3 ms·
But don’t you think that’s the first thing that 3M’s counsel looked at to try and prove their innocence? Take the veteran incidence of hearing less divided by t
by aabhay 3y ago
But don’t you think that’s the first thing that 3M’s counsel looked at to try and prove their innocence? Take the veteran incidence of hearing less divided by the population level incidence of hearing loss and see if that ratio went up after the introduction of 3M earbuds? And if there’s a significant change there then it’s likely that the earbuds were defective by design or there were manufacturing issues. At that point everyone who was exposed to that phenomenon DOES deserve the payout, as there’s a plausible risk that the earbuds worsened it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Workaccount2 3y agoOf course they run statistical analysis, but you cannot apply those methods to a case by case evaluation. The stats just let 3M know how hard they are gonna get screwed, and it's not like they are totally innocent anyway. >At that point everyone who was exposed to that phenomenon DOES deserve the payout That's the crux right there. The only evidence of being exposed in many of the cases is simply the person's word.