Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:03:41 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <nr6euj1pnrssqlp7s0u2cikn02cf8lukl0@4ax.com>
References: <t2k5ujpftk2qp2f8jdn4tsa94fsbmu5c5m@4ax.com> <vruk1u$3k0mh$2@dont-email.me> <dtl5ujhl59hpq12lnbovebk80os181ulgo@4ax.com> <3SEEP.1067220$eNx6.591931@fx14.iad> <vrvog0$j8eo$6@dont-email.me> <vs1280$1ri3r$2@dont-email.me> <vs17id$21gj2$1@dont-email.me> <vs1m78$26rhi$2@dont-email.me> <vs2glq$35mlr$2@dont-email.me> <b5t9ujtrk4ph0rcl8stghedkbcmv2ho64q@4ax.com> <vs3uvg$la27$1@dont-email.me> <87iknsq422.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <vs751k$3k5eb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:03:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4343279e825db02f553d8274879fd9ef";
	logging-data="3873553"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1937LUNSfVVUnK2e2kSJrks1ypyb+P9Ljg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kE33vln5FiGM4ibOiu4Ic8O5Gxk=
Bytes: 4935

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:41:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/28/2025 4:43 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> 
>>> Flu vaccinations get developed based on predictions of upcoming virus
>>> characteristics. And they are evaluated by after-the-fact reports on
>>> effectiveness, by counts of flu cases and severity in the general
>>> population: How much did this year's vaccine reduce flu infections?
>>> Sometimes the vaccine works really well, sometimes less well.
>>>
>>> If that same sort of general population evaluation was applied to bike
>>> helmets, the conclusion would be "Yeah, our initial tests looked good,
>>> but they failed in the general population."
>> 
>> I doubt you have looked into flu shots with the same energy you have
>> bike helmets.  Flu shots are a moneymaker, and are promoted every year
>> regardless of how well they have done.  This is not to say anything
>> positive or negative about their efficacy, just that it's not relevant
>> to the decision on whether to promote them.  Same as bike helmets
>
>I see major differences. Flu shots are revised year by year based on the 
>best science available, which typically involves "what strain of flu 
>just dominated in the southern hemisphere?" Yes, sometimes they miss, 
>but the results are typically good, with 50% fewer flu cases being 
>pretty typical. And they try for improvements the next year.
>
>And flu causes tens of thousands of U.S. fatalities in most years.
>
>Bike helmet design and certification is calcified (by law!) in 1970s 
>technology. Unlike flu vaccines, there is no national population data 
>indicating any significant reduction in deaths. And bicycling TBI deaths 
>are very rare anyway, typically around only 500 per year out of a 
>national total of over 50,000 TBI deaths.
>
>> You're an odd case.  Most people who begin to doubt the party line on
>> one issue begin to see parallels with other issues, and their doubts
>> multiply.  Bike helmets don't work?  Maybe flu vaccines don't either.
>> Maybe statins are actually bad for you.  Maybe, as Mr. Shadow tells us,
>> US standards for blood pressure are counter-productive.  Maybe even
>> those studies on second hand smoke were nonsense.  Who knows where it
>> will stop?  Maybe eating saturated animal fat is actually *good* for us.
>
>IIRC, in this discussion group and in this society, each of us gets to 
>choose the issues that are important to us.
>
>> Of course, it's wise not to mention too many heterdox opinions in any
>> one setting, lest decent people decide you're entirely crazy.  But you
>> seem quite uncalculating -- It's just bike helmets that are an
>> unaccountable failure in public health policy, on everything else we
>> should obey authority.
>
>:-)  On helmets, I'm among the last people to whom you should apply 
>"uncalculating." Review my many posts citing data and data processing.
>
>And you have roughly zero idea about my views on "everything else," 
>including statins, blood pressure, second hand smoke, saturated fat, 
>etc. Check your assumptions at the door, please.


"IIRC, in this discussion group and in this society, each of us gets
to choose the issues that are important to us."

<chuckles> Apparently, your issue is trying to justify your preference
for not wearing a helmet.

Like I said several times, nobody cares that you don't wear a helmet.
You don't need to try to jusitify it.

--
C'est bon
Soloman