No, actually the evidence is pretty clear at the population level. Can you find someone who says they take more risks because of helmets? Sure. Can you rule it out for a few individuals? No. But we have tons of research on this: if this effect even exists, it's dwarfed by safety.
-
-
Yes let me be more precise: there will be risk compensation in some individuals, but at the population level, there's no evidence this outweighs the safety improvement from the intervention and leaves you where you started or worse in terms of the outcome (no risk homeostasis)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The evidence is very unclear about the benefits of bike helmets at the population level, but whatever.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The evidence is pretty clear with high-risk activities and helmets. For low-risk riding (bikes etc.) it's not clear there is a huge risk to begin with--depends on the set-up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Wikipedia says-haven't checked sources cited-that for the very highest risk activities/thrill sports improved equipment hasn't decreased injuries/deaths. It appears that risk might be the point--so better parachutes or anchors won't reduce death rate among skydivers, ice climbers
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I suggest reading the research! Researchers think of all these obvious things, you know.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In the case of bike helmets I accept that the evidence is mixed. But in general it is reasonable for public health professionals to carefully weigh the possibility of increased risky behavior in the context of a medication that is perceived to be effectivehttps://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-11-118 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YIMBY_Princeton @zeynep and
Especially when it comes to a treatment (BCG vaccine) for which the evidence of efficacy is very poor, and for which there are other good reasons to think that trying to push it out to the wider population would have other adverse consequences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
1-Helmets are not just for bikes! Is biking high-risk? Depends where/how. 2-If there are reasons to be concerned, and I don't disagree, we can talk about the actual reasons. Making up stuff backfires. It did with masks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
They're not "making stuff up" though. They are applying the best public health practice and a precautionary approach, instead of recommending things for which they have no evidence of efficacy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You can do that without making up threats that have been debunked and aren’t real. Also for masks, the precautionary principle was clearly on the side of mask wearing except for the made up threats. The threats were literally made up. No relevant citations ever.
-
-
With availability of HIV triple therapy, public health professionals were concerned about increased risky behavior. That was a reasonable concern, and there is some evidence to support that it was a valid concern. The same principle holds for face masks or anything else...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YIMBY_Princeton @zeynep and
...the way I would frame this is "the WHO has regularly taken a cautious approach before recommending treatments where there is limited evidence of efficacy". I definitely would not write "these so-called experts are making stuff up".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.