Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Second - Some have posed the question, "What if the child was not sick." Absolutely this boat would make it to port of call. The volume of 70 gallons of water is about 10 cubic feet. This is a diesel tanks worth of water per day. The volume of this boat is likely around 1,000-1,400 cubic feet. As noted a 1 gal/stroke thrash pump pumps that out in 70 strokes. I am not imagining this family wading around knee deep water in the salon. They weren't sinking.

First, I am not questioning the call to abandon the boat nor faulting them for doing so - they made the correct call IMO (I think this disclaimer always needs to be made on this thread for some reason).

However, it keeps being said directly by Eric and by others here that if it wasn't for the sick kid, they would have been fine. Eric even said that if he didn't make the call to stay with his family, he could have sailed the boat to the original destination or another like Hawaii.

I have a difficult time understanding this from my armchair.

Yes, a 70gpd leak is manageable, but we now know that the deck had a questionable and poor original construction and now had considerable rot in it. They did not know where or why the leak was occurring, and have speculated that it came from an area of existing rot. So, while it was 70gpd when they got off, it easily could have turned into 70gph if they had stayed on.

BTW, I don't consider 70gpd a minor leak. Particularly when one does not understand its cause or origin.

We also know that the water in the boat had taken out their radio capability, along with the power supply (batteries). We know that they did not have much water, their watermaker was very small, they lost their solar panels, and they did not have enough fuel to run their engine for long enough to provide enough power for water, communication or navigation for more than a few days. If they could get, and keep, the engine running. Even if their satphone had not been disconnected by the company, it did not seem like they would have had the ability to keep it charged for long.

So I agree that it is POSSIBLE that they could have arrived to their destination with favorable weather conditions, through severe water rationing or fortunate rain showers, no power usage (no nav lights, etc), marginal electronic navigation capability (I think he did have a sextant), no communication safety net, and a ton of good luck in not having the deck open up completely.

Possible, but brutal - particularly since this would have been their situation even if the kid was not sick.

Of course, I have been piecing this together from random info provided, so I may not have all the data or the proper perspective on it and came to the wrong conclusion.

Mark

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Taking a child to sea. A doctor quoted a disease that can happen in one in 3000 kids in the first 5 years. Divided that by 2 and came up with a probability of 1 in 1500 that one of your kids would suffer that - a reason not to take kids to sea... But that is a frequency not a probability. the probability that either child gets the disease in 5 years is 1/1500 = 0.0007.

The probability (assuming random distribution as opposed to a disease that worsens over time - e.g. heart disease) that the illness occurs on a given day in that 5 years is P / (365*5) - Multiply that by the passage length for cum probability over the length of passage. The probability of either child getting that disease over a 3-4 week passage is infinitesimally small. I posit that the skipper especially us older ones are at higher risk of debilitating illness than the kids. You can argue multiple competing diseases etc. but I hope some folks get my point.

I think you're misusing your statistics. Are you talking about one specific disease, or all diseases? Are you really suggesting that only 1 in 3000 kids get sick during their first 5 years?

I'm no medical expert, but I'm guessing that 1) the frequency of a child getting sick or becoming injured in general is much higher than you state, 2) the odds of an injury is likely higher during a Pacific crossing (or during any other significant travel) than staying in port, and 3) the odds of a disease or injury becoming life threatening to a child is much higher than that of an adult. It stands to reason that kids at less than 18 months of age are more vulnerable than adults, as they are completely dependent and less resistant to disease or injury.

These are just my gut feelings, without arbitrary statistics to back them up, but if you actually can find real-world statistics on these, it would surprise me if they're not supported.

I'm not saying that kids can't be taken cruising, but we shouldn't have to misuse statistics to minimize the stated risk.

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I think you're misusing your statistics. Are you talking about one specific disease, or all diseases? Are you really suggesting that only 1 in 3000 kids get sick during their first 5 years?

I'm no medical expert, but I'm guessing that 1) the frequency of a child getting sick or becoming injured in general is much higher than you state, 2) the odds of an injury is likely higher during a Pacific crossing (or during any other significant travel) than staying in port, and 3) the odds of a disease or injury becoming life threatening to a child is much higher than that of an adult. It stands to reason that kids at less than 18 months of age are more vulnerable than adults, as they are completely dependent and less resistant to disease or injury.

These are just my gut feelings, without arbitrary statistics to back them up, but if you actually can find real-world statistics on these, it would surprise me if they're not supported.

I'm not saying that kids can't be taken cruising, but we shouldn't have to misuse statistics to minimize the stated risk.

I have to agree with you here. As a matter of fact I would speculate that the rate off childhood illness for children under 5 is actually more like 1:1, as I have never personally known any child who has reached age 5 without being sick at some point. Of course most of these are routine childhood illnesses, but for a small child with a not yet fully developed immune system in that challenging environment, the potential for even routine illnesses to go horribly wrong are many. I think back over my daughter's and grandchildren's childhoods at that young age and all the many times I had to run them to the doctor for this thing and that; ear infections, chicken pox, flu, my grandson's broken wrists (both at once), my granddaughter's appendicitis and subsequent emergency surgery (age 3), my daughter's chronic persistent sore throats and sinus infections until she got her tonsils out. And then I imagine any of those things occurring while 900 miles out at sea (especially the appendicitis) and I shudder. And I am talking only 3 kids and many more than 3 illnesses. So maybe the odds are actually greater than 1:1 even given the fact that being away from others who are sick will help to prevent a lot of it.

And as you also correctly mentioned, the potential for injury is likewise high. When I think of all the bumps and bruises I have acquired over the years on just daysails on the Bay, I can't imagine being small with still fragile bones, being bashed around day in and day out, and without the strength and experience to understand the concept of "holding on." Where would a 3 year old find a proper handhold anyway, even if they had the wherewithal to understand that they needed to hold on at all times, as mostly handholds are positioned at adult height (Unless of course mom and dad thought to install a bunch of them at their level). I do understand the kids were secured in as much as possible, but short of lashing them to the bulkhead they had to be free to move about somewhat.

I am all for taking kids cruising. (This thread seems to require a lot of disclaimers.) I have had several very close friends who have cruised with their children and without exception the kids have benefitted greatly from the experience and have excelled in school and life in general when they returned. I think though, for me personally, I would limit it to coastal cruising until the children were a bit more hardy and able to fend for themselves, and where medical care, and even a possible rescue, could come quicker. Without the long passages to endure it also leaves mom and dad more rested and able to attend to the duties of child rearing and also be able to keep a good handle on the ship when it's moving. And considering the amount of coastline in this world, I don't see that to be particularly limiting.

I also think there is a lot more to be said for keeping kids stimulated and interested in a coastal environment than just looking at water all around for weeks at a time. Mom and dad may enjoy the challenge of that, but for most kids, unless they are of an age to appreciate the challenge of it as well, they are just going to be bored as hell. They'd probably get a lot more out of a day snorkeling with the sea turtles or looking for shells on the beach than looking at the same horizon ad infinitum.

One family we were close to left San Diego with their two tweenagers, cruised down the coast, through the Panama Canal, through the Caribbean and up the east coast to Maine, and then turned around and did it in reverse, returning to San Diego almost 5 years later. Their kids used the Calvert courses for school I think. Mom was a school teacher in her shore life. They both were far ahead of their classmates when they returned. The daughter had made it a goal to take ballet lessons in every country they visited, they were all four fluent in Spanish, and they made every effort to involve themselves in the culture and communities that they visited, attending church where ever they were, making friends ashore (not just in the anchorage). They just had the most amazing experiences and didn't have to cross an ocean to do it.

Just because blue water may not be the most suitable environment for a baby, that does not mean that you cannot cruise. There are plenty of ways to reconcile the two, avoid that "life of quiet desperation" I keep hearing about (but have personally never experienced even though my only ocean crossings have been by airplane) and still greatly increase the safety margin for you and your children. If the realization of some dream can only be realized on the other side of some big ocean the skipper can always get a crew to help him sail the boat and mom and kids can fly to the other side.

[colemj]

I read Ex-Calif's post as talking about another poster's (who was a physician) statement that a particular disease (forgot which one) had that probability of occurring.

I did not read it as Ex-Calif talking about sickness in general, or presenting any base statistics of his own.

Mark

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

...I would speculate that the statistics on childhood illness for children under 5 is actually more like 1:1, as I have never personally known any child who has reached age 5 without being sick at some point. Of course most of these are routine childhood illnesses...

Routine childhood illnesses are no reason to prevent a family from going cruising. The odds of any normally healthy child contracting a life-threatening illness, which could not be properly dealt with, on board, during even the longest passage, are so very far from your suggested 1:1 that no realistic comparison comes to mind.

With today's internet and worldwide communications systems, it should be possible to get instant medical advice practically anywhere in the world. Many/most cruisers carry an expanded medical kit which has been assembled expressly for surviving while away from professional medical help. Same with cruisers normally having adequate ship to shore communications systems and backups. It is each individual's right to decide what level of such preparedness is right, for his own family and ability.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by colemj

I read Ex-Calif's post as talking about another poster's (who was a physician) statement that a particular disease (forgot which one) had that probability of occurring.

I did not read it as Ex-Calif talking about sickness in general, or presenting any base statistics of his own.

Mark

He made some rather general conclusions based on some rather specific statistics.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Routine childhood illnesses are no reason to prevent a family from going cruising.

I don't think that's the right way to frame the discussion. A risk assessment should be based on level of experience with the type of cruising, cruising experience, parents experience with a certain age of kids, and family goals.

There are certainly higher risks associated with taking very young kids cruising, and it makes sense to familiarize oneself with those risks, and make sure you're prepared for those risks if that's what you're contemplating.

I do agree that it's up to the individual cruiser to make the determination for their family.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Routine childhood illnesses are no reason to prevent a family from going cruising. The odds of any normally healthy child contracting a life-threatening illness, which could not be properly dealt with, on board, during even the longest passage, are so very far from your suggested 1:1 that no realistic comparison comes to mind.

With today's internet and worldwide communications systems, it should be possible to get instant medical advice practically anywhere in the world. Many/most cruisers carry an expanded medical kit which has been assembled expressly for surviving while away from professional medical help. Same with cruisers normally having adequate ship to shore communications systems and backups. It is each individual's right to decide what level of such preparedness is right, for his own family and ability.

When you are 900 miles from land nothing is routine.

[oldragbaggers]

[QUOTE=Terra Nova;1562850]Routine childhood illnesses are no reason to prevent a family from going cruising. QUOTE]

And I did not advocate not going cruising. And appendicitis was not a routine childhood illness either, so things beyond the common cold do occur in kids and any parent who has ever had to make a trip to the emergency room with their child knows that there are things that even the best equipped medical kit will not prepare you for.

I just said, for ME, knowing what I have experienced with my kids and grandkids, taking them far offshore and out of the reach of professional medical care at that young an age would not be something I would be willing to risk. I am not judging anyone else's decision to do so. Each person is responsible for their own family and also for the outcome of their individual decisions, be they good or be they bad. But I employ a different standard when making choices for little ones than I would use when only making choices for myself. Risks I would be willing to take when it only involves myself and other fully informed and consenting adults are often not acceptable (to me) when they involve kids.

[Andrew B.]

From what I have gathered for some there is always some seemingly
legitimate reason to not leave the dock. This seems to be particularly
true if it's someone other than oneself that has the problem while sailing.
I told you so.

Rather proud of myself as I just checked my before I sail checklist against the one they use for launching personnel to the space station, and mines longer.
#93 on checklist- Never even go to the boat if there's more than a %30 chance of rain.
I ain't even going to get wet !

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

From what I have gathered for some there is always some seemingly
legitimate reason to not leave the dock. This seems to be particularly
true if it's someone other than oneself that has the problem while sailing.
I told you so.

Rather proud of myself as I just checked my before I sail checklist against the one they use for launching personnel to the space station, and mines longer.
#93 on checklist- Never even go to the boat if there's more than a %30 chance of rain.
I ain't even going to get wet !

Cute and clever, but bears no relevance to what was being said.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I think you're misusing your statistics. Are you talking about one specific disease, or all diseases? Are you really suggesting that only 1 in 3000 kids get sick during their first 5 years?

<snip>
I'm no medical expert, but I'm guessing that 1) the frequency of a child getting sick or becoming injured in general is much higher than you state, 2) the odds of an injury is likely higher during a Pacific crossing (or during any other significant travel) than staying in port, and 3) the odds of a disease or injury becoming life threatening to a child is much higher than that of an adult. <snip>

Originally Posted by colemj

I read Ex-Calif's post as talking about another poster's (who was a physician) statement that a particular disease (forgot which one) had that probability of occurring.

I did not read it as Ex-Calif talking about sickness in general, or presenting any base statistics of his own.

Mark

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Routine childhood illnesses are no reason to prevent a family from going cruising. The odds of any normally healthy child contracting a life-threatening illness, which could not be properly dealt with, on board, during even the longest passage, are so very far from your suggested 1:1 that no realistic comparison comes to mind.

I sorta figured this would get some pushback - Yes. In a post about 1/3 the way through this thread one of our doctor members cited a debilitating disease that causes death in children. He stated that 1 in 3,000 kids will get this disease and need intervention in the first 5 years of life. He said with 2 kids that's a 1 in 1500 probability of getting the disease.

I just pointed out that that is a .0007 probability (in 5 years) or .00000004 daily probability (.0007 / 1825)

This is a pretty low probability. I did not say kids won't get sick. Most childhood illnesses are parent treatable and Charlotte and Eric did get advise and were prescribed antibiotics.

I also am not saying that cruising is risk free compared to life on land.

Also citing "one" disease is not an assessment of the total risk. You would need to construct a competing risk assessment or cumulative risk assessment - P1+P2+P3 etc. You would also have to assess the frequency of each risk over a measure period. - i.e. what debilitating diseases to kids get in the first 5 years, convert that to a daily probability and then calculate the cum probability over a 21 or 28 day passage.

The first news heads jumped on "bad parenting" of RH crew for taking those poor innocents to sea. This bugged the crap outta me because in many regards we are becoming a nanny state quick to judge others. If we want to become an Orwelian country where everyone wears the grey smock and goes to work in the "factory" count me out.

There are thousands of kids cruising right now. I've met some. They aren't dying in droves on passages so the risk factor can't be too high.

One could argue they are becoming more creative, worldly and better global citizens than the average American kid.

Let's celebrate our (Americans and other "wealthy nations) ability to live the lifestyles we choose. be proud of our diversity of experience as the mosaic of who we are creates the society that we have become.

This leads into the "search & rescue" debate - Should RH pay for the rescue? Laughable. We as a modern society decided to build S&R capability. We rescue the smart and the dumb. Should the skier who goes down the "wrong side" of a mountain and gets lost pay for his rescue? Should the kid who gets stuck in a drainpipe pay for his rescue. What about the guy who tries to drive his car across a flooded intersection?

My brother had a job early in life servicing radio towers. He drove fire trails all over mount baldy and the San GoGo range in SoCal. One night he didn't come home. S&R was initiated. Choppers and all. We found him the next day. In executing a u-turn the 4WD vehicle fell in a ditch, broke a drive shaft and was immobilized. What an irresponsible idiot! We should have made him pay for the S&R - Not

So back to point - Take your kids cruising. It's not child abuse.

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

Cute and clever, but bears no relevance to what was being said.

I beg to differ I believe it sums up rather well what over %90 of this tread
has been about.

To much RH did the right thing, but...

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by colemj

I read Ex-Calif's post as talking about another poster's (who was a physician) statement that a particular disease (forgot which one) had that probability of occurring.

I did not read it as Ex-Calif talking about sickness in general, or presenting any base statistics of his own.

Mark

Yeah, me too.

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

.................................................. ................................
.................................................. ...........

So back to point - Take your kids cruising. It's not child abuse.

Thanks...