On 5/19/2017 9:52 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/19/2017 7:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.

But how many lives were lost because people refused to buy a
refrigerator due to this law and ate food that was unsafe due to lack of
refrigeration?

I really don't get how these people don't know that this is all a trade-off and why they are totally unwilling to look at it that way.

How could you look at a helmet use from 0 to 30% without a change in the numbers of head injuries and think that a helmet was accomplishing anything?

Because the real thing that you have to compare is the severity of
injury with and without a helmet.

You can't look at helmet usage in isolation from other factors, which is
what the "0-30%" schtick tries to do.