symptoms. False negatives are a bigger concern. As with other antigen tests, BinaxNOW can miss infections, producing negative test results in people who are actually infected." They also say, previously, "Antibody tests can tell if someone has been infected with COVID-19. But the infected person doesn't begin producing antibodies immediately. It can take as long as three weeks for a blood antibody test to turn positive. That's why it is not useful as a diagnostic test for someone with new symptoms." So if the test is positive, you probably are infected. If it is negative, you may be infected. Presumably the reports on BinaxNOW have the actual numbers. Also, "The time from exposure to symptom onset (known as the incubation period) is thought to be three to 14 days, though symptoms typically appear within four or five days after exposure. "We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms.... "Most people with coronavirus who have symptoms will no longer be contagious by 10 days after symptoms resolve. People who test positive for the virus but never develop symptoms over the following 10 days after testing are probably no longer contagious, but again there are documented exceptions. So some experts are still recommending 14 days of isolation."
kaonashi 6y ago
Masks aren't about personal protection. In fact the masks that do offer personal protection often have vents which undermines the entire point of wearing the masks in the first place. You wear them because you might be infected and not know it, and it helps to stop spittle from your exhalations and speaking from atomizing into the air.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  The last part is very true. The first part is not true. It's one of the surprising things we have discovered about this unusual pandemic. Unvented, even single layer, masks do offer some degree of protection to the wearer against COVID-19. Perhaps it just keeps your hands out of your face. Anything that lowers R0, even a little is beneficial. Masks work. Better masks work better.
- maneesh 6y ago
  Don't ventless N95/KN95 masks protect both you and others?
- Mc_Big_G 6y ago
  N95s with vents direct exhales downward and probably have a similar or even better effect at preventing the spread.
tinus_hn 6y ago
I’m not sure what kind of scientist would test only the truth side of his hypothesis and then conclude that he is right. To really reach any valid conclusion he’d also have to analyse flights where people did not wear masks.
- triceratops 6y ago
  There's no ethical way to run that experiment now. But they do provide an anecdotal example of a maskless flight causing lots of transmission at the start of the article.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    Statistical analysis does not require running experiments but it does require an unbiased approach.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Every airline has mask policies in place so natural experiments comparing masked and unmasked flights as the control group are impossible. Deliberately running unmasked flights as a control group is ethically fraught. A statistically rigorous analysis can't be done in this case. This is the best we can get. Requiring masks on flights has very little downside or cost, and potentially big upside.
      - tinus_hn 6y ago
        That’s fine but then you can’t present it as a scientific argument. Choosing a few anecdotes and talking about it as if it is science is dishonest. Face masks are a perfect ‘red herring solution’: - They are very visible so you can see who’s using them - They are slightly inconvenient so it makes users feel they’ve done their part - However slightly, they infringe on the basic right to breathe so people have a reason to rebel against them This causes conflict and gives the users a reason to feel superior - They come with a plausible though difficult to prove or disprove story But don’t forget there just is not a whole lot of convincing evidence masks and especially the kind used by the general population actually have any effect on the spread of COVID-19.
egberts1 6y ago
Shutdown churches but keep airlines open shows a warped sense of government priority when assuming mask works.
- triceratops 6y ago
  FTA: "Planes have excellent air ventilation and filtration systems, which remove coronavirus particles from the air about every six minutes, the U.S. Transportation Command reported Thursday. "So the only opportunity to breathe the virus in comes from the air that passes by you before it goes through that ventilation system," says engineer Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech. "And so that's only going to happen if you're sitting close to the person who's sick.""
  - ars 6y ago
    Churches have windows. The government could even make that a requirement, that they keep them open with lots of ventilation.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Try proposing that to your local government and see if you can convince them. We still live in a democracy. For that matter, churches can already hold services in the parking lot or a nearby public park or some other place outdoors, right? That's how Jesus did it - He didn't preach inside a church building. Why not adapt?
    - nomel 6y ago
      The planes have forced air recirculation, with vents at every passenger. I think this is much different than opening a window.
    - mikestew 6y ago
      Churches often have windows of stained glass that they'd like to remain undamaged, so the glass is covered with a transparent cover that does not open. Of those church buildings not old enough to utilize a lot of stained glass, the ones I've seen are built like office buildings: windows don't open. But as sibling comments point out, your comment is missing a lot of subtleties. Starting, IMO, with the difference between an apple and an orange.
clairity 6y ago
npr is an awful source for good information about covid, as it's especially partisan and fearmongering on this issue. and this article just continues that tradition with poor reasoning that's not meant to provide proof but rather political fodder, division, and (they hope) donations.
- elheffe80 6y ago
  Did you read the article? The main takeaway was to wear your mask and you will be less likely to get covid on a plane. They mentioned that the air is filtered every 6 minutes. Showed statistics where infected people on a plan with people who were all mandated to wear masks infected no one. That isn't fear mongering, that is letting people know they can fly safely, just wear a good mask.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The presentation though does a backhanded attack on the science by clickbait headlining implying the matter is more dubious and promoting doubt while fearmongering the masks as ineffective. Publishing a high visibility "Did the Holocaust really happen?" headline in the New York Times would rightfully anger people even if the article answer is "yes, duh".
  - clairity 6y ago
    it's poor form (and against site guidelines) to question whether someone read an article. like many other npr stories, it insinuates a lot and provides a wholly and intentionally incomplete narrative to construct a solid argument in hopes that you miss the missing pieces and just nod along. it's entirely plausible that the filtration system did all the work and masking was merely performative. as others have pointed out, they completely skipped comparisons with other flights where people weren't all rigorously masked (just pick another airline in hong kong). it's hysterical, and it only distracts from the primary community transmission risk, the private social gathering, because it's uncomfortable and harder to tackle that issue instead.
brundolf 6y ago
> During those three weeks, Emirates had five flights with seven or more infected passengers on each flight, for a total of 58 coronavirus-positive passengers flying on eight-hour trips. And yet, nobody else on the planes — none of the other 1,500 to 2,000 passengers — picked up the virus, Freedman and his colleague report in the Journal of Travel Medicine. That's amazing. Though, importantly: > Planes have excellent air ventilation and filtration systems, which remove coronavirus particles from the air about every six minutes, the U.S. Transportation Command reported Thursday.

35 points by AndrewBissell 6y ago

> masks are working — and working well. One thing that I couldn't find and will re-read the article: seems that they are just concluding this from one airline that enforce masks. Comparing the numbers from other companies would give better information.

AndrewBissell 6y ago
I think the reason Emirates was the main focus is because they are particularly strict in enforcing mask wearing on their flights.
- ihattendorf 6y ago
  Right, but are the results similar to other airlines that aren't as strict?
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Ah I see what you mean, good question!
  - cjj 6y ago
    DOD and United Airlines had a study out last week that backs this up. There was also a report from iata with studies from Airbus, Boeing and Embraer. Flying is almost certainly not as dangerous and people perceive it to be.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Perhaps. But masks are most effective on preventing someone contagious from infecting others and only secondarily in preventing you from being infected. As a result, you may find the risks are higher on airlines that are less strict than Emirates.

psadri 6y ago

I wish airlines would introduce flights that require everyone to test negative before boarding. It could even be a low frequency special flight in their schedule instead of every flight in the route.

gruez 6y ago
Can tests be done in a reasonable amount of time prior to boarding? Or would they be using week-old test results?
- jonshariat 6y ago
  15min tests are possible, we have a health center here in the bay area that does them. I'm guessing the difference is actually having the testing machine present vs sending it out.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Weird. https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-youve-been-exposed-to-the-coronavirus https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-yo... "The FDA recently granted emergency use authorization to a new rapid antigen test for COVID-19. How is it different from other tests on the market? "The FDA recently granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new diagnostic test for COVID-19. Results from this inexpensive test are available within 15 minutes. "The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card, as the test is known, detects antigen proteins on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Unlike other diagnostic tests for COVID-19, BinaxNOW does not require a laboratory or other equipment to process or analyze the test results. This makes it portable and fast. "This test is approved for use in people who are suspected of having COVID-19, and must be done within seven days of when their symptoms began.... "Positive test results are highly specific, meaning that if you test positive you are very likely to be infected, particularly if you are tested during the first week of infection when you are experiencing symptoms. False negatives are a bigger concern. As with other antigen tests, BinaxNOW can miss infections, producing negative test results in people who are actually infected." They also say, previously, "Antibody tests can tell if someone has been infected with COVID-19. But the infected person doesn't begin producing antibodies immediately. It can take as long as three weeks for a blood antibody test to turn positive. That's why it is not useful as a diagnostic test for someone with new symptoms." So if the test is positive, you probably are infected. If it is negative, you may be infected. Presumably the reports on BinaxNOW have the actual numbers. Also, "The time from exposure to symptom onset (known as the incubation period) is thought to be three to 14 days, though symptoms typically appear within four or five days after exposure. "We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms.... "Most people with coronavirus who have symptoms will no longer be contagious by 10 days after symptoms resolve. People who test positive for the virus but never develop symptoms over the following 10 days after testing are probably no longer contagious, but again there are documented exceptions. So some experts are still recommending 14 days of isolation."

kaonashi 6y ago

Masks aren't about personal protection. In fact the masks that do offer personal protection often have vents which undermines the entire point of wearing the masks in the first place. You wear them because you might be infected and not know it, and it helps to stop spittle from your exhalations and speaking from atomizing into the air.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago
The last part is very true. The first part is not true. It's one of the surprising things we have discovered about this unusual pandemic. Unvented, even single layer, masks do offer some degree of protection to the wearer against COVID-19. Perhaps it just keeps your hands out of your face. Anything that lowers R0, even a little is beneficial. Masks work. Better masks work better.
maneesh 6y ago
Don't ventless N95/KN95 masks protect both you and others?
Mc_Big_G 6y ago
N95s with vents direct exhales downward and probably have a similar or even better effect at preventing the spread.

tinus_hn 6y ago

I’m not sure what kind of scientist would test only the truth side of his hypothesis and then conclude that he is right. To really reach any valid conclusion he’d also have to analyse flights where people did not wear masks.

triceratops 6y ago
There's no ethical way to run that experiment now. But they do provide an anecdotal example of a maskless flight causing lots of transmission at the start of the article.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Statistical analysis does not require running experiments but it does require an unbiased approach.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Every airline has mask policies in place so natural experiments comparing masked and unmasked flights as the control group are impossible. Deliberately running unmasked flights as a control group is ethically fraught. A statistically rigorous analysis can't be done in this case. This is the best we can get. Requiring masks on flights has very little downside or cost, and potentially big upside.
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      That’s fine but then you can’t present it as a scientific argument. Choosing a few anecdotes and talking about it as if it is science is dishonest. Face masks are a perfect ‘red herring solution’: - They are very visible so you can see who’s using them - They are slightly inconvenient so it makes users feel they’ve done their part - However slightly, they infringe on the basic right to breathe so people have a reason to rebel against them This causes conflict and gives the users a reason to feel superior - They come with a plausible though difficult to prove or disprove story But don’t forget there just is not a whole lot of convincing evidence masks and especially the kind used by the general population actually have any effect on the spread of COVID-19.

egberts1 6y ago

Shutdown churches but keep airlines open shows a warped sense of government priority when assuming mask works.

triceratops 6y ago
FTA: "Planes have excellent air ventilation and filtration systems, which remove coronavirus particles from the air about every six minutes, the U.S. Transportation Command reported Thursday. "So the only opportunity to breathe the virus in comes from the air that passes by you before it goes through that ventilation system," says engineer Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech. "And so that's only going to happen if you're sitting close to the person who's sick.""
- ars 6y ago
  Churches have windows. The government could even make that a requirement, that they keep them open with lots of ventilation.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Try proposing that to your local government and see if you can convince them. We still live in a democracy. For that matter, churches can already hold services in the parking lot or a nearby public park or some other place outdoors, right? That's how Jesus did it - He didn't preach inside a church building. Why not adapt?
  - nomel 6y ago
    The planes have forced air recirculation, with vents at every passenger. I think this is much different than opening a window.
  - mikestew 6y ago
    Churches often have windows of stained glass that they'd like to remain undamaged, so the glass is covered with a transparent cover that does not open. Of those church buildings not old enough to utilize a lot of stained glass, the ones I've seen are built like office buildings: windows don't open. But as sibling comments point out, your comment is missing a lot of subtleties. Starting, IMO, with the difference between an apple and an orange.

clairity 6y ago

npr is an awful source for good information about covid, as it's especially partisan and fearmongering on this issue. and this article just continues that tradition with poor reasoning that's not meant to provide proof but rather political fodder, division, and (they hope) donations.

elheffe80 6y ago
Did you read the article? The main takeaway was to wear your mask and you will be less likely to get covid on a plane. They mentioned that the air is filtered every 6 minutes. Showed statistics where infected people on a plan with people who were all mandated to wear masks infected no one. That isn't fear mongering, that is letting people know they can fly safely, just wear a good mask.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The presentation though does a backhanded attack on the science by clickbait headlining implying the matter is more dubious and promoting doubt while fearmongering the masks as ineffective. Publishing a high visibility "Did the Holocaust really happen?" headline in the New York Times would rightfully anger people even if the article answer is "yes, duh".
- clairity 6y ago
  it's poor form (and against site guidelines) to question whether someone read an article. like many other npr stories, it insinuates a lot and provides a wholly and intentionally incomplete narrative to construct a solid argument in hopes that you miss the missing pieces and just nod along. it's entirely plausible that the filtration system did all the work and masking was merely performative. as others have pointed out, they completely skipped comparisons with other flights where people weren't all rigorously masked (just pick another airline in hong kong). it's hysterical, and it only distracts from the primary community transmission risk, the private social gathering, because it's uncomfortable and harder to tackle that issue instead.

brundolf 6y ago

> During those three weeks, Emirates had five flights with seven or more infected passengers on each flight, for a total of 58 coronavirus-positive passengers flying on eight-hour trips. And yet, nobody else on the planes — none of the other 1,500 to 2,000 passengers — picked up the virus, Freedman and his colleague report in the Journal of Travel Medicine. That's amazing. Though, importantly: > Planes have excellent air ventilation and filtration systems, which remove coronavirus particles from the air about every six minutes, the U.S. Transportation Command reported Thursday.