7 ms·

Some of you may drown, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make!

abfan1127 2y ago
I know its tongue in cheek, but in practical terms, there is negative consequences for pushing the zero drownings. To achieve zero drownings, we have to have zero risk. the only way for zero risk is to eliminate it (i.e. ban swimming). However, banning swimming has many unintended consequences (swimming is great exercise, swimming during boat use is important during collisions). At some point, we will encounter water in ways that require swim skills. Drownings are tragic, however, we can't 100% prevent things without severe negative consequences.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  People can swim in bodies of water without fierce currents.
  - jpollock 2y ago
    People drown in swimming pools all the time.
    - Anon84 2y ago
      People drown in bathtubs all the time... There are only two obvious ways to minimize risk: teach people to swim or prevent people from swimming. Guess which one is more cost-effective?
      - jpollock 2y ago
        Since you can't stop them from swimming, it's teaching them to swim. The GP post was "stop them from going into dangerous areas", which is why I pointed out _swimming_pools_ would meet the definition of "dangerous".
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        My point is that limiting swimming in certain areas is hardly the same thing as banning all swimming, it just feels like there is an alarmism about alarmism and perhaps there can be nuance and self-reflection from all sides of the debate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784425
- dylan604 2y ago
  Tool's Ænema is now playing in my head.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    Learn to swim! Learn to swim! Learn to swim!
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. The device in the article is someone pragmatic, lifeguard situation in most places is pragmatic, there would need to be a crazy shift to get people to agree to a more absolute stance.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. > Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. Um, compare this comment, left hours before yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917 > Fewer and fewer places to swim, more and more places just made everything a wading pool or a splash park to reduce liability, and after a generation of this there is an undersupply of people who can teach others to swim. Now some municipalities in my area are trying to ban swimming in open water.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      From the same comment: > They closed all the pools to save money It comes down to economics. I share the commenter's assessment that there might be fewer places to swim than before, but I think it also comes from fewer people interested in swimming in the first place, which creates the vicious circle. To draw a parralel, there's also fewer skate rinks in my region, ski resorts also closed in significant numbers. There's just not enough demand to justify the cost, and while lowering the requirements could partially help, I don't see it working even mid-term, and certainly not long term. On liability, I'd suspect that's not the real issue (is the town actually liable if you drown on your own swimming (= with a swimsuit and clear intent) in an unmarked body of water ?) and it might be more on the image and keeping away some demographics. Basically the same level of care as forbidding RC toys in parks.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      I would never own a swimming pool due to the ginormous sums in liability judgments. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/steilacoom-to-pay-15-million-after-boy-drowns-at-summer-camp/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/steilacoom-to-pay-... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/jury-awards-13-million-to-woman-who-fell-on-seattle-sidewalk/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/jury-awards-13-mil...
whalesalad 2y ago
Literally yes! We have education, signage, warnings, red flags, etc... and yet people still do dumb shit and get themselves killed. Swim at your own risk, as they say.
- lazide 2y ago
  Frankly, the more you idiot proof things the ‘better’ they make the idiots. Life is at your own risk, don’t do anything too stupid.
bongodongobob 2y ago
In ALL of the great lakes, 45 people drowned last year. I have no idea what the drownings near shore was, but I mean, millions of people live on the borders of the Great lakes. 45 is pretty damn good and I think resources are better spent on other things.
- slug 2y ago
  And how many of those are young kids ? 1 is already too many https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0514-vs-drowning.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0514-vs-drowning.ht...
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    No, 1 is inevitable no matter what you do. "Won't somebody think of the children" is not an argument.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    Is it though? Death is an inevitability. Impossible to optimize the world for zero deaths. It’s a fools errand.
    - jasonfarnon 2y ago
      The problem is that once it is widely accepted that death is inevitable, that number will jump up from 45.
      - bongodongobob 2y ago
        No it won't. This isn't like designing better brakes or something. Humans have free will and shit happens.
        brewdad 2y ago
        Sure it will. Not immediately but gradually over time. If we decide it isn't worthwhile to prevent drowning deaths, educational and informational programs will go away. Novices won't fully understand the risks. Programs like my lakeside park has where free life jackets are available to borrow will disappear. People who might have considered swim lessons won't bother.

I know its tongue in cheek, but in practical terms, there is negative consequences for pushing the zero drownings. To achieve zero drownings, we have to have zero risk. the only way for zero risk is to eliminate it (i.e. ban swimming). However, banning swimming has many unintended consequences (swimming is great exercise, swimming during boat use is important during collisions). At some point, we will encounter water in ways that require swim skills. Drownings are tragic, however, we can't 100% prevent things without severe negative consequences.

Apocryphon 2y ago
People can swim in bodies of water without fierce currents.
- jpollock 2y ago
  People drown in swimming pools all the time.
  - Anon84 2y ago
    People drown in bathtubs all the time... There are only two obvious ways to minimize risk: teach people to swim or prevent people from swimming. Guess which one is more cost-effective?
    - jpollock 2y ago
      Since you can't stop them from swimming, it's teaching them to swim. The GP post was "stop them from going into dangerous areas", which is why I pointed out _swimming_pools_ would meet the definition of "dangerous".
      - Apocryphon 2y ago
        My point is that limiting swimming in certain areas is hardly the same thing as banning all swimming, it just feels like there is an alarmism about alarmism and perhaps there can be nuance and self-reflection from all sides of the debate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784425
dylan604 2y ago
Tool's Ænema is now playing in my head.
- pineaux 2y ago
  Learn to swim! Learn to swim! Learn to swim!
makeitdouble 2y ago
Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. The device in the article is someone pragmatic, lifeguard situation in most places is pragmatic, there would need to be a crazy shift to get people to agree to a more absolute stance.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. > Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. Um, compare this comment, left hours before yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917 > Fewer and fewer places to swim, more and more places just made everything a wading pool or a splash park to reduce liability, and after a generation of this there is an undersupply of people who can teach others to swim. Now some municipalities in my area are trying to ban swimming in open water.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    From the same comment: > They closed all the pools to save money It comes down to economics. I share the commenter's assessment that there might be fewer places to swim than before, but I think it also comes from fewer people interested in swimming in the first place, which creates the vicious circle. To draw a parralel, there's also fewer skate rinks in my region, ski resorts also closed in significant numbers. There's just not enough demand to justify the cost, and while lowering the requirements could partially help, I don't see it working even mid-term, and certainly not long term. On liability, I'd suspect that's not the real issue (is the town actually liable if you drown on your own swimming (= with a swimsuit and clear intent) in an unmarked body of water ?) and it might be more on the image and keeping away some demographics. Basically the same level of care as forbidding RC toys in parks.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    I would never own a swimming pool due to the ginormous sums in liability judgments. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/steilacoom-to-pay-15-million-after-boy-drowns-at-summer-camp/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/steilacoom-to-pay-... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/jury-awards-13-million-to-woman-who-fell-on-seattle-sidewalk/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/jury-awards-13-mil...

whalesalad 2y ago

Literally yes! We have education, signage, warnings, red flags, etc... and yet people still do dumb shit and get themselves killed. Swim at your own risk, as they say.

lazide 2y ago
Frankly, the more you idiot proof things the ‘better’ they make the idiots. Life is at your own risk, don’t do anything too stupid.

bongodongobob 2y ago

In ALL of the great lakes, 45 people drowned last year. I have no idea what the drownings near shore was, but I mean, millions of people live on the borders of the Great lakes. 45 is pretty damn good and I think resources are better spent on other things.

slug 2y ago
And how many of those are young kids ? 1 is already too many https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0514-vs-drowning.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0514-vs-drowning.ht...
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  No, 1 is inevitable no matter what you do. "Won't somebody think of the children" is not an argument.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  Is it though? Death is an inevitability. Impossible to optimize the world for zero deaths. It’s a fools errand.
  - jasonfarnon 2y ago
    The problem is that once it is widely accepted that death is inevitable, that number will jump up from 45.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      No it won't. This isn't like designing better brakes or something. Humans have free will and shit happens.
      - brewdad 2y ago
        Sure it will. Not immediately but gradually over time. If we decide it isn't worthwhile to prevent drowning deaths, educational and informational programs will go away. Novices won't fully understand the risks. Programs like my lakeside park has where free life jackets are available to borrow will disappear. People who might have considered swim lessons won't bother.