5 ms·
> I'm just saying that the tend the other person saw in Finland has logical support here. It can be evidence of how effective a policy is for specific scenarios
by thaumasiotes 2y ago
> I'm just saying that the tend the other person saw in Finland has logical support here. It can be evidence of how effective a policy is for specific scenarios (models). If someone is is not alert to the danger, then the means of escape are logically moot in those situations.
No, you didn't identify any logical support. If the American policy ensures that people who are aware of the danger always survive, then (a) that is what the policy is supposed to do, and (b) it will guarantee that American fire deaths all happen to people who were not aware of the danger.
Given that, if the policy worked as advertised, it would guarantee exactly the observation that you see, it cannot be the case that this observation is evidence against the effectiveness of the policy.
- giantg2 2y agoI didn't say anything explict about the US staircase policy. All I said is that the trends on fire deaths the other person identified in Finland apply here in my experience, and that additional stair cases won't help those deaths. The logical part is that if you're unaware of danger (asleep/passed out), you can't take action to avoid it. The policies that would help in those situations are sprinklers, but there's some controversy on them being mandated.