Re: Helmet efficacy test

Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:

Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
 

On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
 

On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski.  It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of
the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.

 
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.

 
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?

Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.

 
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
 
Year   U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
 
 
More Data
 
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet %              Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
 
 

 
Data source on that?
 
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.

I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which  helmets became normalized and popular. "

 
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
 
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.

 
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
 

>
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth
it.
>
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.

All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects.
Some are minor, like a sore arm.  Some are life changing, like
narcolepsy.  A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of
side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.

Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.

In the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children.  This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn
out so well.
--