4 ms·
Why would anyone be against promoting a technique that has demonstrated a real reduction in fatalities? Sure, in some implementations, there has not been as mu
by ap22213 10y ago
Why would anyone be against promoting a technique that has demonstrated a real reduction in fatalities? Sure, in some implementations, there has not been as much reduction. But, I didn't read anything that said the risks increased. Did I miss that?
Or, put another way, instead of 100% chance of reducing fatalities by 50%, you get a X% chance of reducing fatalities by 50%. Still seems like a great improvement.
- studentrob 10y agoChecklist proponents in this thread oversimplify the issue [1] The reason I comment is not to support or disapprove of the use of checklists. I'm saying, it's more involved than that. Checklists should be a part of a process that includes evaluating their efficacy wherever they're introduced. Pushing the idea that it is simple takes away from the value of the original implementation by Peter Pronovost. Poor marketing can cause what was initially a good idea to fail. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11641970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11641970