Airlines spraying passengers with insecticide, new WHO directive!

a reply to: angelchemuel
Mental note to myself:
"Remember when booking next flight, to first have email confirmation, regarding policy of any forced disinfectant/fumigation, of ticket holders"

...I absolutely WILL be using any reasonable force necessary, if I'm ever stuck in a box and unexpectedly asked to comply with an unknown chemical being sprayed on me.

After the bull# of 2020 though I'll assume I'll be in the minority of people who say no to being controlled and ordered unnecessarily😥

a reply to: RAY1990

Aggravates asthma, even if plant sourced. Can be deadly to some.

a reply to: stevieray

I'm sure this is real. Now that I read this , I remember when I was in my teens and travelled to Australia with my parents (back in either late 80s or early 90s) , and they did the same on arrival. Back then , I'm sure we were flabbergasted and complained to each other about it, but those were different times. Now I'd be complaining online and wondering how this even legal ! My guess is that it is in the fine print so people can't sue.

Off course the 'elites' don't ever haver to endure something awful like this when they can hop on their private jets

a reply to: stevieray

I'm sure this is real. Now that I read this , I remember when I was in my teens and travelled to Australia with my parents (back in either late 80s or early 90s) , and they did the same on arrival. Back then , I'm sure we were flabbergasted and complained to each other about it, but those were different times. Now I'd be complaining online and wondering how this even legal ! My guess is that it is in the fine print so people can't sue.

Off course the 'elites' don't ever haver to endure something awful like this when they can hop on their private jets

No wonder people get horrible cancers left and right.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Good God, Jane. I'm grateful at this point the COPD
and missing lobe on the left side have made my GP
put the NoWay on my boarding anything.

If any concentration of insecticide is introduced into
my pipes [strong enough to TASTE], no ER necessary.

Trelegy works probably because it's an exotic mold
concoction. Remember that gut flora, neither do I. Dave

a reply to: angelchemuel

Serious grounds for a prosecution and potential severe financial penalty's for this airline as well as compensation for passengers for distress caused, more if any get ill or are allergic to anything within this unknown compound.

This is pretty much illegal what they have done to people without there consent.

Perhaps they stayed on the ground thinking they could wangle out of any potential prosecution due to the laws of whatever nation they were in however I am pretty certain a look at that country's statutes would provide further ground's for prosecution.

WHO directives do not trump the laws of nations states and also do not over rule human right's.

This is as far as I am concerned pretty much an illegal act and one that may very well cause harm and even cancer to some of those passengers even years afterwards especially if it has any bio accumulative compounds.

Someone has stepped far too far over and beyond there own authority here.

a reply to: LABTECH767
I hope you are on any plane I'm on, when I'm 'causing a scene' about unexpected, enforced, chemical spraying being suddenly announced!

...but you saw the sheep-like submission to authority in 2020, we'll be in a minority on a plane, I reckon anyway ☹️

They also want to make flying the most unpleasant experience possible. It's outrageous, and people should sue if there's no fine print that warned them about this. But who the hell reads the fine print, they know nobody does, so many should have not been aware about this and should have spoken up at least.

The mean for the masses not to be aware and to be taken by surprise, because why is the fine print 'fine', why not a massive warning that nobody can miss ?

It does remind me of WW2 gas chambers

a reply to: LABTECH767

Pyrethrins are used worldwide, WHO merely suggested their use I'd assume due to the fact that their was no standard fumigation process across nations. In the past people were being sprayed by DDT and the likes.

Someone has stepped far too far over and beyond there own authority here.

And who would that be?

National authorities? Because they are the ones who mandate this, it's not a worldwide phenomena and it's only practiced in nations that consider themselves at risk. That said airline staff have sued airlines in the past and passengers have sued governments.

Personal opinion, yes this sucks and people should be warned appropriately in advance so that those with respiratory diseases and allergies can opt out. I'm just not sure how that's possible without separate flights since chemicals take time to break down. At the end of the day nations with strict requirements are going to continue practicing safety. The alternative is quarantine and who'd pay for that? I guess there's not travelling too...

I highly doubt unrestricted worldwide travel is going to be an option in the future, we know too much about communicable diseases.

originally posted by: RAY1990

I highly doubt unrestricted worldwide travel is going to be an option in the future, we know too much about communicable diseases.

So long as I am warned before I buy a ticket, then I have no problem with any nation imposing bull# restrictions.

The USA banned me and my mates from entering because we were 'unvaccinated' for covid...we #ed them off, spent our money and partied in Mexico instead.

If I'm ever on a plane, and surprised by a chemical spray which i was never warned about, then I WILL throat punch the first bloke who tries to force it on me, and I'll take my chances in whichever nations justice system it occurs in.

Warn me of the risks and I'll avoid your nation...surprise me with chemical sprays, and I will fight like a dog, every time.

a reply to: RAY1990

You make a good point however I still believe this is questionable from a legal perspective as well as unethical.

Yes you need to keep invasive species at bay by checking luggage but spraying people with potentially hazardous chemicals without there express consent is literally a breach of there human right's as well as potentially an assault upon there person.

Yes when in Rome so to speak you have to abide by Rome's rules however this is going too far, someone most definitely HAS stepped too far over there rights to implement this and even if in there own nation they could get away with it that will not protect them from an international lawsuit for damages perceived or real inflicted upon the citizens of other nations whom may very well choose to implement a prosecution especially if they have the financial clout to do so, remember every kind of person is on an airplane not just poor working class but business folk, the rich travelling both incognito and in style etc and of course legal professionals.

I suspect that law suits may very well already be ongoing but kept under the table with generous out of court settlement's going on.

As for quarantine, there are cases were that is the best option but all people quarantined in an outbreak should be kept separate from each other to ensure the uninfected are not infected by the infected, sadly we have seen how a few infected can lead to a whole cruise ship becoming ill or being locked up with the crew whom are then the most exposed trying there best to keep the passengers apart in the worst conditions and circumstances and to this end I believe that every nations should have dedicated maintained quarantine centres near to there major airports and sea ports, these should be closely linked to nearby medical facility's and as for who should pay for that well a duty on the travellers themselves as well as the port and airport operators likely to be passed to the airlines and ship owners should be levied to both maintain and keep those facility's functional even though they are only an emergency system to be used in such times, that said such facility's ARE actually cost affective as losses due to pandemic are far higher than the budget required for such, that said earmarking never work's for corrupt governments and they always put there hands into the kitty for other projects while closing down such projects as rapidly as they can often wrongly terming them white elephant's.

It's basically a double middle finger from the WHO etc to everyday 99% travellers that, we see you as cockroaches and will treat you as such and you'll like it

a reply to: angelchemuel

Sick!

I flew to and from Madeira a couple of years ago. Continental Europe was the other end of the flight. No spraying was done.

Yeah, I would NOT be happy about that if I wasn't informed beforehand.

Cheers

a reply to: LABTECH767

The issue would be the volume of people who would need to be quarantined. When it comes to bugs it's not the disease that's being quarantined it's the carrier which would be bugs such as mosquitos which also ties into environmental issues.

I don't see quarantine as a feasible route tbh. Can you think of anything better that's less intrusive and less time consuming?

The best I can come up with is these two options:

1. Treatment of everything that passes airports with these requirements. Effectively an airport will be a bit like a hotel where people check in and enter a state of "cleansing" where the person and all their items are subject to a cleaning regiment using gases, chemicals or both for a period of time until cleared for flight.

2. This is similar to the first except only individuals get to travel, no luggage. In this scenario you go to the airport as normal. Once checked in all of your items and clothing are stored and the individual is supplied with clothes for the flight. Nothing else.

It's the best I've got and both scenarios are a bit ridiculous and would be costly in more ways than one. They're flawed too because the vehicles (aeroplanes) would still need fumigating and treatment since in reality they are the transporters of "illegal aliens" and not the people on board.

I understand rights and I tend to support them with very little question. When it comes to international travel there's alternatives, they're more time consuming sure but at least the experience won't be so troubling for the individual. The way I see it the needs of a nation will always supercede individual rights... right?

Others are seeing a conspiracy here and all I see is nations heavily invested in the tourist industry doing their best to keep the spice flowing. Serious outbreaks and ecological disasters tend to be unforgiving events for nations heavily reliant on tourism. It's almost like they don't want tourists isn't it? I bet all the troubles in paradise are designed to belittle the little man. All of them! Sarcasm btw.

a reply to: RAY1990
Interesting thoughts, I mostly agree.

I'd add though, the ONLY issue I have is with any country restrictions which are not notified at the point I buy my air ticket.
At least that way I can sue some entity, after I'm getting the baton of border guards, for refusing to be gassed by an unknown chemical.

I've got zero problems with sovereign nations banning anything, it's their nation, stay away if you don't like it.

That's the very reason Mexico got the $,$$$'s we blew partying during covid, and the USA got nothing - We respected their rules of entry🤣

SPAM

a reply to: xqueen

Gosh, that sounds just like something AI would write.

Cheers