Aren't all models theoretical (unless they're OO-gauge?) Gravity is only a theory, but it's backed up by an awful lot of circumstantial evidence. Try not to put the science down - and in the same sentence tell me to read it!
Specifically to your points:
1. To the theoretical model - COVID19 has not changed its ways of travelling through the air - the research from Japan is still valid. The dispersion of aerosols within a train is still a problem.
Trains are no more a risk than any other similar environment; indeed modern trains with good aircon or older trains with opening windows are not really an issue. The issue perhaps comes with trains that don't have opening windows and don't have decent aircon (e.g. Class 158) but most adults are now vaccinated so it really isn't an issue any more.
2. Yes - we are safer now more of the population is vaccinated.
Much safer; the vaccines are incredibly effective where it really counts, which is avoiding serious illness.
3. No - it's not safe, there are people who carry it, 40,000 tested positive cases a day, and about 1 in 60 people carrying it currently (ONS survey). Put that another way, in a very crammed carriage, two people have it on average. Do you feel lucky - by the way, it's the bloke stood next to you, coughing - oh, you can't move because it's full??
The rates are much higher among unvaccinated people, especially children. A huge proportion of the positive cases are in children (is it more than half? I think so, or thereabouts). There is no need to feel lucky; the only luck we have is that we are living in the age of really good vaccines.
4. How's your immunity today? Do you know? There are people with compromised immunity just trying to get by, or many with waning immunity. Approx 150-200 dead people a day - many if not most are now vaccinated - and sure, there will be underlying illnesses too for many.
About 1600 people die each day actually and one way to increase life expectancy is to use modes of transport other than the car. The number of Covid deaths right now is not actually any higher than 'flu deaths in a bad 'flu year. Were people making a fuss when we had a bad 'flu year? these arguments are no more valid now than then.
Waning immunity has been exaggerated; people tend to focus on antibodies but the memory B & T cell response is robust and very long lasting, offering long term protection against serious illness. The way Coronavirus and Rhinoviruses work is that we need to be re-exposed to them every so often to act as a natural booster. This virus is no different. It's a natural process.
However if someone is immunocompromised, they do have the option of wearing a highly effective FFP3 mask (or not quite as effective, but still very good, FFP2 mask) which means they can be right next to an infectious person who is coughing and be sure of avoiding infection. It's not for the majority of people but it is an option for those who feel they need it.
5. True - you cannot know what event exactly caused your catching a virus - you can't know being on the train was the cause, unless you wore a hazmat suit until you boarded the train. It is a probabilistic event, if the probability of transmission is reduced, through not running over-crammed services, you have less chance of catching it..
I rarely become ill from viruses and I regularly catch over-crammed services. The real solution to avoiding illness is actually to keep yourself physically active, eat well, get a reasonable amount of sleep and look after yourself. Being exposed to virus particles is an entrely natural and unavoidable thing.
So.. to the point: let's not try to pretend everything is safe - what we need to do is find out what level of risk we are comfortable with and accept it. A crowded train is out of my comfort zone today - but I'd happily join a less crowded one.
If people feel a train is too crowded for them, they can choose to get a later train if they wish. I do not think compensation should be offered, but Advance fares should be accepted on the next available service (by the relevant operator) if trains are genuinely really busy.
You’d better not go to the cinema, then. Or the pub or any restaurants, for that matter. In fact, might be better off staying behind the couch.
Covid isn’t going away - we will need to live with it for the foreseeable future.
Agreed. If people really do not trust vaccines and cannot get over their fears, they can either stay at home, or wear an FFP3 mask.
Who is going to foot the bill for train operating companies / the Government to run twice as many trains (and employ more staff) just so that they can be emptier?
All it will do is prolong the inevitable endemic immunity in any case, so a waste of time. Anyone who is really concerned can always drive the car anyway, during which the chances of death are considerably higher than that of boarding a supposedly germ-laden train.
I completely agree, though I will throw in the option of wearing an FFP3 mask to people who do want to use public transport (or simply have no choice over the matter) and who require additional reassurance.
FFP3 masks have been found to be pretty much 100% effective and in a real world study resulted in a 47 fold reduction infection rates, compared to standard masks (which are basically placebos, as they allow aerosols through).
FFP3 masks have a close fit and are specifically designed to filter out aerosols.
If you're worried just wear an FFP3 mask.
Why the song and dance?
Exactly; we are well informed and know this, but the average person does not. That's because the public have been completely mislead over masks.
It is rare that any media outlet will explain to people that FFP3 masks are almost 100% effective and that standard masks do not filter the tiny particles that can result in virus transmission.
The general public is led to believe that masks are masks and are not told that the difference between effective masks and standard masks is absolutely huge.
Those who promote masks tend to want to get other people to wear any old masks, so don't tend to mention that FFP3 masks genuinely protect the wearer. Instead, they tend to promote standard masks and are keen to admit that they offer no protection to the wearer and the benefit is supposedly that they protect others. The implication is that people cannot protect themselves. But this is an entirely false premise.
So, why the status quo? Why aren't the public better informed? The answer is simple: most people have no need for masks, and those that are keen to promote masks want to see everyone wearing masks rather than just those who are immunocompromised. Therefore, mask promoters tend not to mention that FFP3 masks are highly effective.
It's a crazy situation, but that is where we are.
