|
Originally Posted by KathrynFlyingAway
(Post 11662477)
Where were they detained- inside or outside of the plane?
Anyone else remember how during SARS there were cases when airplanes landed with a potentially sick passenger, and they'd hold all the passengers INSIDE THE PLANE while checking it out? And they didn't immediately run boxes of N95 masks, protective eyewear and gowns on board either. I was then (and through memory, am now again) angry for all the other passengers trapped with the sick person. I've spent time visiting a person hospitalized with MRSA- even with the disposable covers etc., there was still a danger of transmission, but then I was volunteering to visit. To be trapped in a seat near a person-of-illness with the authorities not letting you move away? That's just wrong. I understand the need to screen the one potentially sick passenger. I understand why they might need to isolate all passengers from the rest of the airport, sure. Build a screening zone, and let everyone out so they can stand as far apart from each other as is possible. But the first person to board the isolated plane better have a box of masks, gloves, gowns and SaniZide wipes. |
Originally Posted by codex57
(Post 11663017)
With the closed air circulation on planes, isn't it too late for any fellow passengers?
|
Originally Posted by N830MH
(Post 11663038)
Yes, it might be too late for the passengers who does not onboard the aircraft more than 15 minutes. The gate door will be closed before the aircraft is takeoff. If they doesn't show up at the gate on-time.
1. How the risk of transmission changes with time. The risk of transmission often depends on how close one is seated to the passenger (see TB cases), so perhaps for those nearby people it's a binary "not too late / too late" situation. For everyone else, though, their risk might grow as the sick person increases their fever/ cough, and each time the sick person moves around and uses the facilities. So the last half hour could be far more important than the first half hour. 2. How the perception of risk changes when you know there's a sick person on board. Of course there can always be a sick person that no one else knows about. But by the end of a flight, if a plane is being held and you know exactly who/where the sick person is, you will want to get away from them. Being held with a known sick person and not allowed to move away from them, and not being given protection, that's not good. |
Originally Posted by N830MH
(Post 11663003)
Yes, I remember what happening lot of those people who cause of death with SARS in Asia. So the situation is going on lot of people who gotten very sick. It was more than 200 people death due to swine-flu. So homeland security need to have more precautions with those people who does not have sick with swine-flu. So they won't let the passengers onboard the aircraft. So they will have need to be check with doctor to make sure its everything okay. So this is too much vulnerable lot of those people who have any diagnosis before. It might to be very carefully out there in between Mexico or USA. I believe there is enough evidence some of those few people who gotten swine-flu. The CDC will have to screening for every passengers before they are allowed onboard the aircraft. The safety must to be screening who is not have any health illness. I think they will have to get flu-shot before they are clearance enter into USA. I think it would best time try to stay home and don't go anywhere to see these people will causing lot of disease problems. I think it should getting better to stop the flu-swine.
|
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
(Post 11662256)
Speaking of swine, it appears that an entire planeload on Airtran inbound from Mexico was detained at BWI tonight after the crew noted 2 people who seemed sick....
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1663213 "Out of an abundance of caution....." |
Please explain to me why DHS has apparently been given the lead role in attempting to control this outbreak? I can see why they might be charged with monitoring flights into the US, but why was not HHS given the lead?
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 11663473)
Please explain to me why DHS has apparently been given the lead role in attempting to control this outbreak? I can see why they might be charged with monitoring flights into the US, but why was not HHS given the lead?
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 11663586)
For the same reason that those assclowns were put in charge of making a complete cluster____ out of Katrina. DHS consistently screws up because it is a bloated, unnecessary, un-American agency that should have never been created.
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 11663473)
Please explain to me why DHS has apparently been given the lead role in attempting to control this outbreak? I can see why they might be charged with monitoring flights into the US, but why was not HHS given the lead?
|
DHS? Trying to track AIRLINE transmission of swine flu???
WHEN PIGS FLY!!! |
Originally Posted by goalie
(Post 11663423)
sheesh..... i can't wait for some pax to pick out some brown skinned pax who sneezes and then screams, "there's a swine flu ter'wrist on the plane" :rolleyes:. you should see me when my allergies are in "full bloom".....eyes watery, bloodshot & looking like went 12 rounds plus not to mention the sneezing, stuffy doze and blocked ears.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=598&sid=1663315 Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters says the men just had too much to drink. The men refused treatment after being evaluated. The rest of the passengers had to stay on the plane for a little under an hour. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:16 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.