News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.7K     5 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 713     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.4K     1 

Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (nCoV-2019)

In Defense of Transit: New APTA report finds no link between coronavirus cases and public transit

From link.

It’s been hard to resist starting every post focusing on the MTA’s current ridership situation and budget woes with the sentence, “It’s been a rough few months for transit,” but it’s been a rough few months for transit. Often associated with the hoi polloi and dirty masses, most transit systems didn’t have reputations for cleanliness before the pandemic and whether fairly or not, quickly become associated with the spread of disease as the pandemic descended on the world.

After a spring in which a spurious MIT study that relied heavily on a correlation/causation error drove the conversation, a group of pro-transit researchers are fighting back, and in a new study released by the American Public Transportation Association, they report no known links between coronavirus cases and public transit.

“As of August 2020, no outbreaks have been traced to public transit in the United States,” the report, authored by New York’s own Sam Schwartz, said. “Based on our data review of case rates and transit usage in domestic cities, the correlation between infection rates and transit usage is weak or non-existent.”

Schwartz’s survey of current pandemic experiences is part of a larger report on transit-related best practices for the COVID-19 era, and you can access the report here as a PDF. It’s very much yet another attempt to change the narrative. The MIT study came out early in April, and despite debunking by Alon Levy and Aaron Gordon, two well-respected voices within the transit community, it set the stage for months of American fears over transit.

Nearly immediately, many one-time transit riders relied upon the MIT study to reinforce ideas that transit isn’t safe and is a source of spread. Even now, seven months after New York started working from home en masse, subway ridership is only around 1.7-1.8 million per day, approximately 30% of normal, and many New Yorkers have said their commute is the biggest barrier to returning to work. The problem is one of psychology and one of science. I understand why people may be hesitant to ride the subway or hop a bus where they may have less control over everyone around them, but sitting in a poorly ventilated office with other people for 8-10 hours a day is more dangerous than the ride shorter to get there. Schwartz is trying to prove it.

Schwartz has to overcome the challenges of proving a negative, and he makes a compelling case. He looks at transit agencies large and small, from NYC to Hartford to the Quad Cities to Northern Kentucky. In each case, after lockdowns eased, increased transit ridership hasn’t corresponded to an uptick in coronavirus cases. Since the spring at least, when mask mandates were instituted and social distancing became the norm, careful transit usage coupled with disinfectant procedures haven’t led to an uptick in positive tests. Here’s Schwartz’s conclusion:
Click to expand...

COVID-19 rates appear to be independent of ridership: in Northeast cities such as Hartford, Connecticut and New York, New York where the pandemic has been largely controlled, ridership has grown since peak pandemic low points, but case rates have been significantly reduced. Meanwhile, in Southern, Southwestern, and Midwestern cities, ridership has remained consistent while cases have skyrocketed. These areas are experiencing serious community outbreaks primarily attributed by public health experts to the reopening of bars and restaurants, large gatherings, nursing homes, prisons, and community fatigue of physical distancing practices. In fact, of the fifteen metro areas with the highest cumulative case rates as of August 2020, not one had a typical commuter transit share more than 5%, and most have minimal transit services with very light usage.​

What Schwartz cannot ascertain and what will always remain unanswered is whether transit had a role in community spread before we had a better understanding of the science behind COVID-19. It’s generally accepted that the virus was in the U.S. long before the middle of March, and 5.5 million people were riding the subways each day well into early March and long before we knew how effective masks were at slowing the spread. Schwartz even admits as much, noting that “public transit has some characteristics associated with higher COVID-19 transmission risk, including the potential for crowding in enclosed environments on trains, buses and indoor stations.” Ultimately, though, masks, a lack of talking, frequent air replacement and a steady flow of passengers mitigates against risks today whether or not the trains helped spread the virus in March. Based on what we know now, so long as most riders are masked, it’s safe to ride transit.
Click to expand...

TransitCovid-1024x701.jpg


But will this report matter? That is a question I can’t answer. People’s fears about COVID-19 are fairly baked in right now, and while mayoral candidates are making a show of riding trains, neither Bill de Blasio nor Andrew Cuomo have issued full-throated defenses of subways lately. For better or worse, potential transit riders take their cues from leadership, and leadership is wavering. Still, Schwartz’s study and overview reinforces what many of us have been saying: With proper precautions and a smart approach to personal and communal care, transit trips are no more riskier than any other activity these days.

The final wild card in this psychological battle for the minds of transit riders is, of course, the Trump Administration. Hardly allies to cities and transit riders, the White House has blocked a national order requiring face masks on all transit hubs. Instead, it’s up to localities to approve and enforce these orders. At a local level, the MTA is also prohibited from applying for a federal grant to study how to combat coronavirus spread on transit, as Politico reported late last week.
Click to expand...

We’ll know more about this development on Monday, but this is the heigh of petty politics. Despite its flaws, the MTA is best suited to understand how to combat COVID on transit, and the fact that they can’t apply for this grant because the Trump Administration is playing politics with public health three weeks before the election is a travesty. Still, we know the answers — masks, constant service, less talking, ventilation and high-quality air filters. That’s how transit is safe, and that’s why you could ride the subways today without worrying too much about putting your health at risk.
Click to expand...
 
Much as with the epidemiology of Covid; the 1st, 2nd and 3rd order effects are all well known at this point.

We know there's less work in childcare, in retail, in hospitality, in travel/tourism.

We also know there have been layoffs in the public service, notably, dubiously, in nursing; but also in wide ranging areas including transit, libraries and recreation.

That workforce painted above is inordinately female; even where it is not (transit); the reduction in available childcare and daily school has an inordinate impact on women working in such fields.

We also know that jobs more likely to be hourly have been impacted in hours cuts more than those that are salaried.

This impacts low-income earners inordinately, irrespective of their demographic status; though insofar as more visible minorities are found in the low-income category to begin with, that effect is also exacerbated for that demographic.

The answers to all of this aren't, for the most part, any different than they were pre-pandemic; its only that the need is growing.

(ie. Higher minimum wage, paid sick/personal days, greater paid vacation, minimum weekly earnings (de facto minimum shifts); universal pharmacare/dentalcare, more affordable childcare etc etc.)

The media and some academics too often act as if this is a revelation. The same lot left playgrounds closed more than 4 months after we'd established a very low transmission rate outdoors and from fomites. (inanimate objects)

Really long since time they stopped learning what many of us knew 4 months ago, today.

Better that they keep up, and then act on the information in a timely way.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I would not for one second doubt it. Women/casual workers in low-paying service sectors are the ones getting hit the hardest by the pandemic.

AoD
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about the ladies at the Scotia Plaza food court. They don't conform to the stereotype of a young student on their way to a "better job".
 
Jasmine18 said:
The lockdown in Australia is cause there is no widespread community spread in Australia as it is an island.
We are not in that stage and even with harsh lockdown for months, we will have cases coming from travel and from the USA forcing us into non-stop lockdowns of Toronto and our major cities over a few cases. It would be an unsustainable situation for the country.


So the Australian model is not a valid model for Canada at all.

plus Canadians are not as supportive of harsh measures.

Why dont you guys understand that?
Click to expand...

There was widespread community spread in our second wave that triggered the lockdowns.

Out of 20k cases, 4200 of them are classified as community transmission. The peak daily cases we hit was 720 and today we had 6 - all of which had no mystery source - and despite the lockdowns being long, we've managed to get community transmission incredibly low. Which is the aim... not eradication/elimination, just getting community transmission as low as possible.

And, seriously, you need to drop the whole Canada is not an island thing - as I asked in this thread before, you can't just waltz into Canada whenever you like at which ever point you like, correct? People go through checkpoints, on the land, at airports or sea ports - you can effectively "island" yourselves like we have with our permanent moat.

Likewise, how do you think covid got to Canada? Likely by an infectious person who arrived by air.

There's a daily media release with detailed data on our cases, latest version is here: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-update-victoria-15-october-2020
 
tayser said:
And, seriously, you need to drop the whole Canada is not an island thing - as I asked in this thread before, you can't just waltz into Canada whenever you like at which ever point you like, correct? People go through checkpoints, on the land, at airports or sea ports - you can effectively "island" yourselves like we have with our permanent moat.

Likewise, how do you think covid got to Canada? Likely by an infectious person who arrived by air.

There's a daily media release with detailed data on our cases, latest version is here: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-update-victoria-15-october-2020
Click to expand...
There are tens of thousands that cross the US border daily for work including medical workers, but also truck drivers.
 
afransen said:
There are tens of thousands that cross the US border daily for work including medical workers, but also truck drivers.
Click to expand...

Do we have evidence that's how the majority of cases began? Travel related COVID cases made up a very tiny portion of overall cases. If travel across the border is the main driver, you should be seeing Windsor blowing up even now.

AoD
 
I'm not arguing that it is responsible for most transmission, but that Canada has a structurally different flow of people across the border when compared to Australia. And if we ever got Canada down to such a low level of community spread as Australia is seeing, then cross-border transmission would be an on-going source of infection. So, it is kind of hopeless to try to achieve that level of suppression. Honestly, I'm not even sure it is desirable. It might be better to have the virus continue to work its way through the population at a modest, manageable rate to continue to build herd immunity.
 
afransen said:
I'm not arguing that it is responsible for most transmission, but that Canada has a structurally different flow of people across the border when compared to Australia. And if we ever got Canada down to such a low level of community spread as Australia is seeing, then cross-border transmission would be an on-going source of infection. So, it is kind of hopeless to try to achieve that level of suppression. Honestly, I'm not even sure it is desirable. It might be better to have the virus continue to work its way through the population at a modest, manageable rate to continue to build herd immunity.
Click to expand...

One problem at a time - we haven't even gotten cases down to a point where imported cases is the predominant problem. It's like trying to worry about a cigarette butt on the ground when your house is burning down.

And the herd immunity argument had been debunked many, many times - you can't do it quickly enough for it to matter; and you can't avoid it spreading to vulnerable populations either causing mass death. UK tried that early on and it blew up in their faces - and they are still nowhere near achieving herd immunity (just as vulnerable to the second wave - which is happening right now).

AoD
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
So far, the second wave has been a lot less severe when it comes to deaths/severe cases. Hopefully that continues. It seems that viral load has some influence on how hard COVID hits you, so maybe some of the infections coming from modest viral loads (reduced due to distancing, masks, etc.) don't result in as severe cases. It is also likely that we are getting a higher proportion of the cases than earlier this year when testing was not widely available. The other theory is that cases are less severe in the warmer months than they are in the winter, due to changes in humidity and how that affects the respiratory tract. In which case, maybe we should be relaxing distancing more in summer. It might also help to explain why the first wave was relatively modest in Australia and NZ when it hit during their summer/fall, but the second wave was much worse during their winter.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top