Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Our Community (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/)
-   -   Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged) (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-merged-125942.html)

colemj 12-06-2014 07:12

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1562685)
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 12-06-2014 07:25

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1562685)

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 12-06-2014 09:37

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3 (Post 1562735)
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 12-06-2014 09:50

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
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 12-06-2014 10:03

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers (Post 1562833)
...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 12-06-2014 10:18

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by colemj (Post 1562840)
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 12-06-2014 10:28

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Terra Nova (Post 1562850)
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 12-06-2014 11:00

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Terra Nova (Post 1562850)
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 12-06-2014 12:35

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
[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. 12-06-2014 12:40

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
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 !

:deadhorsebeat:

oldragbaggers 12-06-2014 13:42

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew B. (Post 1562957)
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 !

:deadhorsebeat:

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

Ex-Calif 12-06-2014 16:21

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3 (Post 1562735)
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>

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemj (Post 1562840)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terra Nova (Post 1562850)
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. 12-06-2014 19:36

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers (Post 1562998)
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. 12-06-2014 19:37

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by colemj (Post 1562840)
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. 12-06-2014 19:39

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1563109)
.................................................. ................................
.................................................. ...........

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

Thanks...:thumb:

oldragbaggers 12-06-2014 20:24

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew B. (Post 1563216)
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...

There are no "buts...." RH did what he wanted to do for his family, which was his right, and as I stated very clearly (many times in many posts) I am not judging him for it. I am very sorry that things did not work out for him and his family. I wish with all my heart they had arrived at their destination safely and we were not having this discussion at all. I wish him, Charlotte and the girls only the best and hope they recover from this and give it another go.

I was only stating the choice I would make for my own family and why. As far as it translating to "never leaving the dock" that's just a gross overstatement and that's why I felt your comment wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

My comment related to a very small percentage of cruisers, i.e. those that have small children and those with small children that intend to take them on long offshore voyages. My guess is that cruisers that fit into that demographic are not the majority by a very long shot.

And, as I have said previously, I am very much in favor of cruising with children. I personally would just wait until they were big enough to fend for themselves a little more before I took them on a long blue-water passage.

And by the way, frankly I think the the dead-horse head-banging thing is a little overdone.

Andrew B. 12-06-2014 20:53

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
My initial comment was my take on the thread as a whole.
Not your comments.
I liked you comments, at least until now. Your hyper-sensitivity
read something that just wasn't there. I didn't quote anything from
anyone's comments about anything specific in the post you decided to slam.

But you did protest something exCalif didn't say.
I believe I knew where you stand on sailing with children
before your last defensive comments.

The extra verbiage wasn't needed. At least by me.

And me thinks thou protest to much...:whistling:

cheoah 12-06-2014 21:10

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Is that what that thing is???

I thought yellow peanut m&m dude was trying to beat the candy out of the other end of a piņata.

Have to agree with you but I don't really notice the beating dead horse one much. head banger dude really irritates me. At times I've wondered if emoticons like this will one day dictate our emotional responses to dialogue, rather than illustrate it? Will animated gifs (or whatever that beastly red turd nibbler thing is) one day be a part of our socialization, and because of constant exposure to the b.r.t.n., we actually begin to relate minor frustrations to beating our heads against a wall?

Oh no, now I'm hyper aware of all the emoticons. There everywhere around this text box. I had just blanked them out, didn't even notice the ones on the bottom. Who uses those?????

And now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering and banter...

ya'll keep it sweet.

Andrew B. 12-06-2014 21:24

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cheoah (Post 1563282)
Is that what that thing is???

I thought yellow peanut m&m dude was trying to beat the candy out of the other end of a piņata.
............................................
........................................
ya'll keep it sweet.

Yeah me too.

I rarely use Smilies, but at times they are a all to easy to use shorthand.

Jim Cate 12-06-2014 21:50

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Seems to me that one very good way to keep your children from suffering from childhood diseases is... take them offshore! Most of those ailments are contagious... one needs to be exposed to someone else who has the disease in order to come down with it.

So, if one leaves a populous anchorage and seeks seclusion for a week or so before departure on a long passage, most childhood disease will manifest itself and appropriate action can be taken. After that quarantine period, it is unlikely that any of the many childhood infectious diseases will appear in your children.

This does not preclude problems, such as trauma, hereditary issues, lingering after affects from previous illness (possibly the case with the child in question), but addresses a previous post concerned with the myriad illnesses common to children.

Cheers,

Jim

letsgetsailing3 12-06-2014 21:59

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1563109)
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.


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

You deserved some pushback, as you threw out an out-of-context statistic to back up a general conclusion.

There's nothing wrong with taking kids cruising, as long as the responsible party has the sense not to kid themself about the fact that there are risks involved. It's not even about actuarial tables, it's about the risk to the particular kids involved, the particular trip planned, and the experience of the adults involved.

akmagnolia 12-06-2014 23:06

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
For full disclosure, I am not a member of the sailing community. I read about the rescue on the news and the story captured my attention in a way few are capable of doing. I have had rudimentary training in operational risk management at work, and as the mother of a college age son who nearly died before his first birthday from a medical emergency, I felt I could relate to the concept of being willing to trade everything you own to keep your child alive.

I recognize I do not know enough about the lifestyle to understand real vs. perceived risks and I've tried to keep an open mind about the issues involved, but like everyone, my perceptions are filtered thorugh my own experiences and biases.

In my case, my son had a mild runny nose on a Saturday morning and was on IV antibotics for a septic infection by Sunday mid-day. If I'd had to describe the sypmtoms that prompted me to carry him to the emergency room over the phone, I probably would not have been able to articulate clearly the reasons why my instincts were telling me to get medical attention at the ER rather than wait for the pediatrician's office hours a day later.

As it happened, when I arrived in the ER, my son was taken immediately from my arms to an examining room. In short order the doctor performed a lumbar puncture and diagnosed him as having a septic infection which probably originated as a secondary bacterial sinus infection. He spent a week in the hospital receiving IV antibiotics.

I was stunned at the speed he deteriorated, and based on this one incident, I do not think anyone could convince me to cruise offshore with children under five. He was otherwise perfectly healthy when this happened. His treating physician told me if I had waited longer to bring him in, he most likely would have died.

I do not believe rescue costs should be passed on the the people who are rescued, but I do think the cruising community would benefit from an in-depth analysis of the real risks of cruising with children and how those risks can be mitigated. I would not limit this analysis to situations requiring evacuation and the scuttling of a family home; I believe we can learn much from near misses as well.

I also believe cruising families can fall for the same biases in executive decision-making that everyone tends to make in evaluating risk. I understand several families with small children had successful Pacific crossings within the last year without incident. I know several families who transported children in cars at high speed on interstate highways without incident as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't without risk, or that they don't need to use car seats. I'm not satisfied anyone has rigorously studied the risks of cruising with children, and without this, no one can really say they understand the real risks or whether those risks are worth it.

I believe the youngest member of the Rebel Heart was also the member at greatest risk for injury while getting the least benefit from the trip. This is more disconcerning for me than the cost of the rescue.

I haven't made up my mind on whether I believe additional regulations for offshore travel with small children are necessary for vessels similar to the Rebel Heart.

Ex-Calif 13-06-2014 00:01

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3 (Post 1563300)
You deserved some pushback, as you threw out an out-of-context statistic to back up a general conclusion.

<snip>

That's a nice jazzy sentence but is completely wrong. My math is not in error. The probability is infinitesimally small of getting that disease on a 28 day passage - that is and was my only point for the statistic.

It is completely in context of the doctor's post stating that a 1 in 1500 frequency of this disease over 5 years was presented as a reason not to take kids cruising.

My conclusion was not general - It is very specific. The doctor's fact (1 in 1500) doesn't not back up his conclusion that taking kids cruising is overly risky.



Quote:

Originally Posted by akmagnolia (Post 1563327)
For full disclosure, I am not a member of the sailing community.

<snip>


I haven't made up my mind on whether I believe additional regulations for offshore travel with small children are necessary for vessels similar to the Rebel Heart.

First of all I don't know you and you don't know me but you joined in so here we go.

You are a self professed non-boater - You saw a news story and decided to have a look around (I guess) and now you have formed some opinions about children cruising.

Please understand there is one thing - thousands of kids are cruising - they aren't dropping like flies - it's not unsafe.

And in this rare instance where a child (could have been any crew BTW) needed to be lifted off, thank God there was a country that could and did send help. It's what we pay for. In 1900 the poor child would probably be toast.

But your last sentence quite frankly annoys me. Additional regulations? Please. It's not your business if I put my kids on a boat and go sailing. Why should I abbrogate my parental role to you and heaven forbid any elected official who is only reactive to the news cycle and no real studies or facts.

Go worry about tree zoning in your neighborhood. Leave me alone.

Sorry if I am a little cranked up. I take it seriously when people start infringing on my liberties.

Scottuk 13-06-2014 00:29

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

I take it seriously when people start infringing on my liberties.
Yeah, liberties and freedum and all that. There is also reponsibility and in the case at hand this is applicable when government services are brought to bear but I guess your liberty takes precedence over her liberty to try to mitigate resource allocation she in part funds. I think it is a perverse way of using liberty to take away liberty from others. Sadly, this appears the way of the world now a days.

Ex-Calif 13-06-2014 00:46

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottuk (Post 1563353)
Yeah, liberties and freedum and all that. There is also reponsibility and in the case at hand this is applicable when government services are brought to bear but I guess your liberty takes precedence over her liberty to try to mitigate resource allocation she in part funds. I think it is a perverse way of using liberty to take away liberty from others. Sadly, this appears the way of the world now a days.

This same argument -her cost my liberty is being held in forums all over the internet all the time, every day.

We as a society have SAR - done. The rules are that I get in trouble, I press the happy button and the C130 shows up. If you don't like having SAR eliminate it.

If you want a list of who gets SAR and who doesn't, good luck.

"Before I send the C130 I have one question. Are you a dumbass?"

As far as who contributes and who doesn't that is also a red herring in my book. I pay north of $100k in federal taxes each year. I live in Singapore so my US footprint is pretty small. Yes I am concerned how it is spent but I don't begrudge a dime of it.

However when I press the happy button a Gold Darned C130 better show up...

Scottuk 13-06-2014 01:35

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

We as a society have SAR - done. The rules are that I get in trouble, I press the happy button and the C130 shows up. If you don't like having SAR eliminate it.
It appears, in this instance, yours is an either/or dualistic approach. For me, and it seems for others, it is not, hence the activity on forums. To me it is all about personal responsibility. I think this would go a long way to forestall regulation. However, in general, this is not the case so as a society I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Where that line falls is open to debate.

SVNeko 13-06-2014 01:49

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1563362)
We as a society have SAR - done. The rules are that I get in trouble, I press the happy button and the C130 shows up. If you don't like having SAR eliminate it.

Its not as simple as that. Search and rescue assets and funding are based on an assumed level of need. If these needs go unreasonably high, perhaps due to unreasonable risk-taking by cruisers, you can bet that precious SAR resource will be curtailed or go away, whether you want it to or not, or the actions of cruisers will be regulated. You act like its an unlimited natural resource, and its not. Either way, overuse will lead to curtailment of liberties.

Ex-Calif 13-06-2014 02:33

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottuk (Post 1563375)
Where that line falls is open to debate.

I prefer a grey area - I get that resources are limited. Democracy is messy.

We have a messy system so we can all debate funding and decide where the resources are applied.

There are many more "risky" undertakings that use our resources that can be addressed before the drop in the bucket that is currently "private citizen-cruiser rescue" needs a red pen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVNeko (Post 1563384)
Its not as simple as that. Search and rescue assets and funding are based on an assumed level of need. If these needs go unreasonably high, perhaps due to unreasonable risk-taking by cruisers, you can bet that precious SAR resource will be curtailed or go away, whether you want it to or not, or the actions of cruisers will be regulated. You act like its an unlimited natural resource, and its not. Either way, overuse will lead to curtailment of liberties.

Public finds are used in all kinds of pursuits that I have no interest in - EMTs stand by at rodeos, motorcycle hill climbing events, Nascar races.

If we want the grey Orwelian masses to work their 9-5 factory job, park their kids strapped into a safety chair on the couch surrounded by pillows in front of the Cruising and Sailing X-box game so that little mary's biggest risk is getting fat on hot dogs and big gulps at her weekly trip to the Nascar track followed by diabetes and a heart attack at 45 - you guys have at it.

I'll take my boy on my boat, expose him to rope burns, skin cancer, drowning, boom bangers, wet deck slips and falls, fish hook snags, filet knife nicks and my galley cooking - he might die but he might survive - no one gets out of here alive anyway...

There are plenty of boating regs already - I live with them and agree with them. There are common sense preparations to take etc. I don't say do away with any of that.

In the context of "taking babies cruising" is going to bankrupt the SAR budget and we need to ban or regulate it - I can't get there from here.

BTW - What is US coastal authority? 20 miles? After that US federal rules be damned anyway if someone wants to be a scofflaw. Just don't call SAR until you are 20 out - LOL.

PS - Excuse my "flip" attitude. I know this is a serious topic but I don't enjoy the seriousness at the extreme ends. I think we often make tempests in our teapots and I do overuse the colorful exaggeration at the other end of the spectrum quite a bit.

Peace - but I'm glad I can still choose to take my kid boating.

Scottuk 13-06-2014 03:32

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

We have a messy system so we can all debate funding and decide where the resources are applied.
I'm afraid that debate would likely include some regulation. As an example look at NZ and their Cat. 1 requirements. They assess both the boat and the sailors. I am doubtful they would have allowed RH to go offshore given the issues with the boat and their limited experience in the context of taking very youg children. The regulations were enacted because of limited funds to service the large area NZ covers.

Quote:

There are many more "risky" undertakings that use our resources that can be addressed before the drop in the bucket that is currently "private citizen-cruiser rescue" needs a red pen.
Don't think prioritisation has relevancy to the issue.

Quote:

Public finds are used in all kinds of pursuits that I have no interest in - EMTs stand by at rodeos, motorcycle hill climbing events, Nascar races.
I think people might become more concerned if young children were included in these activities.

Quote:

If we want the grey Orwelian masses to work their 9-5 factory job, park their kids strapped into a safety chair on the couch surrounded by pillows in front of the Cruising and Sailing X-box game so that little mary's biggest risk is getting fat on hot dogs and big gulps at her weekly trip to the Nascar track followed by diabetes and a heart attack at 45 - you guys have at it.
I don't think giving an unrelated extreme example adds merit to you argument.

Quote:

There are plenty of boating regs already - I live with them and agree with them. There are common sense preparations to take etc. I don't say do away with any of that.
The problem is when 'common sense' is not all that common and so becomes regulated.

Quote:

In the context of "taking babies cruising" is going to bankrupt the SAR budget and we need to ban or regulate it - I can't get there from here
You appear to have your extreme view while stating the opposite extreme view but it seems a lot of people are somewhere in between.

S/V Alchemy 13-06-2014 08:24

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
I can assume one thing in this rather scattershot debate: If the skippers of Rebel Heart decide to go cruising again, barring a lottery win or their story getting turned into a movie, their children will be significantly older by the time they can rebuild their stack of boat chips.

Thus rendering at least part of the debate moot.;)

Scottuk 13-06-2014 09:12

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Thus rendering at least part of the debate moot.
Don't agree, it would seem you are saying nothing can be learned from the past.

accomplice 13-06-2014 09:48

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Every activity we undertake every day carries with it risks. As Ex-Calif pointed out, sitting home carries risks as well. If they weren't on a boat, RH's children would have been subject to the risk of automobile accident (injures 150k children a year in US, kills ~650), or any of the many other risks (homicide is in the top 4 for children 1-14). Even taking into account access to medical care, septicemia still is in the top 10 causes of death for children. Abandoning one's cruising plans and the associated benefits to children does not guarantee a child's safety.

I'm not sure if enough data exists to demonstrate whether it is safer raising kids in an modern urban environment or out cruising, but safety is only one of many factors parents need to consider (should Johnny play sports? ride a bicycle? )

As parents, we have the right and the obligation to make the decisions about what risk/reward is tolerable for ourselves and our children. There are some common risks that we, as a society, decide are not warranted. For example, all states have laws requiring child restraints in motor vehicles -- the evidence supports that this simple thing can reduce the risk of death by 50-74%. We balance the right of the parent to take their child anywhere they want, as often as they want -- exposing them to very real risk of automobile accident -- with the rights of children not to be injured because their parents reject that child restraints save lives. At sea we do this by requiring that, at least on coastal and inland waters, children wear PFDs. It doesn't save them from injury or infection, but it reduces their risk of drowning.

Most of us don't want to live in a nanny-state where someone else tells us what we can and cannot do personally, or with our children. This freedom does have bounds, though. I hope the freedom to cruise with our children is never infringed.

smackdaddy 13-06-2014 10:27

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by colemj (Post 1562729)
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

I think you've summed it up pretty well cole. In light of all the damage/failures RH listed, it's possible that this boat could have made it another 3 weeks and several thousand miles. I just don't think it was at all possible for this particular family to make that happen. And to think/say different, in my opinion based on RH's account thus far, shows a serious disconnect and/or willingness to wildly gamble some very precious cargo (e.g. - rain squalls your primary source of drinking water for 3 weeks for a family of 4 with two very young children in an increasingly hot environment?).

As I've said before, I honestly think the illness was fortunate. It likely saved them.

letsgetsailing3 13-06-2014 11:37

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1563341)
That's a nice jazzy sentence but is completely wrong. My math is not in error. The probability is infinitesimally small of getting that disease on a 28 day passage - that is and was my only point for the statistic.

It is completely in context of the doctor's post stating that a 1 in 1500 frequency of this disease over 5 years was presented as a reason not to take kids cruising.

My conclusion was not general - It is very specific. The doctor's fact (1 in 1500) doesn't not back up his conclusion that taking kids cruising is overly risky.

Your math may not be in error, but your logic in this example is faulty.

You're taking on one doctor talking about one disease, and you're trying to derive a formula for assessing risk of taking kids across the Pacific. The doctor was providing only one example. You tried to make it into a general conclusion.

In that fashion, you've accounted for so little of the risk as to have misused the statistic. You knew that when you did it, as you even indicated "I'll probably get some push back..."

There are risks in taking kids cruising, and a responsible parent will accurately assess those for the specific situation.

letsgetsailing3 13-06-2014 11:45

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy (Post 1563560)
I can assume one thing in this rather scattershot debate: If the skippers of Rebel Heart decide to go cruising again, barring a lottery win or their story getting turned into a movie, their children will be significantly older by the time they can rebuild their stack of boat chips.

Thus rendering at least part of the debate moot.;)

This is true.

I'd be curious if their opinions on kids ages has changed. I sort of doubt it, but even if it has, I doubt they'd be able to say it in public.

Boatguy30 13-06-2014 12:01

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
1 Attachment(s)
Certainly my most successful thread.

The editor of Southwinds was kind enough to publish my rebuttal to the near constant drum beating on the sailing sites.

Ex-Calif 13-06-2014 16:43

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3 (Post 1563694)
Your math may not be in error, but your logic in this example is faulty.

You're taking on one doctor talking about one disease, and you're trying to derive a formula for assessing risk of taking kids across the Pacific. The doctor was providing only one example. You tried to make it into a general conclusion.

In that fashion, you've accounted for so little of the risk as to have misused the statistic. You knew that when you did it, as you even indicated "I'll probably get some push back..."

There are risks in taking kids cruising, and a responsible parent will accurately assess those for the specific situation.

See the point is that it is not my risk assessment. I just did the math for the doctor. I have not assessed the risk nor have I professed that I know the risk.

He made a specific conclusion based on one disease that taking kids cruising was overly risky. I just reported that his assessment was faulty.

The push back comment was not that I would be wrong, but that those of us conditioned to listen to alarmist media have already agreed with the talking heads that "Poor Innocent Mary is being abused by those evil selfish parents."

One can also use the "results" as a measure of the statistical probability. If we assume kids cruising results in unacceptable levels of death or rescue then the empirical evidence does not back that up. Kids aren't dying at sea and there are thousands of kids cruising.

Also pointed out by others is the fact that at sea your kid is not very likely to be run over by a car, bitten by a rabid dog, be exposed to classmates with infectious diseases and pretty zero likelihood of being kidnapped by a predator.

The model is fine - the assessed risks are incomplete.

Ex-Calif 13-06-2014 16:59

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif (Post 1563866)
S

Also pointed out by others is the fact that at sea your kid is not very likely to be run over by a car, bitten by a rabid dog, be exposed to classmates with infectious diseases and pretty zero likelihood of being kidnapped by a predator.

The model is fine - the assessed risks are incomplete.

OK - In order to broaden the dialog I thought I would add a little "fact" to teh discussion.

From the CDC website here are frequencies of death. looking at kids up to 14.

Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury - PDFs|Injury Center|CDC

I am presuming these are frequencies per year.

Not statistical but an observation - Unintentional injury (which I presume includes run over by cars and falling off bikes & homicide show up in the top 3 categories for all kids up to 14 over 1 year old.

Alarmingly Suicide shows up at age 10 in the top 3 and in the next age demographic suicide jumps to 4600!

Teen kids are not happy.

We can argue all day about relative exposure but I'd like to believe the rate of homicide, accidental injury and suicide is lower at sea... We definitely would need to know populations and manipulate the data in an agreed fashion to really assess the probabilities.

boatman61 14-06-2014 04:14

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy30 (Post 1563711)
Certainly my most successful thread.

The editor of Southwinds was kind enough to publish my rebuttal to the near constant drum beating on the sailing sites.

A link would have been better for those of us with small screens..;)

Wotname 14-06-2014 06:13

Re: Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers (Post 1562833)
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. ................

Hmm.. I have been away from this thread too long :(.

FWIW, I know one child (my daughter) who never saw a doctor (or other medical practitioner) from 6 months of age to sixteen years simply because she was never sick enough to warrant a visit to the doctor. The six month visit was a general post natal check and at 16, I suggested she should get a check up - just because; result, perfectly healthy. This is in a metropolitan region of a first world country.

I suggest many children are over-serviced by the medical folk but I still take my hat off to those who regularly save lives with fast medical intervention.
YMMV.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.