Masks today, helmets tomorrow?

[Jdsk]

Many helmet wearers say that they would not go cycling without a helmet. What is this but risk compensation? They believe that a helmet keeps the risk down to a level acceptable to them, but surely admit that the hat does not eliminate risk.

That isn't the usual meaning of "risk compensation".

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

Many helmet wearers say that they would not go cycling without a helmet. What is this but risk compensation? They believe that a helmet keeps the risk down to a level acceptable to them, but surely admit that the hat does not eliminate risk.

That isn't the usual meaning of "risk compensation".

Jonathan

It may not be what is often misunderstood as risk compensation, which is why I prefer "Risk Homeostasis".
Can you define the "usual" meaning, please.

[Jdsk]

Something like the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article would do fine for me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Why is "homeostasis" better?

But whatever the definition if you want to see if it's happening it's still necessary to go and look for it rather than assume it.

Jonathan

[atoz]

I cannot see any comparison between helmets (which are not in any circumstance compulsory in the UK) and wearing masks to stop the spread of a particular virulent and nasty disease which kills horribly. Ok, we don't know as much as we would like to know about how it spreads but who wants that risk?

It's actually the inconsistency- wear a mask to buy your beers at the shops, or spread your virus in the boozer without one. It's bad science, and has similarities to the helmet debate. Inconsistent and a lack of evidence based research in both. That's why the WHO held off so long before modifying their original guidance on masks- read it, not politician's soundbites

[Jdsk]

I cannot see any comparison between helmets (which are not in any circumstance compulsory in the UK) and wearing masks to stop the spread of a particular virulent and nasty disease which kills horribly. Ok, we don't know as much as we would like to know about how it spreads but who wants that risk?

It's actually the inconsistency- wear a mask to buy your beers at the shops, or spread your virus in the boozer without one. It's bad science, and has similarities to the helmet debate

if inconsistency is identified it would be wise to criticise and remove the dumber policy rather than the smarter one.

Jonathan

[atoz]

I cannot see any comparison between helmets (which are not in any circumstance compulsory in the UK) and wearing masks to stop the spread of a particular virulent and nasty disease which kills horribly. Ok, we don't know as much as we would like to know about how it spreads but who wants that risk?

It's actually the inconsistency- wear a mask to buy your beers at the shops, or spread your virus in the boozer without one. It's bad science, and has similarities to the helmet debate

if inconsistency is identified it would be wise to criticise and remove the dumber policy rather than the smarter one.

Jonathan

Agreed- want to put money on that happening?

[Mike Sales]

Something like the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article would do fine for me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Why is "homeostasis" better?

But whatever the definition if you want to see if it's happening it's still necessary to go and look for it rather than assume it.

Jonathan

That seems a fair definition.

Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected.

I think risk compensation is often seen as the first part: that people adjust for increased risk, and not for decreased risk. Using risk homeostasis as the term makes this a bit more apparent.
This risk adjustment is an internal brain process and very difficult to observe. Adams discusses this.
The failure of many measures intended to achieve more safety is suggestive.
The increase in pedestrian and cyclist casualties which accompanied seat belt legislation is telling.
Drivers who feel safer take less care.

An article in the journal of the Royal Statistical Society showed this.
As Adams comments,

Significantly the Significance article did not make it into the Review’s list of key references on seat belts. A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”

Really, I find that the case for risk homeostasis needs a larger space. I have suggested that a reading of Adams and Wilde to might help.

Not all worthwhile knowledge is amenable to the scientific method, especially when it concerns the human brain.

[Oldjohnw]

I cannot see any comparison between helmets (which are not in any circumstance compulsory in the UK) and wearing masks to stop the spread of a particular virulent and nasty disease which kills horribly. Ok, we don't know as much as we would like to know about how it spreads but who wants that risk?

It's actually the inconsistency- wear a mask to buy your beers at the shops, or spread your virus in the boozer without one. It's bad science, and has similarities to the helmet debate. Inconsistent and a lack of evidence based research in both. That's why the WHO held off so long before modifying their original guidance on masks- read it, not politician's soundbites

I'm not given to taking guidance from politicians' soundbites.

[Mick F]

Risk compensation.

Have you ever used a chainsaw and cut trees down and cut logs?
Why not do it naked?

Would you be more careful stark naked............... or be more careful dressed in full protective chainsaw kit?

[Cyril Haearn]

Best, safest, not to use a chainsaw at all. I am disgruntled because some young trees near home have been executed, not sure why, the stumps look healthy. Of course the evidence has been taken away

[irc]

I think the government should have used the original outbreak to enforce cycle helmets. It stands to reason. You have unusually high demand on the NHS resources,

But you didn't have a high demand. Outside the parts dealing with Covid the NHS was far quieter than normal.

On 14 May it was announced that A&E visits were 57% lower last month than in April 2019

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comm ... gency-care

[Jdsk]

Yes, EDs and elective areas of secondary care, and across primary care.

Oxford used the local press to tell the population that the ED was open and should be used when needed.

...

That means that a lot of patients suffered from not getting appropriate care. And that the backlog is enormous. And of course the capacity is much lower than before the outbreak.

And we entered the outbreak with greatly increased waiting lists and waiting times.

Jonathan

[fastpedaller]

I cannot see any comparison between helmets (which are not in any circumstance compulsory in the UK) and wearing masks to stop the spread of a particular virulent and nasty disease which kills horribly. Ok, we don't know as much as we would like to know about how it spreads but who wants that risk?

It's actually the inconsistency- wear a mask to buy your beers at the shops, or spread your virus in the boozer without one. It's bad science, and has similarities to the helmet debate. Inconsistent and a lack of evidence based research in both. That's why the WHO held off so long before modifying their original guidance on masks- read it, not politician's soundbites

My explanation of the situation.....
Not possible/likely to social distance on public transport (person too close I'll move.... oops closer to another person).
Can't drink beer with a mask on - and there are guidelines for distancing/knowing others on table, also personal details taken so track/tracre.
It has been emphasised 2metres is still the guidance (or 1metre + other measures) though many put their own interpretation on this.
Getting the economy going has meant increased risk, and additional measures in mitigation. Remember also that there was a World shortage of face coverings a couple of months ago, the availability has now improved so it's more feasible to suggest/mandate usage.

[Jdsk]

Getting the economy going has meant increased risk, and additional measures in mitigation.

Yes, the optimal decision would address the economic output / isolation trade-off.

Remember also that there was a World shortage of face coverings a couple of months ago, the availability has now improved so it's more feasible to suggest/mandate usage.

I don't think that the delayed recommendation in England was caused by a shortage of masks.

Jonathan

[fastpedaller]

Best, safest, not to use a chainsaw at all. I am disgruntled because some young trees near home have been executed, not sure why, the stumps look healthy. Of course the evidence has been taken away

Indeed. I know someone who's neighbour is lucky to be alive after cutting into his leg with a chainsaw - He also happens to be the safety officer where he works!