rockflyertalk

We have witnessed and seen the implications of 9/11 to air travel. There are still, almost 20 years on, checks to ensure people are clean of harmful possessions or weapons on flights and in airports.

I recently watched Border Control on TV and also Heathrow: Britain’s Busiest Airport. Whilst I appreciate these are TV programmes and edited, scripted etc for engagement.

HOWEVER, I do wonder when I see people, both on these TV shows and personally in real life, board aircraft with medical conditions that can be life threatening or susceptible to further issues in certain conditions, like an enclosed metal tube with particular atmospheric conditions, should these people be allowed to fly?

It’s harsh and possibly on the face of it, reactive to today’s crisis...granted. But there are studies that suggest epidemics, pandemics could or may well be more frequent than we wish for.

I see air travel in its current state/form as a huge contributor to these issues we face. We have all seen the dirty BA cabins posted about or talked about. Otherwise BA, LGW, Governments etc would not be stopping travel.

Just travelling on a tube (subway) you can see or partake in the dirty atmosphere/conditions.

So why are we allowing passengers to travel overseas via aircraft with medical conditions?

Should there now be stricter rules to ensure everyone including the said passenger is safe to fly?

This isn’t necessarily just about others but about the passenger themselves. Health of others in this crisis is clearly an important aspect but overall what is the line that we draw upon to prevent such crisis.

Just like 9/11 we implemented rules that are a pain for frequent flyers but they save lives.

Should we now consider measures for air travel to prevent epidemics?

I’d be keen to hear thoughts on this.

fransknorge

One of the many problem with that idea is that there is a wide range of contagious disease with each a different testing method and result time. Rather than introducing an extremely intrusive layer of safety I would rather see education, materials and enforcement on good hygiene procedure: soap mandatory everywhere, proper paper towel to dry hands, masks usage, scrupulous hygiene procedures.

stc

If / when there is a vaccine for COVID-19, I see it being quite possible that countries would require proof of vaccination to allow people in. Heck, I would not be surprise if countries even started requiring vaccination against the "common" flu. And until there is a vaccine, I'm not betting what happens.

yosithezet

We don’t see this with regards to TB except for immigration purposes so I doubt it will be the case for COVID-19, if there is a vaccination.

crazy8534

I completely agree there will be long-term changes. I am inclined to say that much of what happens in this field has lots to do with reassurance and less to do with the evidence-base. There will be no precision-engineered subtle alterations, expect a shotgun-approach!

Guessing, I would say some of:
1. Measures designed to deal with infection: travellers probably having to sign a disclaimer to say that they have not had a fever or new cough in the past X number of days. Random or all-encompassing temperature checks at security.
2. Hygiene: changes to the way food is served on board, possibly no more free-pour drinks (although if that means individual bottles of DP who am I to complain?!), big changes to airport lounges- I could see free buffet never making a comeback. I could see many non-airline affiliated lounges closing and the big airlines consolidating their offerings.
3. Transfer/immigration: big changes to how easy it is to change planes at airports or buy/take flights with multiple connections- I think this will have a big impact on the mileage runners.

southlondonphil

That will surely depend on how widespread, recurrent, and deadly Covid-19 turns out to be. I wouldn't rule out some/many countries requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of entry in future.

Also, and linked, Visa-on-Arrival will be less of a thing, and people will have to go back to getting all sorts of paperwork in advance for a lot of countries that currently don't require it. Simply because a lot of places will be keener to know who you are and where you've recently been before you pitch up at immigration.

yosithezet

SARS has no vaccine and no cure and we didn’t see these measures in place even in the hard hit countries. I doubt we will see them in place two years from now when hopefully this is behind us.

largeeyes

You do for Yellow Fever......

yosithezet

Where? It can’t be widespread in Asia as I’ve not been asked this when I’ve entered countries hundreds of times in the past 15 years. Nor when entering Schengen.

boerne

Since there is already a way to show proof of immunization, I am betting that the universal Yellow WHO immunization card gets a new addition. Proof of immunity or vaccination for SARS Cov 2.

We had to get new yellow cards and re-immunization for yellow fever last year because we lost ours in a move. Our friends traveling with us work for a large health group on the west coast. Their travel office gave them a print off of their immunization status that had the Great Seal of that state on it rather than the yellow card. The thinking was, we are the Great State of xxxxxxx, so everybody in the world should know this is better than that crappy WHO card. At the Tanzanian border, those of us with yellow cards blew right through. The border patrol told our friends they could go across the border for $5000 US a piece. I don't recall the final outcome but it was not $5000 because one of them is a skilled negotiator. At all of the other border crossing our guide made them sit in the car at border crossings and act too infirm to get out.

In my opinion, not only will they look for vaccination status or acquired immunity for COVID at border crossings, but they will group think it out and add a bunch of other diseases. Your health status will be as important as how many 3 ounce bottles you have, and that cork screw cant go.

boerne

Africa and south america.

https://www.cdc.gov/yellowfever/vaccine/index.html

GUWonder

Never been asked to show such a thing in my past twenty years of a lot of travel to Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. So it’s not most of South America, even if some other countries there may ask to be shown such thing.

boerne

Totally depends on where you have been and where you are going. Did a week on the Peruvian Amazon at high water, which was an amazing trip and highly recommended.

The risk is greatest in the jungle regions to the east of the Andes (vaccination recommended). The risk is low in the Andean highlands (above 7,550 feet, or 2,300 meters) and along the entire coastal strip to the west of the Andes (vaccination generally not recommended).

Some countries, such as Ecuador and Paraguay, require travelers to show a yellow fever certificate if arriving from countries with a risk of yellow fever transmission (such as Peru). If you arrive in such a country without a valid yellow fever certificate, you may be required to receive the vaccine on entry. In extreme cases, you may be placed in quarantine for up to six days.

https://www.tripsavvy.com/yellow-fever-in-peru-1619798

southlondonphil

SARS (SARS-Cov-1) isn't endemic (i.e. always present at a steady level of infection), and its spread in the early 2000's was never a pandemic and there were fewer than 10,000 cases worldwide. The total number of deaths from SARS between 2002 and 2003 is about half the number of Covid-19 deaths that the USA reported just for yesterday

SARS-Cov-2 is at a whole other level of transmission, and the precautionary measures that may be enacted should it be "here to stay" are quite likely to be more extensive.

stc

As I understand it, SARS is both less contagious and more deadly. So, it burns itself out quicker. COVID-19 is a game changer.