3 ms·

So the fatality rate across the B737 family is 0.24 per million flights, the rate for the A320 family is 0.09 per million flights. That's 3 times the risk of de

by cm2187 3y ago

So the fatality rate across the B737 family is 0.24 per million flights, the rate for the A320 family is 0.09 per million flights. That's 3 times the risk of death boarding a B737 vs boarding an A320. If we apply the same logic than people who wanted to mandate covid vaccines for the population not at risk, reducing a minuscule risk by a factor of 3 to another minuscule risk is hugely important and therefore people shouldn't be allowed to fly on those dangerous B737!

janalsncm 3y ago
If covid deaths were as rare and as non-communicable as airplane fatalities, you would have a good point.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> reducing a minuscule risk Official stats say COVID killed a million people in US alone and 6 million globally. Thats more than Ebola, more than tuberculosis. War in Ukraine killed far less, is it miniscule? Furthermore, we still have people getting repeat infections - and full extent of damage is unknown, but its not pretty. Its quite clear that covid is close to tuberculosis than it is to ordinary flu
- cm2187 3y ago
  > Official stats say COVID killed a million people in US alone and 6 million globally with a median age of 80. I am talking about the population not at risk (i.e. young, no serious medical condition).
  - andybak 3y ago
    And still the risk of death was much higher than the risk you're comparing it to. And that's ignoring the cumulative effect of infection not to mention secondary effects on resourcing. Are you serious about this point?
kayodelycaon 3y ago
The 737 NEO is 0.07. Earlier 737 models predate the Airbus 320 by nearly 20 years. The equivalent Boeing planes are marginally safer in context. The 737 MAX has a horrible ratio because it’s very new and had a very serious flaw on launch which caused multiple crashes. Whether or not it’s equivalently safe now is yet to be proven.
- cm2187 3y ago
  The point is that even the 737 max number is minuscule and not worth worrying if you are only flying a few times a year. People are bad at understanding tiny numbers. The probability of not crashing on the Max being 999,997 out of 1,000,000 I think is a bit easier to process.

by cm2187 3y ago

janalsncm 3y ago

If covid deaths were as rare and as non-communicable as airplane fatalities, you would have a good point.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> reducing a minuscule risk Official stats say COVID killed a million people in US alone and 6 million globally. Thats more than Ebola, more than tuberculosis. War in Ukraine killed far less, is it miniscule? Furthermore, we still have people getting repeat infections - and full extent of damage is unknown, but its not pretty. Its quite clear that covid is close to tuberculosis than it is to ordinary flu

cm2187 3y ago
> Official stats say COVID killed a million people in US alone and 6 million globally with a median age of 80. I am talking about the population not at risk (i.e. young, no serious medical condition).
- andybak 3y ago
  And still the risk of death was much higher than the risk you're comparing it to. And that's ignoring the cumulative effect of infection not to mention secondary effects on resourcing. Are you serious about this point?

kayodelycaon 3y ago

The 737 NEO is 0.07. Earlier 737 models predate the Airbus 320 by nearly 20 years. The equivalent Boeing planes are marginally safer in context. The 737 MAX has a horrible ratio because it’s very new and had a very serious flaw on launch which caused multiple crashes. Whether or not it’s equivalently safe now is yet to be proven.

cm2187 3y ago
The point is that even the 737 max number is minuscule and not worth worrying if you are only flying a few times a year. People are bad at understanding tiny numbers. The probability of not crashing on the Max being 999,997 out of 1,000,000 I think is a bit easier to process.