4 ms·

> Only two options exist. The first is that we accept that, under exceptional circumstances, common sense might be applied when considering the potential risks

> Only two options exist. The first is that we accept that, under exceptional circumstances, common sense might be applied when considering the potential risks and benefits of interventions. The second is that we continue our quest for the holy grail of exclusively evidence based interventions and preclude parachute use outside the context of a properly conducted trial. Both options may be true for different cases. It may be simple to decide on parachutes. But think of bureaucrats who were patting themselves on the head for being “flexible enough and humble enough” to issue new guidance on masks instead of saying “We don’t know” in the first place. “The sovereign is he who selects the null hypothesis.”

maxerickson 3y ago
Both options may be true for different cases. That's option one. Or do you insist on some particular definition of exceptional circumstances?
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  It’s like the difference between civil law and criminal law. In civil law the balance of probabilities is used. In criminal law the accusation should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Option one means treating something like civil law cases. Option two means treating it like criminal law cases.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    The use of common sense does not preclude the use of evidence. In fact, when good evidence is available, it suggests it. You are arguing a distinction that does not exist.
    - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
      > The use of common sense does not preclude the use of evidence. In fact, when good evidence is available, it suggests it. Nothing I said implies the opposite. > You are arguing a distinction that does not exist. No, the paper framed the issue as if such distinction exists. I didn’t agree with that and I don’t see why you would accuse me of that.
HPsquared 3y ago
In practice even parachutes are not so simple. If I'm a passenger in an airliner with no parachute, I definitely don't want my pilot bailing out. Also, insurance rates on aircraft with airframe parachutes are higher than for aircraft without them - because pilots often panic and pull the chute, which guarantees a hard landing and totals the aircraft, rather than attempting a landing (with, say, a 90% success rate or whatever). The same might apply to individuals: jumping out of a plane is quite dangerous and it might be "statistically" safer to stay onboard and attempt a landing. Pilots also may take more risks if they have parachutes, known as risk compensation. Like how people drive faster if the car feels safer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
- stonogo 3y ago
  > insurance rates on aircraft with airframe parachutes are higher than for aircraft without them Are we sure this isn't because aircraft iwth airframe parachutes are wildly expensive and/or heavily-customized vehicles? I'm not sure the correlation has been established as causative here.

maxerickson 3y ago

Both options may be true for different cases. That's option one. Or do you insist on some particular definition of exceptional circumstances?

LudwigNagasena 3y ago
It’s like the difference between civil law and criminal law. In civil law the balance of probabilities is used. In criminal law the accusation should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Option one means treating something like civil law cases. Option two means treating it like criminal law cases.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  The use of common sense does not preclude the use of evidence. In fact, when good evidence is available, it suggests it. You are arguing a distinction that does not exist.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    > The use of common sense does not preclude the use of evidence. In fact, when good evidence is available, it suggests it. Nothing I said implies the opposite. > You are arguing a distinction that does not exist. No, the paper framed the issue as if such distinction exists. I didn’t agree with that and I don’t see why you would accuse me of that.

HPsquared 3y ago

In practice even parachutes are not so simple. If I'm a passenger in an airliner with no parachute, I definitely don't want my pilot bailing out. Also, insurance rates on aircraft with airframe parachutes are higher than for aircraft without them - because pilots often panic and pull the chute, which guarantees a hard landing and totals the aircraft, rather than attempting a landing (with, say, a 90% success rate or whatever). The same might apply to individuals: jumping out of a plane is quite dangerous and it might be "statistically" safer to stay onboard and attempt a landing. Pilots also may take more risks if they have parachutes, known as risk compensation. Like how people drive faster if the car feels safer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

stonogo 3y ago
> insurance rates on aircraft with airframe parachutes are higher than for aircraft without them Are we sure this isn't because aircraft iwth airframe parachutes are wildly expensive and/or heavily-customized vehicles? I'm not sure the correlation has been established as causative here.