CoVid19, can todays soft society live with it if we have to or will 2019 levels never reappear

Heard immunity and a reduction in inection was supposed to happen at 60% infection/vaccination. Now some countries are there but infection rates continue to rise. 

New scenario; We need to be at 90% vaccination rate because the vaccines are at best 90% effective and with the latest virus version only 30% after first dose. And not at all in some that are immuno compromised.

This could drag on. When 90% won't do it they will come with the 3'rd injection and what then. Will there be a 4'th and a 5'th and then annual boosters. This is the problem when there is no plan B as an alternative to vaccination. Or maybe vaccination was plan B and a plan C is just to much for politicians to think about. 


At some stage we will have to live, or die, with the CoVid19 virus. It's a cold virus just like the 4 others that we have lived with for at least a hundred years. It's just we weren't that well informed when each of them first came around and killed left right and center until a humanity emerged that could overcome them.

We are not there yet where most of us will accept the costs to others, and probably also to ourselves, that living with another cold virus will eventually lead to. In history some have had to live on with 80% casualty rates from oher types of viruses brought to a civilisation with no built in immunity and no real medical knowledge. 

There are certainly politicians around, and in charge in some places, that have no problem living with other peoples suffering. And many medical professionals where already emotionally hardened through years of working with patients that die all the time. 


For airlines the longer it drags on the more problematic the costs of oversized fleets are going to be. Some don't seem to care. Ryanair got a reprieve by delayed ExMax deliveries but now they are storming ahead with fleet expansion trusting their bank balance to get them over. Or is its bosses more of the ageing gung ho made their money and if it works they will be even richer and if not they are still well off and somebody else takes the losses variety.

But what if there is no return to 2019 passenger levels, ever. Other environmental impacts are marching on with many campaigners seeing no reason why they should care about bruised airlines over a bruised planet. Dreaming of electric planes in 5 to 10 years rather than the more realistic a few percent per year improvement in fuel economy per passenger kilometer for the next 30 years. The middle ground is a rapid decline in airline production and a reduction of pollution by flying less.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is this the endgame for Norse, not necessarily

Norse have again announced that they need another capital injection. This time it might be different because last time they needed money the ceo and large owner Larsen said that it was the last time he injected more from own funds. Thi reminds me of the endgame ein Flyr where major investor Braathen said something similar in the autumn. When they agin needed money the following Januar nobody came forward and that was the end for an airline that could have been saved after the October refill with some major mangement changes that could have implemented even stricter cost savings, found income immediately and not paid out cash  immediately for possible charter incomes in the future. If Norse turns to more subleasing out of planes or charters they need to ensure that there will be upfront payments because it will mean upfront costs. Difficuolt concept for underfinanced charterers but rquired for an airline on the brink. Norse management also need to be based closer to where the action...
Read more

When will Boeing's new chief get around to solving problems instead of letting new ones happen

So far the new Boeing CEO is not standing out as a problem solver. His first couple of months has more been a deepening of the Boeing rut. Maybe his immediate and well announced (partial) relocation to Seattle was not such a smart move after all. It certainly have given the machinists the guts to demand back stuff they gave up 10 years ago because Boeing then threatened to move more production away from the area. He needs to be careful with letting his division leutenants run the show by playing hardball with the unions at a time when Boeing needs to ramp up production, not let it grind to a halt altogether. They may have more experience from within Boeing and been seen by the previous CEO as leading lights but it is time for a new regime. The previous one created and proeeded with more trouble than it was worth for both customers and the company itself. Boeing might be too critical to the for all practical purposes duopoly in passenger plane making in the western world, but that deepl...
Read more

Questionmarks over how Boeing saved costs when using plug instead of door

 What on the overwing exits stop them physically from being opened by a passenger with poor survival instincts during flight and did Boeing design engineers remove this safety mechanism from instructions for when installing a plug instead of a door. What other safety features did they omit on the grounds of cost saving in the design for using a door plug instead of a real emergency exit.  Normal cabin doors can't be opened during flight by design since they swing forward into the wind. There are few comments around on how this door (when installed) pivots. Is it up like the overwing exits or is it down since with such a small door there are probably no self inflating slide like the normal cabin doors. Or is it left or right. On the 737-200 the emergency exit overwing door came out loose and into the cabin. On the 737-NG-800 they swing up and out of the way. I doubt it just is pushed out and fall down because that could damage it during testing / maintenance. Would the overwing...
Read more