Travelling for Work

[SittingHereThinking1]

Here’s a question from a work colleague. Her friend (different company) has been asked to travel for work. Could be classed as essential travel, so all legal and legit. It would involve driving to the airport and getting on a nine hour flight with Virgin (all passengers PCR tested, cabin air recycled every 2-3 minutes), all passengers masked. Business class, so fewer surrounding passengers. Two weeks immediate isolation on arrival, so no chance of passing it on at the other end. The destination has basically no Covid at all. She would be staying there for a month.

She has refused, and she is outraged that the company has asked her to travel, saying it is too high risk. She is saying that she is too worried of catching it and spreading it to go.

I think she hasn’t done her calculations correctly. She lives in London, is part of a support bubble with two people (who have also met other people and been out shopping etc as per the legal guidelines) and has met friends outside for walks (all within the law of course). Basically she has been and will continue to interact with people on a daily basis who have a 1 in 20 chance of being infected. For 30 days, when 29 of those could be zero risk.

What I have issue with is her estimation of risk. Surely over a month in London there is statistically a much greater chance of catching the virus, vs 11 hours of travel (two in the airport and 9 surrounded by PCR negative passengers wearing masks in the plane.) She’s vastly more likely to catch it and pass it on in a London supermarket. AIBU in thinking her estimation of risk is just factually incorrect, and she would be at much lower risk over time of catching and spreading it if she went?

@Cattitudes haha 14, 13 and 11. Believe me they need supervision.

She just can’t be arsed to go and covid js a good excuse I would imagine

THe govt guidelines have ways been ‘continue going to work if you can’t work from home’. Millions of people are still working. Amazon warehouses are just as likely a vector of disease as an airport. But somehow people are freaking out about this one place. That’s what I’m trying to get to the bottom of. Not whether she should go or not (I don’t know and I don’t care) but what is it about an hour and a half in an airport that makes you MORE likely to catch Covid there than 30 x however many minutes visits to the supermarket, or the hospital, or the garden centre. That’s what is massively confusing me!

@thewinkingprawn yeah probs.

@notimagain thank you that’s very interesting.

Many many people are working out of the home at the moment. Do I think her reason for being asked is more important than some of the random jobs that are allowed to WFH right now? Yes. But that’s not my issue. It’s about whether it’s more likely to catch Covid here or in the process of one days travel. That’s what I want to look at. Of course everyone has the right to work or not on any grounds they like. Just some reasons are more valid than others. Oh and I don’t think she’s some brainiac. She’s part of a team that has brainiacs in it but she seems pretty much like the rest of us as far as I’ve heard.

Sorry of course I meant random jobs allowed to work outside the home.

No one is going to be able to provide you with the specific statistics you think are necessary to win your argument.

However, if something starts going wrong, you are more likely to be able to change strategy on home turf and quickly move from Plan A to a safer Plan B, and even to a plan C if necessary. You know the environment better, you have more options available to you, and you can therefore control your variables better.

As a basic example, if you turn up to a supermarket and notice that no one inside is practising social distancing, you can leave and go somewhere else or come back later. You know the local environment, you know what your other shopping options are.

If you get on a plane, it takes off, and suddenly the passenger nearest you takes off their mask and starts coughing and spluttering, well, you're screwed. You can't control the other passengers' behaviour, people are unpredictable and there's no easy way to exit a plane early on a long haul flight.

Is it statistically less likely you'll encounter any issues on the long haul trip vs going about your daily business in your local environment? Maybe. But that doesn't mean you won't encounter any issues, and you're less likely to be able to mitigate them if they arise.

You don't know this woman or her job. If she doesn't think she needs to be travelling right now, she probably has a better idea than you of whether that's true.

Three teens and you put them to bed at 8pm?
😐
Drip feed coming? 💧

I think maybe your "friend" doesn't want to spread covid, which would be eminently decent of her.

@waydownwego yes but there must be statistics on chances of acquiring Covid in various places. I know the stats of actually catching it in flight are very very low. What about the airport though? Is there something about an airport that makes it especially dangerous? And your analogy isn’t useful really I’m afraid because over the course of thirty days worth of shopping trips, friend visits, walks down the street here you have much less control over the chances of people ‘coughing over you’ than 11 hours. Even if you’re literally out your house for an hour a day, that’s still 30 hours of contact time with potentially symptomatic people. Most will actually (between doing their shopping, meeting their support bubble, who have also been meeting other people if they are key workers, which many are) be in contact with other people for vastly more time and therefore in that time more likely to be infected. And they have no ‘control’ over that either. Even if they might think they do.

@MiaowMix don’t understand what drip feed means.

And that’s my point. You are more likely to spread Covid here. It’s more dangerous at this point to stay. Unless you literally never leave the house.

@MiaowMix not that it’s hugely relevant but he eldest takes care of herself. The younger two need a bit of love.

Right 👍🏼

Could she be worried she is a carrier?

I work over seas in a small(ish) island that has had very few cases (first cases last Feb, but under 200 the full time). In a place with strict government quarantine (think electronics tagged so you can’t leave home). I know 3 people who came from over seas tested before getting on plane negative when getting off (or on their day 4 of quarantine) tested posted. These people caused others to be isolated (people in airport same day as them, taxi drivers, members of staff who had welcomed them- even though in PEE and over 2m away), airport shut for deep cleaning. is she worried coming from such a high risk place to a low risk place she could be causing a outbreak.

@SittingHereThinking1

Healthcare when sick is a good point. Isolation is not depressing in this instance- can’t clarify more than that, but it’s not believe me! None of these issues are what she is upset about though. She says it is MORE risky to travel and be somewhere safer for a month (I do think the figures are accurate) than to stay in the U.K. for the same time. That is what is unreasonable. I don’t question whether she wants to go etc. That is a personal decision and not the question I want to ask. What I want to ask is about statistical risk. And surely with the NHS as overrun as they say it is and ambulance waiting times in London being in crisis, any healthcare option is safer than here right now!!

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33184655/

There are many articles about the risks.

Arguably, if she sees x people as per guidelines in the UK, who she trusts to also be following the rules, that would in my eyes, be a lower risk than x times by thousands of unknown contacts that would be in potential contact, directly or in directly in the airports, getting to the airport, going through security, before she even gets to the flight. Many of these people won't have been tested or will have tested 3 days ago when could have been negative and now not. And god forbid got someone else to test if had a possibility of being positive.

All possibilities.

All greater numbers. With greater numbers, there's greater risk.

Then she has to do it all again.

[quote SittingHereThinking1]@MiaowMix don’t understand what drip feed means.

And that’s my point. You are more likely to spread Covid here. It’s more dangerous at this point to stay. Unless you literally never leave the house.[/quote]
You mean doing what we're supposed to be doing - staying at home!

@mother but that’s not what is happening. People have to go out to get their shopping from the supermarket, their hours exercise, any hospital appointments. Loads of very legitimate reasons to go out. But the point is you have no idea who you are coming into contact with on these everyday errands

@Kayakinggirl yes this would be a legitimate concern, but the one that I’m asking about is the risk of catching and spreading it en route. But also if she is a carrier, she’s spreading it every day she’s in the U.K., to every person she comes into contact with in a shop. Which is my argument- OVER TIME the risk to self and others is greater here.

My initial thoughts would be that if she’s at home and working from home she does not have to come ‘into contact’ with people much at all. Shopping can be done at quiet times or online and you can choose to be careful and stay 2m away from others. Same with going for a walk - it can be socially distanced. I’d have thought that if I was sharing a 9hr flight with someone who had covid, I’d be quite likely to catch it. I would be more concerned about the flight itself and any other public transport than the airport. Added to that, the risk of being somewhere with potentially poor access to good healthcare would make me very concerned.

@MotherExtraordinaire but I think it’s just as possible to go through an airport without being in close contact with anyone for a significant amount of time than in any other indoor venue. You wouldn’t pass thousands of people. Unless you wandered around literally the entire airport!

I am desperate to go on holiday abroad. I know I can't. - but even when we are allowed, I won't be getting on a plane until I've had the vaccine. And I'm not someone who's not been out and about. I agree with her. . And I really wouldn't fancy isolating in a strange country either - what kind of existence is that?

@LavendarMoon just kind of baffled by all the people who think that going to a hospital in london at the peak of a pandemic is a safe option right now... access to good healthcare is not the way I’d describe an NHS which the govt have said is at breaking point!

It’s probably not safe, but if you’re having difficulty breathing, it’s better to have some access to healthcare than none. We can’t judge that if we don’t know where you’re talking about.

Yeah I don’t know either. I think maybe somewhere in Asia but I don’t know. I think infrastructure there is supposed to be fine. But again, not my friend so I don’t know all the details. But the question I had is- is a moderately risky one off event more risky than a lower risk series of actions performed day in and day out. Surely risk is about time and repetition as much as it is about absolute risk? That’s just an abstract thought, but in her mind it’s about the catching and spreading, not all the other factors.

But I may well be wrong about the risk analysis. Anyway it’s been very delightful (my first mumsnet post so thank you very much!) I’m off to bed. I very much appreciate all your perspectives.

It is morally wrong, in my opinion, to possibly take the virus from here (a very high risk country) to another (lower risk) country. She may quarantine on arrival, but that doesn't do any good for the customs officials, taxi drivers, etc. she will come in contact with before reaching her final destination. She may be more likely to catch and spread here, but we already have the new variant, so she wouldn't be dragging the virus to a new country if she stays put. It really is simple: Stat. At. Home.