Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
 

On 4/14/2025 8:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> writes:
>

On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
>

On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

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.

>
How so?

Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties
should not figure.  I'm sure these things are more complicated than they
appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.

>
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would
tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
>
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
>

>

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.

>
Again, How so?

We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able to
afford producing childhood vaccines.  Who knows?  In the event we got
the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages.  Hence flu
shots for toddlers.  A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.

>
and yet:
>
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
>
Followed by:
>
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
>
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.

I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise.  I
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it.  I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.

>
And they've done a wonderful job of spreading the disease outside
their community - "my irrational religious preference trumps your
personal well-being"
>

I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.

>
nor am I, but I don't have much empathy for the parents of a dead
child when the tools to prevent the tragedy were at their disposal. No
matter,   I'm sure they do a wonderful job consoling themselves with
some "god's will" bullshit.
>

The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.

>
Let me guess, you saw one wealthy over-privileged anti-vax activist
ranting in the media and assumed the anti-vax movement was exclusive
to that demographic.
>

Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?

>
because half the population is below average and will buy into the
ranting of a wealthy over-privileged loud-mouth.
>

>

You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.

I still haven't heard any justification for flu shots for toddlers.

>
I think you left something off that sentence: "...to my satisfaction."

 I think I left off "at all".

Might help if you read beyond your bias.

 

Judging from Mr. Merriman's posts that's not the usual practice in the
UK.

>
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-at-risk-children-aged-6-months-to-11-years/covid-19-a-guide-for-parents-of-children-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk
>
"Eligible children and young people who are aged 6 months to 11 years
should have the COVID-19 vaccinations."

 This is about covid shots,

Ah, I see....moving the goalposts.

which you can discuss if you want.

Which is "flu", which is what you referenced

 

I don't think it's considered best practice anywhere but the US.

>
That's what happens when you listen to hysterical right-wing media
>
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/questions-and-answers-covid-19-vaccination-eu_en#vaccination
>
"...the use of the vaccine for children is effective and
safe. Furthermore, scientific evidence demonstrates that children may
also get infected and transmit the virus, and vaccination is a good
way to protect children."

 Once again, covid, not flu. 

Covid _is_ influenza.

It's like you don't read what you're
attempting to respond to.

More like you didn't specify seasonal flu, you said "flu", which includes covid.

 

Then there's childhood vaccinations in general:
>
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11598722/#vaccines-12-01296-t001
>
Lists the mandatory childhood vaccine policies for EU member countries.

 Interesting.  I didn't see any information on flu shots, except for one
sentence including them among vaccinations that save lives.  That's
almost evidence that European nations *don't* require flu shots for
toddlers.

OK, here ya go:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/prevention-and-control/seasonal-influenza-vaccines
"Vaccination is especially important for people at higher risk of serious influenza complications: individuals with specific chronic medical conditions, pregnant women, children aged 6-59 months, the elderly and healthcare workers."

That is one of the reasons the anti-vax movement has gained traction.

>
Because of the rise of hysterical right-wing media.

 Except that anti-vax wasn't identified as right-wing until covid,

When the right-wing charaltans realized they had a base willing to swallow any spunk they spewed.

and
bleating about right-wing media has been going on almost forever.

less so than the bleating from the right wing media about how anything other than rightwing media is unamerican (how wonderfully first amendment).