The actual covid risk on public transport

[Gromit]

In general my fear would simply be overcrowding rather than anything specifically with the air. Though it should be said that it wasn't that long ago that government advice for driving was to have windows open and keep well ventilated if carrying someone outside your bubble.

The surfaces (seats and hand bars etc) seem like a perfect vector for transmission as well. Though this can and should be managed by the individual but less easy with young kids. If people are still cleaning their bags of pasta and cans of baked beans they are not likely to want to touch anything inside a train that is cleaned once a day.

The touch points on London tube trains are sprayed with a disinfectant that lasts a month. They are resprayed every 21 days (less than a month). The daily clean has little to do with Covid. It’s what has always been done.

 

[Teaboy]

Just like there are many negative consequences of people being more frightened of public transport than they really need to be.

Is there an argument to say that people really shouldn't use public transport unless they have to?* That way it makes it even safer for those who have no choice?

*Certainly at peak time anyway.

 

[teuchter]

No you haven't. You've narrowed it to a context of public transport. Risk literacy is definitely a discussion worth having. There was no need to single out public transport.

I wanted to have a discussion on risk literacy as applied to public transport.

The OP is pretty clear on what I wanted to talk about.

 

[Gromit]

What doesn’t help confidence in the tube is the no mask idiots (if you have a medical condition then I’m Brad Pitt) and the nose hanger / chin strap wankers. Yes you are technically wearing a mask in the same way I’d be wearing trousers if my dick was hanging out the top but my balls were covered.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there is a very good point here about perceived risk and actual risk. If you're sat on a mostly empty bus and someone across the way from you doesn't have a mask on, it probably makes next to no difference to your actual risk, but many people will feel uncomfortable.

As ever, we need more solid information. At home, in certain types of workplace, and in hospital appear to be the three main places to catch C-19. Problem there is that we mostly have very little control over who we live with, whether we have to go to work and how the workplace is, or whether or not we have to go to hospital. So we are likely to fixate rather on the things we can control, such as using public transport, even where the benefits of our changed behaviour may alter our overall risk only by a very tiny amount. With people switching to cars as part of their covid risk aversion, that's potentially pretty damaging. It also exacerbates the class aspect to all this. One of the reasons the UK has been so badly hit is the massive social inequality that exists here compared to other European countries.

 

[teuchter]

Is there an argument to say that people really shouldn't use public transport unless they have to?* That way it makes it even safer for those who have no choice?

*Certainly at peak time anyway.

Well, it depends on what they do instead. I'd say it's a good idea to ask people to minimise travel by public or private transport where they can. If an unnecessary journey is avoided by not making the journey at all (or say making it on foot), then that's a good thing. In some circumstances, it might be of benefit to do it by car instead. But in other circumstances - certainly in cities, that can have negative consequences whether it's increasing air pollution for everyone, or causing congestion which public transport also gets caught up in. So it doesn't necessarily make it safer for those who have no choice.

 

[Teaboy]

Well, it depends on what they do instead. I'd say it's a good idea to ask people to minimise travel by public or private transport where they can. If an unnecessary journey is avoided by not making the journey at all (or say making it on foot), then that's a good thing. In some circumstances, it might be of benefit to do it by car instead. But in other circumstances - certainly in cities, that can have negative consequences whether it's increasing air pollution for everyone, or causing congestion which public transport also gets caught up in. So it doesn't necessarily make it safer for those who have no choice.

Yes, I guess I was thinking more in the context of the 'it's time to get back to work' bollocks in jobs that can and are being done from home. Also socialising in our local areas where we can walk to etc. In this regard is some people being wary of public transport a net positive?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, it depends on what they do instead. I'd say it's a good idea to ask people to minimise travel by public or private transport where they can. If an unnecessary journey is avoided by not making the journey at all (or say making it on foot), then that's a good thing. In some circumstances, it might be of benefit to do it by car instead. But in other circumstances - certainly in cities, that can have negative consequences whether it's increasing air pollution for everyone, or causing congestion which public transport also gets caught up in. So it doesn't necessarily make it safer for those who have no choice.

Yeah, this last point is a very good one. This isn't zero-sum even wrt risk in the whole population, let alone wrt pollution, climate change, etc.

 

[Gromit]

It would help if everyone planned extra time for their journey.

Train too crowded? Wait for next train.
Worried about someone? Move away from them. Get off next stop. Wait for next train.

People dont do this though because Londoners are always in a rush rush rush.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I guess I was thinking more in the context of the 'it's time to get back to work' bollocks in jobs that can and are being done from home. Also socialising in our local areas where we can walk to etc. In this regard is some people being wary of public transport a net positive?

People walking/cycling/scootering more is definitely a win-win. Good for them, good for those who need to use public transport. But where it is leading to people switching to their cars, it's not so straightforward. From what I know from others and have seen for myself in London, there is a mix of the two going on.

You're totally right about the back to work shit though. It stinks of yet another U-turn in the offing. Clueless.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, I guess I was thinking more in the context of the 'it's time to get back to work' bollocks in jobs that can and are being done from home. Also socialising in our local areas where we can walk to etc. In this regard is some people being wary of public transport a net positive?

Not if it just means they get in their cars instead. This is very visible in London just now.

On the "back to work bollocks" I don't think it's entirely straightforward either. There are some people (not all people of course) who would actually like to get back to work, who might benefit from doing so from a mental health point of view. I'd like them to be able to make as informed a choice as they can, about the risks/benefits of them doing so, if getting back to work means having to use public transport.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not if it just means they get in their cars instead. This is very visible in London just now.

On the "back to work bollocks" I don't think it's entirely straightforward either. There are some people (not all people of course) who would actually like to get back to work, who might benefit from doing so from a mental health point of view. I'd like them to be able to make as informed a choice as they can, about the risks/benefits of them doing so, if getting back to work means having to use public transport.

What they've done in Sweden seems the right balance. No insistent pressure either way, but a recommendation to people to work from home if they can right into next year. And importantly, that's been a single, clear, unchanging message right from the start.

 

[Teaboy]

Not if it just means they get in their cars instead. This is very visible in London just now.

Its not really round my way and the few times I've had to venture further a field I've seen traffic levels still a lot lower than in non-covid times. Also I was specifically talking about journeys that don't need to be made or can be made by foot.

On the "back to work bollocks" I don't think it's entirely straightforward either. There are some people (not all people of course) who would actually like to get back to work, who might benefit from doing so from a mental health point of view. I'd like them to be able to make as informed a choice as they can, about the risks/benefits of them doing so, if getting back to work means having to use public transport.

Which is kind of my point. People like me and my partner not using public transport makes it safer for those people. They're not going to feel any safer it it becomes more crowded just because some study from some country says trains are fine.

 

[two sheds]

No you haven't. You've narrowed it to a context of public transport. Risk literacy is definitely a discussion worth having. There was no need to single out public transport.

Fair enough question to ask though. Yes a thread on covid risk literacy would be good - but then would limiting it to covid be accused of the same thing?

 

[planetgeli]

Fair enough question to ask though. Yes a thread on covid risk literacy would be good - but then would limiting it to covid be accused of the same thing?

Well tbh I've only encountered this phrase because of Covid (which isn't the same thing as saying it originated from Covid obviously).

And, er, it's the Covid forum.

 

[Teaboy]

Well tbh I've only encountered this phrase because of Covid (which isn't the same thing as saying it originated from Covid obviously).

And, er, it's the Covid forum.

I've encountered the phrase 'health literacy' a lot as I know someone who works in healthcare communications. There is a lot of crossover here and I agree its probably worthy of a discussion.

 

[two sheds]

Well tbh I've only encountered this phrase because of Covid (which isn't the same thing as saying it originated from Covid obviously).

And, er, it's the Covid forum.

indeed - but then the criticism would be that it should have been a general risk literacy thread that should have gone in the general forum

I'm interested in the relative risks of public transport because that is going to be my major risk over the coming months if I'm going to use it for journeys I can't avoid (hospital and vet). Yes it would be good to have a general covid risk literacy thread - go ahead I'd be interested in that, too.

 

[two sheds]

As I said somewhere else I'd feel relatively ok about bus if I could get an early morning one with relatively few people on it. Coming back after about 4pm after all the asymptomatic kids have piled out of school without masks I'm not so sure. I'm going to look like a real tosser stood up the front of the bus with loads of seats available behind me because I think that's my plan. (Hopefully I can get neighbours to give me a lift but I don't like asking).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

indeed - but then the criticism would be that it should have been a general risk literacy thread that should have gone in the general forum

I'm interested in the relative risks of public transport because that is going to be my major risk over the coming months if I'm going to use it for journeys I can't avoid (hospital and vet). Yes it would be good to have a general covid risk literacy thread - go ahead I'd be interested in that, too.

Brutal truth is that you will probably be more at risk in the hospital than travelling there and back. Good news is that your part of the world continues to be relatively lightly affected.

Tbh that's one reason why I'm a bit uneasy about a lot of the recent noises re mask-wearing, pub-going, or gathering-in-groups-larger-than-six. I haven't heard honesty or contrition about the basic infection protocol failures in the first wave, nor is there much enthusiasm from government to talk about the way they will protect the vulnerable in hospitals/care homes this time. Nor digging down into why the poor have been up to three times more affected than the rich. These are the real issues that face us now, and how they are dealt with will determine the extent of the crisis in the second wave, but the first step to solving a problem is to admit that there is a problem.

ETA: Read some shocking figures this morning relating to stroke outcomes in the NHS since lockdown. The outcome depends heavily on the speed of the response, and a combination of swamped hospitals and people afraid to go to hospital for fear of catching covid has resulted in a bunch of people with more disability than they otherwise would have. There could be a similar horror story to come out wrt heart attacks.

Can't find the original article, but this is a sky article reporting on it.

Linking this back to the thread, the perception of high infection risk in hospitals in the first wave was not unfounded. Changing that perception by changing the reality is key to avoid a repeat of these failures.

 

[two sheds]

Yes there's a risk in the hospital, but I spoke to specialist last week and he said it should be quite low because I'm in for a scan and it's a quick in-and-out.

But as you say Cornwall's got quite low risk at moment - the specialist noted having the scan soon as being a "window". I'm going to watch what happens with schools and pubs and things though.

Was talking to friends - one of whom said he'd met a couple of visitors down here who actually had cv and had come down to Cornwall to recover and another friend who'd been to a local pub which was "heaving".

A general covid risk comparison thread wouldn't be a bad idea really if this is overestimating the risk on public transport.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes there's a risk in the hospital, but I spoke to specialist last week and he said it should be quite low because I'm in for a scan and it's a quick in-and-out.

Yep, from what I've been reading about how people have caught it in hospitals, it has mainly been people who are staying at least overnight.

 

[elbows]

Yep, from what I've been reading about how people have caught it in hospitals, it has mainly been people who are staying at least overnight.

The main statistics I've seen relating to this and the underlying methodology used to create those stats, would only pick up people who stayed in hospital for a number of days anyway. Because they tend to rely on patients being in hospital for a certain number of days before showing symptoms or testing positive in order to flag those as probable hospital-acquired cases. Early on they had a very long cutoff where someone had to test positive not until 14 or more days after going into hospital in order to count, but this was later reduced to 5 days.

 

[elbows]

Tbh that's one reason why I'm a bit uneasy about a lot of the recent noises re mask-wearing, pub-going, or gathering-in-groups-larger-than-six. I haven't heard honesty or contrition about the basic infection protocol failures in the first wave, nor is there much enthusiasm from government to talk about the way they will protect the vulnerable in hospitals/care homes this time. Nor digging down into why the poor have been up to three times more affected than the rich. These are the real issues that face us now, and how they are dealt with will determine the extent of the crisis in the second wave, but the first step to solving a problem is to admit that there is a problem.

Surely you are only uneasy because you've developed your own opinion about the risks of pubs, impact of masks etc.

I dont share your opinion of those other things, and so I can go on and on about the significant role of hospital and care home infections without feeling the need to use them to downplay the risks from other settings.

Todays pub example......

Newcastle City Council leader Nick Forbes said the temporary measures would hopefully "head off the potential of any further damaging full lockdown across the region".

"The evidence we've found from local testing is that it's spreading in three main areas - in pubs, in people's homes and in grassroots sports," he said.

"So [council leaders] have put together a series of requests to government for additional restrictions around these areas for a fixed period of time to try to prevent a damaging full lockdown."

From Coronavirus: New restrictions in north-east England

 

[WouldBe]

Besides, I only posted it to annoy teuchter by reminding him that planes are public transport...

You could always open the doors to improve the ventilation.

 

[two sheds]

Don't they make soft-top planes any more?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

In general my fear would simply be overcrowding rather than anything specifically with the air. Though it should be said that it wasn't that long ago that government advice for driving was to have windows open and keep well ventilated if carrying someone outside your bubble.

The surfaces (seats and hand bars etc) seem like a perfect vector for transmission as well. Though this can and should be managed by the individual but less easy with young kids. If people are still cleaning their bags of pasta and cans of baked beans they are not likely to want to touch anything inside a train that is cleaned once a day.

Afaik train companies are cleaning such surfaces with a substance that kills viruses which last weeks, rather than days, as part of their cleaning schedules. Seats are probably bad though.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Don't they make soft-top planes any more?

Covid secure

 

[WouldBe]

Strap the passengers to the wings for social distancing.

 

[Roadkill]

Covid secure

View attachment 230693

Or the Aloha 243 look, perhaps?

 

[two sheds]

So what do we reckon the comparative risks are?

Multiple occupancy houses 5/4 on favourite
Meat packing plants and windowless factories 6/4
Schools 2/1 (but invisible transmission to grannies and grandads)
Packed pubs after 11pm (I luuuuurve you ❤) 2/1
Packed tube 3/1
Packed buses 4/1
Windowless trains 4/1
Trains with windows 6/1
Pub gardens 10/1
Grouse shoots 3,000,000/1

(all figures averaged and normalized)