tokin opposition posted:

unemployment should be 100%

COPE 27 posted:

In Canada we did huge cuts to corporate taxes and consumption taxes like 15 years ago and everyone is acting like the underfunded public services are some intractable mystery.

Epic High Five posted:

It's very unfortunate that Nazi economic policy we've renamed to privatization has found such purchase in the west to the point that embracing it is a requirement of membership, but I suppose the historical position of liberalism has been to support Nazi programs as the lesser evil so not a surprise. There's some justice in that it's also valor stolen from Italians as is right and proper.

COPE 27 posted:

Are you British or Canadian?

Centrist Committee posted:

nazi germany was the bourgeois paris commune, a heroic ideal that was crushed too quickly

christmas boots posted:

Not economists, but I’m reminded of how decades ago there used to be a really bad epidemic of babies in hospitals failing to thrive and they thought it was malnutrition or infection and they kept brainstorming and trying poo poo for years until eventually someone had the bright idea of “hey, what if we held them?” and surprise surprise babies like physical contact

I guess what I’m saying is that idiots run the world

Dylan16807 posted:

And if it didn't work, you wouldn't call them idiots for thinking you can make a baby become healthy by using hugs?

A lot of 'obvious' things are true. But it's also important to measure the effect size.

A lot of 'obvious' things are not true.

Coolness Averted posted:

no, because giving a dying human material comfort is a good thing, even if it fails to heal them and also would be a relatively low cost thing to try.
If the response is "But it would be high cost, because we've cut staffing to the bone and specifically designed maternity wards in ways that prevented people from being with their newborn children" it looks like there's already pretty big systemic issues in play.

Dylan16807 posted:

Failure to thrive isn't dying though. And I'm sure there was plenty of contact going on

Weatherman posted:

You're going to have to define what you mean by "plenty" there, given that the results of "more contact" was "babies started thriving". Do you see what I mean?

Dylan16807 posted:

Plenty was a bad choice of word. I mean that while the average was way too low, the amount happening was far from 0, and many babies were getting enough contact.

My point being: The issue isn't that "nobody" had this idea. It's that it wasn't universal and also nobody was doing a rigorous study.

Epic High Five posted:

They "didnt understand" that babies benefit from human contact because human contact is expensive and hard to quantify, things the relentless drive for profit does not include unless forced. If thriving babies was the singular goal things would look a lot different, and all the hand wringing and "sensible changes" are just ways to skirt around that in defense of the present system. There is no utility or point in wondering what was in their heart of hearts lest you find yourself perpetuating the system you recognize as having failed

Real hurthling! posted:

i think now because of bad staffing they make the delirious mother do the care asap with drop in help from nurses before kicking the family out in less than 48hrs
like those rooms of crying newborns on display in old media dont exist

Dylan16807 posted:

But again you need numbers. Not everything is truly obvious. What if it was better to isolate babies for a week for immune reasons, and only then give them maximum contact? You need to be compassionate, but common sense differs between people and isn't always right.

Epic High Five posted:

Sounds like the system was adopted before anybody had the numbers and data then, I wonder why that was, and why it seems to keep happening? My point is that they did have the numbers and data they felt they needed to make the choice, and they're exactly the kind when you let """healthcare economists""" run everything. What's the point in apologizing on their behalf? The promise of technocratic liberalism is more efficiently starving grannies and Brave New Worlding babies, like even the New Dems said as much and they represent the only faction near the levels of power that is the "face" of compassion

tokin opposition posted:

My mother never cuddled me and I turned out horribly

Dylan16807 posted:

I'm not trying to apologize on their behalf, I'm critiquing the idea that they should have already known for sure.

So sure, they should have studied it before changing things. They did a bad thing to make this change. But I felt like the post I was originally replying to makes the correct answer sound too obvious. There are other situations in hospitals where the answer is different.

Coolness Averted posted:

The problem is you're deploying that position in defense of cruelty backed by empirics

tokin opposition posted:

My mother never cuddled me and I turned out horribly

Professor Shark posted:

what are you nerds going on about

Professor Shark posted:

what are you nerds going on about

quote:

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.

Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.

Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.

Main outcome measure Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.

Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.

Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.

quote:

Abstract
Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018.

Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized.

Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded).

Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing.

Results Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001).

Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

COPE 27 posted:

Would you like a sand pit for that leap?

Ichabod Sexbeast posted:

Tiggum posted:

I'm moving house and, for the first time in all the places I've lived, the real estate agent is exercising their (utterly obnoxious) right to show people through the old place before I've moved out.

Scallop Eyes posted:

https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1621971518086602753

Scallop Eyes posted:

https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1621971518086602753

Tiggum posted:

I'm moving house and, for the first time in all the places I've lived, the real estate agent is exercising their (utterly obnoxious) right to show people through the old place before I've moved out.

hobbesmaster posted:

there’s a problem in “evidence based medicine” where a lot of common sense things that have always been done don’t actually have double blind peer review data behind them.

academic arguments about this led to an all time best peer reviewed journal article “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

and the follow up, mocking poor experiment design: “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial”