5 ms·

I don't know what kind of new scanner technology they have, but I noticed at Louis Armstrong International (MSY) they've dispensed with making you take your sho

I don't know what kind of new scanner technology they have, but I noticed at Louis Armstrong International (MSY) they've dispensed with making you take your shoes off or pull your laptop out to be scanned separately. I hope they keep finding ways around this security theater malarkey.

doikor 4y ago
They most likely have the new fancy 360 degree xray machines. Basically the operator can look at the stuff inside your bag from any angle so having a laptop (hunk of metal blocking you from seeing what is behind it) won't block them from seeing the other stuff in the bag and thus no need to take them out anymore. Shoes we never had to remove shoes or if we had to it was for a very short period of time. At least that is what they did at Helsinki-Vantaa airport here in Finland. This is what is being used now https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/products/920ct https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/products/920ct
realjhol 4y ago
[flagged]
- LoganDark 4y ago
  > Shoes and liquids are so 2000s. It's 2023, so it's all about masks and vax mandates What's wrong with COVID vaccine mandates? It sort of stops people from dying. Sure you can be annoyed at masks (I don't wear one, for instance), but vaccines? You get poked a couple times and you're done. It's basically nothing and doesn't impact your life whatsoever. (Unless you have some sort of allergy or immune disorder of course.)
  - arghnoname 4y ago
    Mandating a medical treatment may be in some cases ethically acceptable, but it should only be done if absolutely necessary. In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. Personally I think if someone only increases risk on themselves, it's the same as refusing cancer treatment or anything else, that's their choice. If it imposes risk on others there is some threshold where mandates might make sense, but I don't think we met it with COVID, given the insufficient safety and efficacy data we had at the time of the mandates. It seems for at least some populations it is a pretty risky (relatively, not absolutely) vaccine.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      > In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. Of course. > They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Vaccines are a preventative measure; I would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. (Not claiming vaccines completely prevent COVID, just that they definitely seem to reduce the risk of one getting sick from it.) And what about herd immunity? If, say, 99% of a population is vaccinated, then will 1 in 100 people still be at great (or greater) risk due to the vaccinated population still carrying and transmitting the virus freely? Or would those 1 in 100 people be at lesser risk due to less people coughing and sneezing everywhere? -Emily
      - realjhol 4y ago
        > If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Not if they already had it and recovered with mild symptoms. > would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. It doesn't matter what you want. It matters what the patient receiving the treatment wants. It's their body not yours. > And what about herd immunity? Herd immunity means widespread natural immunity, which is what the largely benign but highly transmissible omicron strain gave to us over a year ago.
  - realjhol 4y ago
    > What's wrong with COVID vaccine mandates? It sort of stops people from dying. Not so. The UK government has now published its estimate of the number of people needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation: 25-Jan-2023 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... For example, in the 30-39 year no-risk group (my age group), the number needed to vaccinate to prevent a visit to a hospital is 9,900. To prevent one serious hospitalisation requiring oxygen or ventilation you would need to vaccinate 87,600. As for the safety of the vaccines, in randomized control trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines here in the UK, we now know that the risk of serious adverse effects from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines was 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated i.e. a ~1 in 800 chance of serious adverse effects: 22-Sep-22 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ In other words, our risk associated with vaccination is more than 100 times greater than the protection we would receive from it - even if we didn't have some degree of natural immunity - which we do.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  The vax mandates have been around since the 1950s.

doikor 4y ago

They most likely have the new fancy 360 degree xray machines. Basically the operator can look at the stuff inside your bag from any angle so having a laptop (hunk of metal blocking you from seeing what is behind it) won't block them from seeing the other stuff in the bag and thus no need to take them out anymore. Shoes we never had to remove shoes or if we had to it was for a very short period of time. At least that is what they did at Helsinki-Vantaa airport here in Finland. This is what is being used now https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/products/920ct https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/products/920ct

realjhol 4y ago

[flagged]

LoganDark 4y ago
> Shoes and liquids are so 2000s. It's 2023, so it's all about masks and vax mandates What's wrong with COVID vaccine mandates? It sort of stops people from dying. Sure you can be annoyed at masks (I don't wear one, for instance), but vaccines? You get poked a couple times and you're done. It's basically nothing and doesn't impact your life whatsoever. (Unless you have some sort of allergy or immune disorder of course.)
- arghnoname 4y ago
  Mandating a medical treatment may be in some cases ethically acceptable, but it should only be done if absolutely necessary. In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. Personally I think if someone only increases risk on themselves, it's the same as refusing cancer treatment or anything else, that's their choice. If it imposes risk on others there is some threshold where mandates might make sense, but I don't think we met it with COVID, given the insufficient safety and efficacy data we had at the time of the mandates. It seems for at least some populations it is a pretty risky (relatively, not absolutely) vaccine.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    > In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. Of course. > They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Vaccines are a preventative measure; I would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. (Not claiming vaccines completely prevent COVID, just that they definitely seem to reduce the risk of one getting sick from it.) And what about herd immunity? If, say, 99% of a population is vaccinated, then will 1 in 100 people still be at great (or greater) risk due to the vaccinated population still carrying and transmitting the virus freely? Or would those 1 in 100 people be at lesser risk due to less people coughing and sneezing everywhere? -Emily
    - realjhol 4y ago
      > If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Not if they already had it and recovered with mild symptoms. > would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. It doesn't matter what you want. It matters what the patient receiving the treatment wants. It's their body not yours. > And what about herd immunity? Herd immunity means widespread natural immunity, which is what the largely benign but highly transmissible omicron strain gave to us over a year ago.
- realjhol 4y ago
  > What's wrong with COVID vaccine mandates? It sort of stops people from dying. Not so. The UK government has now published its estimate of the number of people needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation: 25-Jan-2023 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... For example, in the 30-39 year no-risk group (my age group), the number needed to vaccinate to prevent a visit to a hospital is 9,900. To prevent one serious hospitalisation requiring oxygen or ventilation you would need to vaccinate 87,600. As for the safety of the vaccines, in randomized control trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines here in the UK, we now know that the risk of serious adverse effects from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines was 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated i.e. a ~1 in 800 chance of serious adverse effects: 22-Sep-22 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ In other words, our risk associated with vaccination is more than 100 times greater than the protection we would receive from it - even if we didn't have some degree of natural immunity - which we do.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
The vax mandates have been around since the 1950s.