Graham wrote:
Has it been the same in Germany?
Even small GA fields in Germany are very inhomogeneous: Many of them are actually run by clubs and most of the planes there are also owned by the club so that the revenue generated by hangarage is quite limited. They did everything they could (in line with regulations) to keep open as much and as flexible as possible.
More medium sized airfields are different – also economically – but without income from movements (landing fees is a big topic here), fuel and cafe they are also not economically viable.
There are obviously always cases where an airfield operator tries to maximize the profit – but I do not think there are many airfields in Germany where 2020/21 will be the most profitable years (or even profitable years at all).
Malibuflyer wrote:
Absolutely! But we typically do them because we have an immediate benefit.
The immediate benefit of the vaccine is that subsequently, even when heavily exposed to the virus, you ~PROB80 won’t get infected, ~PROB95 won’t get ill even if you do get infected, and ~PROB99.9rec won’t die even if you do get ill. All those PROBS on top of the relatively low risk of each anyway.
But as I think we’ve said, this benefit isn’t as tangible and visible – so people only see the risk.
Peter wrote:
Latest news is that lateral flow tests are 18% false-positive.The UK is sequencing 50% of all positive tests now…
Hasn’t it also been said (and logically seems unavoidable) that self-administered swab tests of all kinds have a notable false-negative rate because people don’t swab their nostrils/tonsils hard enough? My girlfriend picked up a free pack of 7 lateral flow tests from the local chemist yesterday. The ‘Made in China’ wording on the box is amusing.
Malibuflyer wrote:
What would be the point of keeping an airfield open and run-in it into insolvency so that a developer can buy it and convert it into a great mall
“Airfield unattended, you may fly at your own risk. Please self announce on the tower frequency”. The airfield’s costs will be the same as being closed, and people can still fly: win-win.
That approach works marvellously in the USA, and it would work fine here. The airfields are often their own worst enemies. I’ve never seen businesses so keen to turn down business (or so overstaffed) as some UK airfields.
Graham wrote:
Has it been the same in Germany?
As Malibuflyer wrote, this is very different from airport to airport. My base for example is a municipal airport with no scheduled services. It is 75% owned by the city of Hildesheim and 25% by the local AeroClub. It was kept open throughout the pandemic, with normal operating hours. It is a part of infrastructure and nobody cares wheter it pays for itself or not, as it should be.
We’ve had this discussion before, but it’s really strange to ask for an airport to be economically viable in my eyes. It doesn’t have to.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Even small GA fields in Germany are very inhomogeneous
Indeed, there are difference here too and neither of the two I fly from fits the model I described. One is basically a strip owned by a maintenance company that provides hangarage and has no such concept as being open or closed – it is just there and you use it – the owner is never going to lock you out. The other, www.wlac.co.uk, is a serious training business and large club at a busy field, crucially all under the same ownership – and it is properly run.
I can think of a few which will have followed the methodology I described. It is quite rare here for a flying club/school/business to also own the airfield, and that probably makes the difference.
alioth wrote:
Airfield unattended, you may fly at your own risk
What makes this impossible according to many UK airfield operators/managers is liability, almost certainly imagined rather than real.
Cobalt wrote:
I am not sure this is what you mean – but the 1% is a completely different number from the 18%Specificity = [False Positives] / [Number of Tests] = 1%
??? = [False Positives] / [Number of positive Tests] = 18%From this one can calculate that around 1 in 20 tests was positive, which is in the right ball-park, so these numbers are consistent.
Now that sounds plausible, 1% / 5% is about 18%..
Interestingly, that ‘false positive ratio’ could go over 100% once the pandemic recedes, e.g. 1% / 0.5% is 200% :-)
Graham wrote:
The immediate benefit of the vaccine is that subsequently, even when heavily exposed to the virus, you ~PROB80 won’t get infected, ~PROB95 won’t get ill even if you do get infected, and ~PROB99.9rec won’t die even if you do get ill. All those PROBS on top of the relatively low risk of each anyway.
Add to that the PROB somewhere in between of hospitalisation, which has a direct connection with measures.
Graham wrote:
But as I think we’ve said, this benefit isn’t as tangible and visible – so people only see the risk.
I went to take my first shot (Pfizer) yesterday. I think the overwhelming feel of anyone having been there is relief and a maybe too early vision of freedom. Most people I talk to (certainly most whom I work with) can’t really wait to get their shot.
It is regrettable that the whole incidence around AZ and now JnJ has in many cases made people who otherwise would have without question agreed to be vaccined with either of those products now will see the risk higher than the benefit, but once again, this has a lot to do with press overstatements and ambiguous hust and hot by the authorities. My thoughts are with those who may well end up in a tight spot because the vaccine they had the first dose of may not be available for the 2nd, there solutions must be found fast.
One question in regard of the AZ effect is, if there was no ill effect on the first shot, what is the likeliness to get effects on the 2nd. If the blood problems really are limited to pre-existing conditions, it should be safe for a 2nd shot, but is there anything known about that?
in regard of the AZ effect is, if there was no ill effect on the first shot, what is the likeliness to get effects on the 2nd
Probably negligible.
There are rumours that the Pfizer one gives much stronger side effects on the 2nd dose than it does on the 1st.
would urge anyone in France who wants the vaccine to just go and get it. I’ve just booked my first and second jab (booked today, get it Thursday next week). I had no idea about how to ‘’get it’’ as I’m privately insured and not in any of the official healthcare systems but a friend just sent me the link and if you’re flexible within the department it’s very ease to get one. Age is not even a question when booking. (I’m 45 btw)
