Jazz Hands to the rescue.

guitarfishbay

ToneControl said:

How about if, to protect the 1% of kids with coeliac disease, we banned wheat bread and pasta from school dining rooms?
It would be a mistake of course

I reckon it's all down to bad science, people just panic and over-react because they are not equipped with the knowledge to make a proper decision, and they read too many bad science newspaper headlines

A nut allergy could potentially be fatal.  I'm suspecting that for the school @Heartfeltdawn is referencing, in order to take this action there must be a severe allergy.

My understanding of coeliac disease is the stakes are not immediately so high as  anaphylaxis and potential death.  Not discounting discomfort or inconvenience, but it doesn't sound as inconvenient as dying.

ToneControl

guitarfishbay said:

ToneControl said:

How about if, to protect the 1% of kids with coeliac disease, we banned wheat bread and pasta from school dining rooms?
It would be a mistake of course

I reckon it's all down to bad science, people just panic and over-react because they are not equipped with the knowledge to make a proper decision, and they read too many bad science newspaper headlines

A nut allergy could potentially be fatal.  I'm suspecting that for the school @Heartfeltdawn is referencing, in order to take this action there must be a severe allergy.

My understanding of coeliac disease is the stakes are not immediately so high as  anaphylaxis and potential death.  Not discounting discomfort or inconvenience, but it doesn't sound as inconvenient as dying.

Where did I say it was exactly the same?
Are you seeking a shared understanding, or an argument?

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

ToneControl

guitarfishbay said:

ToneControl said:

Not a useful comparison really, we're talking about the student union compelling everyone to modify their behaviour.
If all Italian restaurants insisted that they would not sell gluten, and that all should eat the less-pleasant GF alternatives, I would say that was not a good idea

There is no ban.

It's just a recommendation.  And I maintain it is a reasonable recommendation for where they propose it. 

Your arguments focus on discussion of a ban whereas I and I believe @Heartfeltdawn are discussing the merits of modifying behaviour based on best interests and inclusion.

https://inews.co.uk/news/clapping-ban-manchester-university-students-union-jazz-hands/

- ‘Not banning clapping’ 

• “The policy was proposed in order to encourage the use of British Sign Language (BSL) clapping during our democratic events to make those events more accessible and inclusive for all. 
• We are not banning audible clapping – we understand that some people may be more comfortable to continue using it.” 
• They said the SU is not applying the rule to events held there and is simply “to be encouraged at the Union’s democratic events” which are a relatively small number over the university year. 

Aside from the fact that the statement from one person you reference is backtracking from what was already published in Manchester Student unions own news: https://mancunion.com/2018/09/28/clapping-banned-students-union/

How does it make things more inclusive for all? How about blind people?
 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

It's a good case to consider, but as always the problem is going to be that you don't have 1000 people with no independent issues or constraints, and then just one person with a nut allergy.  Any policy has to be proportionate and sensible.
In a school of 1000, you could have several children with allergies. You could have very different ethical, religious and medically-prescribed diets. There is no guarantee that all of these are compatible. What would one do? 

On an aircraft, everyone is stuck in a tube full of shared air, it's easy to see why people would worry more about various allergens, and as we've seen - the fact that medical help is hard to get quickly once you're airborne is a big factor.
Nevertheless I just did a quick search on airborne allergens, and found results saying that this is not an issue with peanuts:
http://www.peanut-institute.org/eating-well/allergy/
https://www.allergicliving.com/experts/when-is-there-a-risk-of-an-airborne-food-allergy-reaction/
So I'd say your school's policy is disproportionate to the risk
In fact, for food allergens it seems there is more of a risk to those with a seafood allergy when it is being steamed or fried in the same building

How about if, to protect the 1% of kids with coeliac disease, we banned wheat bread and pasta from school dining rooms?
It would be a mistake of course

I reckon it's all down to bad science, people just panic and over-react because they are not equipped with the knowledge to make a proper decision, and they read too many bad science newspaper headlines

Or maybe there are a few parents out there who have spent much of their child's life being ultra-bloody-cautious. They do have the knowledge and they have the experience. 

I don't disagree on the scares over airborne allergens but that's one pathway among many. The obvious is kids sharing their packed lunch. 

Do coeliacs suffer potentially fatal reactions to wheat and pasta? I don't know what the fatality rates are with that disease. 

guitarfishbay

ToneControl said:

Aside from the fact that the statement from one person you reference is backtracking from what was already published in Manchester Student unions own news: https://mancunion.com/2018/09/28/clapping-banned-students-union/

How does it make things more inclusive for all? How about blind people?

The only mention of 'ban' is in the title, and the comments.  Unless someone posts the primary document my feeling is the word 'ban' is being used in reporting as click bait.

ToneControl said:

Where did I say it was exactly the same?
Are you seeking a shared understanding, or an argument?

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

It's a discussion about reasonable expectations of harm.

The following scenarios play out from the argument/counter argument going on here

1.  Autistic people do not attend because of sensory overload = one group potential non attendance
2.  Blind people cannot hear jazz hands = one group potential non interaction = potential discussion for solution

In terms of harm I'd say scenario one impacts most harm.  In scenario 2 there is no barrier to attendance, but a discussion to be had about inclusion.

ToneControl

Not sure why I'm being asked to justify a comparison with coeliac disease

most kids with coeliac disease used to die, happily not anymore
They'd be ill for a week if they swapped lunches, and it would increase cancer risk

I gave banning wheat as an example of a stupid idea, does anyone disagree with that?

ToneControl

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/food-allergy-deaths-less_b_151462

ToneControl

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165304/

ToneControl

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/136431/dying-from-food-allergy-less-likely/

"Dying from a food allergy is less likely than being murdered"

ToneControl

https://www.allergyhome.org/blogger/food-allergy-mortality-the-elephant-in-the-exam-room/ ;

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

And you're still focusing on the one method of peanut transmission. Nobody has suggested that airborne transmission is the only method. Try this one: a kid eats nuts, kisses a kid in the playground who's allergic to nuts. Boom, you have a problem.

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

Not sure why I'm being asked to justify a comparison with coeliac disease

most kids with coeliac disease used to die, happily not anymore
They'd be ill for a week if they swapped lunches, and it would increase cancer risk

I gave banning wheat as an example of a stupid idea, does anyone disagree with that?

Because you brought coeliac disease into the conversation as a comparator. When a coeliac eats something with gluten, there is no allergic reaction and no anaphylactic shock.  

The study comparing murder rates to dying from allergic reaction: noted. But you then have to consider why the death rate from allergic reaction is so low. Perhaps banning nuts in schools is one reason why it is so low along with increased use of EpiPens. 

I don't doubt the links and data you present but you then have to look at the interpretation. 

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

And you're still focusing on the one method of peanut transmission. Nobody has suggested that airborne transmission is the only method. Try this one: a kid eats nuts, kisses a kid in the playground who's allergic to nuts. Boom, you have a problem.

I still think it's overkill
Do they stop kids attending school who had crunchy nut cornflakes at breakfast?
What level of risk are we talking about here?
It sounds like there is more risk in the journey to school

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

And you're still focusing on the one method of peanut transmission. Nobody has suggested that airborne transmission is the only method. Try this one: a kid eats nuts, kisses a kid in the playground who's allergic to nuts. Boom, you have a problem.

I still think it's overkill
Do they stop kids attending school who had crunchy nut cornflakes at breakfast?
What level of risk are we talking about here?
It sounds like there is more risk in the journey to school

Depends on the journey. But that's not what we're discussing. 

You think it's overkill. A parent with a kid with such an allergy and a school headteacher with a legal responsibility to look after x number of pupils probably won't. 

Perspectives matter. 

Iamnobody

Octafish said:

Iamnobody said:

In what context is it being proposed? At gigs? Lectures? Presentations?

I don’t know much about autism but surely if you keep on accommodating and making allowances it’s not progress? It doesn’t help people overcome their problems and live a ‘normal’ functioning life?

I’m happy to be shot down as I’ve only done a basic awareness course through work.

But I can speak as a parent and I wouldn’t want the world to change for my kids. I’d want them to learn and adopt coping mechanisms.

Cool, you got the cure for autism

Yes that’s exactly what I wrote...

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

And you're still focusing on the one method of peanut transmission. Nobody has suggested that airborne transmission is the only method. Try this one: a kid eats nuts, kisses a kid in the playground who's allergic to nuts. Boom, you have a problem.

I still think it's overkill
Do they stop kids attending school who had crunchy nut cornflakes at breakfast?
What level of risk are we talking about here?
It sounds like there is more risk in the journey to school

Depends on the journey. But that's not what we're discussing. 

You think it's overkill. A parent with a kid with such an allergy and a school headteacher with a legal responsibility to look after x number of pupils probably won't. 

Perspectives matter. 

yes, in this case the perspective being held by people who don't understand science

here's that pesky study again:
"In conclusion, we have quantified the incidence rate of fatal food anaphylaxis for food-allergic people. Although fatal food anaphylaxis is a rapid and frightening event, it appears to be very rare, such that for most food-allergic people, the incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis is likely to add relatively little to their overall mortality risk. This information should not belittle the concerns of food-allergic people and their families, and appropriate education, food labelling, allergen avoidance and anaphylaxis management strategies remain important. Our findings do, however, put the level of risk in perspective and may provide some reassurance to those affected by food allergy."

and here's the reality check on the peanut kissing danger:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-d-braunstein-md/peanut-allergies_b_2885819.html

and a paper based on UK data:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1719140/
"Results: The UK under 16 population is 13 million. Over the past 10 years, eight children died (incidence of 0.006 deaths per 100 000 children 0–15 years per year). Milk caused four of the deaths. No child under 13 died from peanut allergy. Two children died despite receiving early epinephrine before admission to hospital; one child with a mild food allergic reaction died from epinephrine overdose. Over the past two years, there were six near fatal reactions (none caused by peanut) and 49 severe ones (10 caused by peanut), yielding incidences of 0.02 and 0.19 per 100 000 children 0–15 years per year respectively. Coexisting asthma is more strongly associated with a severe reaction than the severity of previous reactions."

So: no deaths in 10 years in the whole UK, but your school treats it as a major risk. That's disproportionate, and caused by lack of understanding of science and risk.
Do they ban all nuts? 
I ask because peanuts are a legume, they are not a nut.

what on earth has this got to do with Jazz hands anyway?

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

I pointed out that experts say that eating in the same room as other  people are eating peanuts is not risky, therefore banning nuts is the wrong decision

And you're still focusing on the one method of peanut transmission. Nobody has suggested that airborne transmission is the only method. Try this one: a kid eats nuts, kisses a kid in the playground who's allergic to nuts. Boom, you have a problem.

I still think it's overkill
Do they stop kids attending school who had crunchy nut cornflakes at breakfast?
What level of risk are we talking about here?
It sounds like there is more risk in the journey to school

Depends on the journey. But that's not what we're discussing. 

You think it's overkill. A parent with a kid with such an allergy and a school headteacher with a legal responsibility to look after x number of pupils probably won't. 

Perspectives matter. 

yes, in this case the perspective being held by people who don't understand science

***

So: no deaths in 10 years in the whole UK, but your school treats it as a major risk. That's disproportionate, and caused by lack of understanding of science and risk.
Do they ban all nuts? 
I ask because peanuts are a legume, they are not a nut.

what on earth has this got to do with Jazz hands anyway?

I don't dispute the data. The risk is very small. Then we have to get into perspectives. You say that a headteacher doesn't understand science. You do not know that by decision alone because your perspective on this is as someone who reviews data and comes to the conclusion that the nut ban is overzealous. 

You don't have to consider elements like legal liability of the school if a kid gets zapped by nuts whilst at school. The headteacher does. That headteacher can agree with you that the risk is immensely small but they can justify it by quoting other factors outside of statistics and probability. 

They do ban all nuts as I stated originally. I didn't say it was a peanut ban.