You can't legislate for non nut eaters wherever you go.
To avoid nuts completely, she's going to have to pretty much be confined to the house - or open air environments - for the rest of her life. People aren't going to automatically stop what they're eating merely to accommodate her, on every occasion.
I agree with you, but in this instance the bloke was a tit, to ignore 3 warnings by the crew and another by a fellow passenger.
but what if the person sitting on that seat previously had been eating nuts and wiped their hands on the seat and head rest.
presumably that child would have been in danger there also.
or did ryanair fumigate the plane and do a deep clean before the child got on board?
it's easy to blame a guy eating nuts, but the parents still put the child in a potentially dangerous environment.
I see what you're saying but in this particular case, it WAS easy to blame the guy in question. He was asked not to open his nuts but said he "will if he wants to" causing the girl to have the severe reaction. It really does beggar belief that there are such selfish morons among us.
I don't know what the parents' long term solution is to this, but they don't appear to sound as if they know. If it was my child, they would wear a mask. They might look silly but surely if the danger is so serious, then that would be necessary? Unless it is literally because of the nature of the aircraft air conditioning, this is probably the reason why illness is spread so quickly via them - and the fact that they don't clean the system out as much as they did when smoking was permitted; so ironically, now, the air quality is worse than it was when people smoked on board.
It does appear there is a specific problem when it comes to flying, as someone correctly pointed out, you can't escape from an aircraft in flight.
I think she needs to avoid flying, unless a "nut allergy special" is ever considered. However well intentioned the airline in their announcements, you can't legislate for people ignoring such requests.
I'm not sure her parents acted in an entirely responsible manner by exposing her to the potential risk in the first place.
Like I said to another person; comparing measures in specific environments to prevent someone reacting to an allergy that can kill them is nowhere near the same as an allergy that makes you sneeze or brings you up in a rash.
Removing them from certain environments such as aircraft is fine, restaurants no; staff need to prevent cross contamination.
Exactly. They are just not comparable. The issue does not need to be one of two extremes: (i) Child should live in bubble or (ii) Ban all things. All of the things!!!1!
It's about weighing up likelihood of risk with consequence and taking any reasonable steps to reduce risk.
But I suppose this is the internet. I anticipate and enjoy the extremes. I'm still waiting for the 'I'm not obligated to not eat nuts near someone with a severe nut allergy' post.
There were repeated warnings and apparently he still opened them despite the protestations of the person sat next to him. Certainly sounds like just an arsehole to me.
I agree he sounds like an arsehole, but I'd still like to hear a bit more from other sources before hanging him out to dry.
Everything that people are going on comes directly from the mother e.g. "the police told us...." and "the airline told us..." As far as I can see, there's no direct comment either from the police or from the airline (Apologies if I've missed it though).
Plus, the Express article linked to in the report, about another passenger arguing with him doesn't seem to work for me.
It does appear there is a specific problem when it comes to flying, as someone correctly pointed out, you can't escape from an aircraft in flight.
I think she needs to avoid flying, unless a "nut allergy special" is ever considered. However well intentioned the airline in their announcements, you can't legislate for people ignoring such requests.
I'm not sure her parents acted in an entirely responsible manner by exposing her to the potential risk in the first place.
This all sounds very new to the parents so they might well go on to consider another form of transport in future but tbh if the guy had just kept his nuts away until he got off the plane the journey could have passed without incident.
I agree he sounds like an arsehole, but I'd still like to hear a bit more from other sources before hanging him out to dry.
Everything that people are going on comes directly from the mother e.g. "the police told us...." and "the airline told us..." As far as I can see, there's no direct comment either from the police or from the airline (Apologies if I've missed it though).
Plus, the Express article linked to in the report, about another passenger arguing with him doesn't seem to work for me.
I'd certainly be interested to hear what he had to say, just to get both perspectives.
Or idiots can listen to warnings and not react like my 4 year old when told they can't eat a specific snack right now.
Yes, but as I said, you can't legislate for human behaviour. I think in this instance, knowing ther risks involved, I'd put the ultimate responsibility on the parents, rather than 100% pinning everything on one random guy who opened a bag of peanuts.
I agree he sounds like an arsehole, but I'd still like to hear a bit more from other sources before hanging him out to dry.
Everything that people are going on comes directly from the mother e.g. "the police told us...." and "the airline told us..." As far as I can see, there's no direct comment either from the police or from the airline (Apologies if I've missed it though).
Plus, the Express article linked to in the report, about another passenger arguing with him doesn't seem to work for me.
Repeated warnings and a point black refusal not to open the nuts - I am not sure what you are expecting to find in regards to his defence. The airline banned him for 2 years, I expect that means they are satisfied the man in question had no defence.
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. Some people are allergic to dust, and some even water ... Should we ban that too?
Please enlighten me as to how many people in the UK die each year due to allergic reaction to water and allergic reaction to dust. Not that we could ban them as it would be unfeasable.
On average 20 people in the UK die every year due to allergic reaction, after stings and anesthetic, nut allergies kill the most people, food allergies account for about 10 deaths a year. The other foods that more rarely cause deaths due to allergic reaction are more intrinsic to our staple diet, things like milk, fish, eggs, bananas, although I guess bananas could also be banned.
Personally the inconvenience of not being able to enjoy the taste of nuts is a price worth paying to not have people dying needlessly. While as a society we have taken the opinion that the deaths are a price worth paying for other members of society to enjoy the taste of nuts.
Or idiots can listen to warnings and not react like my 4 year old when told they can't eat a specific snack right now.
It's the "I know my rights" mindset, which completely ignores that you also have responsibilities that come with them.
The parents appear to have done the responsible thing by informing the airline, who then informed the other passengers. Unless the bloke has a rare conditions which requires him to eat nuts on a regular basis to stay alive, then he is completely and utterly in the wrong here
Please enlighten me as to how many people in the UK die each year due to allergic reaction to water and allergic reaction to dust. Not that we could ban them as it would be unfeasable.
On average 20 people in the UK die every year due to allergic reaction, after stings and anesthetic, nut allergies kill the most people, food allergies account for about 10 deaths a year. The other foods that more rarely cause deaths due to allergic reaction are more intrinsic to our staple diet, things like milk, fish, eggs, bananas, although I guess bananas could also be banned.
Personally the inconvenience of not being able to enjoy the taste of nuts is a price worth paying to not have people dying needlessly. While as a society we have taken the opinion that the deaths are a price worth paying for other members of society to enjoy the taste of nuts.
I like nuts though and don't know anyone with an allergy. So how is me not eating nuts in my house going to save lives?
Unless the bloke has a rare conditions which requires him to eat nuts on a regular basis to stay alive, then he is completely and utterly in the wrong here
if he did though (in your scenario), then which side would the airline choose?
Repeated warnings and a point black refusal not to open the nuts - I am not sure what you are expecting to find in regards to his defence. The airline banned him for 2 years, I expect that means they are satisfied the man in question had no defence.
So says the mother. No one else has directly said that. Everything in the article is according to the mother, no-one else.
As far as I can see, there has been no direct comment from Ryanair on the subject, no direct comment from any other passengers, no direct comment from the man.
Personally, I like to hear both sides. That's all I'm saying. I'm not attempting to defend him in any way.
On average 20 people in the UK die every year due to allergic reaction, after stings and anesthetic, nut allergies kill the most people, food allergies account for about 10 deaths a year. The other foods that more rarely cause deaths due to allergic reaction are more intrinsic to our staple diet, things like milk, fish, eggs, bananas, although I guess bananas could also be banned.
ban beas, ban anesthetic, ban lactose products.
ban everything!
ban electricity as it can kill you if you get a shock.
ban the internal combustion engine as it can kill you with the fumes.
ban everything!
I agree with you, it's like parents who don't allow their kids to touch one bacterium. They rule their lives with strict hygiene for three years, send them to nursery and school and wonder why they are ill 24/7. I would just eat them anyway and encourage my children to eat them. Choking hazard, lol. Like they couldn't choke on practically anything anyway - even just giving them peanut butter on toast would be better than nothing at all.
BIB As I said earlier its not "Choking" as in getting peanuts stuck in your throat, its that they could inhale a piece of the nut and the oil destroys the lung tissue. its very serious but that is the only reason children were not supposed to eat whole nuts
if he did though (in your scenario), then which side would the airline choose?
Hypothetically? Assuming both inform the airline pre-flight, one would be asked to travel on a different flight at no cost. I'd expect anyone with that kind of serious condition to be making it known to the airline in case of emergency (as the parents did in this case)
Or, whichever one get to the Daily Mail with their sadface first
I like nuts though and don't know anyone with an allergy. So how is me not eating nuts in my house going to save lives?
I take it you have already given them up?
You are not restricted to eating nuts in your home, and washing your hands afterwards. The danger to others due to the rarety of deaths is not great enough for society to deem restrictions on you as justified. Personally since as I said one of my nephews friends died aged 17 due to cross contamination of a pizza, I have a different view as to the right to enjoy the taste of nuts vs about ten people dying a year.
ban beas, ban anesthetic, ban lactose products.
ban everything!
ban electricity as it can kill you if you get a shock.
ban the internal combustion engine as it can kill you with the fumes.
ban everything!
A severe nut allergy can be fatal, and if a warning is given that someone in a plane is suffering from such a condition, only a complete moron would ignore that warning.
Please enlighten me as to how many people in the UK die each year due to allergic reaction to water and allergic reaction to dust. Not that we could ban them as it would be unfeasable.
On average 20 people in the UK die every year due to allergic reaction, after stings and anesthetic, nut allergies kill the most people, food allergies account for about 10 deaths a year. The other foods that more rarely cause deaths due to allergic reaction are more intrinsic to our staple diet, things like milk, fish, eggs, bananas, although I guess bananas could also be banned.
Personally the inconvenience of not being able to enjoy the taste of nuts is a price worth paying to not have people dying needlessly. While as a society we have taken the opinion that the deaths are a price worth paying for other members of society to enjoy the taste of nuts.
The risks are so small , I say we keep the nut!
There are billions of us on earth and if less than 20 die a year then the risk is tiny , and then weigh in the health benefit of eating them as we'll .
Plus if people will pay pennies for flying then you can expect that kind of selfish behavior as that's who Ryan Air and Co are aimed at .
I'd certainly be interested to hear what he had to say, just to get both perspectives.
Yes, but as I said, you can't legislate for human behaviour. I think in this instance, knowing ther risks involved, I'd put the ultimate responsibility on the parents, rather than 100% pinning everything on one random guy who opened a bag of peanuts.
But you can't isolate people with allergies like that, when all that is needed is for people not to be selfish idiots.
On average 20 people in the UK die every year due to allergic reaction, after stings and anesthetic, nut allergies kill the most people, food allergies account for about 10 deaths a year. The other foods that more rarely cause deaths due to allergic reaction are more intrinsic to our staple diet, things like milk, fish, eggs, bananas, although I guess bananas could also be banned.
Personally the inconvenience of not being able to enjoy the taste of nuts is a price worth paying to not have people dying needlessly. While as a society we have taken the opinion that the deaths are a price worth paying for other members of society to enjoy the taste of nuts.
Or we could put labels on the food, saying which allergens are present, so that those with allergies can avoid them and those without can enjoy them
Comments
I agree with you, but in this instance the bloke was a tit, to ignore 3 warnings by the crew and another by a fellow passenger.
I see what you're saying but in this particular case, it WAS easy to blame the guy in question. He was asked not to open his nuts but said he "will if he wants to" causing the girl to have the severe reaction. It really does beggar belief that there are such selfish morons among us.
It does appear there is a specific problem when it comes to flying, as someone correctly pointed out, you can't escape from an aircraft in flight.
I think she needs to avoid flying, unless a "nut allergy special" is ever considered. However well intentioned the airline in their announcements, you can't legislate for people ignoring such requests.
I'm not sure her parents acted in an entirely responsible manner by exposing her to the potential risk in the first place.
Exactly. They are just not comparable. The issue does not need to be one of two extremes: (i) Child should live in bubble or (ii) Ban all things. All of the things!!!1!
It's about weighing up likelihood of risk with consequence and taking any reasonable steps to reduce risk.
But I suppose this is the internet. I anticipate and enjoy the extremes. I'm still waiting for the 'I'm not obligated to not eat nuts near someone with a severe nut allergy' post.
I agree he sounds like an arsehole, but I'd still like to hear a bit more from other sources before hanging him out to dry.
Everything that people are going on comes directly from the mother e.g. "the police told us...." and "the airline told us..." As far as I can see, there's no direct comment either from the police or from the airline (Apologies if I've missed it though).
Plus, the Express article linked to in the report, about another passenger arguing with him doesn't seem to work for me.
Or idiots can listen to warnings and not react like my 4 year old when told they can't eat a specific snack right now.
This all sounds very new to the parents so they might well go on to consider another form of transport in future but tbh if the guy had just kept his nuts away until he got off the plane the journey could have passed without incident.
I'd certainly be interested to hear what he had to say, just to get both perspectives.
Yes, but as I said, you can't legislate for human behaviour. I think in this instance, knowing ther risks involved, I'd put the ultimate responsibility on the parents, rather than 100% pinning everything on one random guy who opened a bag of peanuts.
Repeated warnings and a point black refusal not to open the nuts - I am not sure what you are expecting to find in regards to his defence. The airline banned him for 2 years, I expect that means they are satisfied the man in question had no defence.
On average 20 people in the UK die every year due to allergic reaction, after stings and anesthetic, nut allergies kill the most people, food allergies account for about 10 deaths a year. The other foods that more rarely cause deaths due to allergic reaction are more intrinsic to our staple diet, things like milk, fish, eggs, bananas, although I guess bananas could also be banned.
Personally the inconvenience of not being able to enjoy the taste of nuts is a price worth paying to not have people dying needlessly. While as a society we have taken the opinion that the deaths are a price worth paying for other members of society to enjoy the taste of nuts.
It's the "I know my rights" mindset, which completely ignores that you also have responsibilities that come with them.
The parents appear to have done the responsible thing by informing the airline, who then informed the other passengers. Unless the bloke has a rare conditions which requires him to eat nuts on a regular basis to stay alive, then he is completely and utterly in the wrong here
I like nuts though and don't know anyone with an allergy. So how is me not eating nuts in my house going to save lives?
I take it you have already given them up?
if he did though (in your scenario), then which side would the airline choose?
So says the mother. No one else has directly said that. Everything in the article is according to the mother, no-one else.
As far as I can see, there has been no direct comment from Ryanair on the subject, no direct comment from any other passengers, no direct comment from the man.
Personally, I like to hear both sides. That's all I'm saying. I'm not attempting to defend him in any way.
ban beas, ban anesthetic, ban lactose products.
ban everything!
ban electricity as it can kill you if you get a shock.
ban the internal combustion engine as it can kill you with the fumes.
ban everything!
The one who informed the airline about the condition prior to take off so measures could be taken.
BIB As I said earlier its not "Choking" as in getting peanuts stuck in your throat, its that they could inhale a piece of the nut and the oil destroys the lung tissue. its very serious but that is the only reason children were not supposed to eat whole nuts
Hypothetically? Assuming both inform the airline pre-flight, one would be asked to travel on a different flight at no cost. I'd expect anyone with that kind of serious condition to be making it known to the airline in case of emergency (as the parents did in this case)
Or, whichever one get to the Daily Mail with their sadface first
A severe nut allergy can be fatal, and if a warning is given that someone in a plane is suffering from such a condition, only a complete moron would ignore that warning.
The risks are so small , I say we keep the nut!
There are billions of us on earth and if less than 20 die a year then the risk is tiny , and then weigh in the health benefit of eating them as we'll .
Plus if people will pay pennies for flying then you can expect that kind of selfish behavior as that's who Ryan Air and Co are aimed at .
But you can't isolate people with allergies like that, when all that is needed is for people not to be selfish idiots.
Or we could put labels on the food, saying which allergens are present, so that those with allergies can avoid them and those without can enjoy them
Surely we are only talking about the time it takes to fly anywhere, not for the rest of anyone's life.