Flying on American Airlines while having a rare genetic skin condition

[TragicMonkey]

I recently looked up a walk from A to B which I undertook recently. Google maps describes the walk as 'flat'. Does the fact Google says it's a flat walk mean that my personal experience of this walk actually being up a steep gradient (hey, it is part way up a mountainside!!!) is trumped by Google maps claiming it is 'flat'?

What can you offer other people as evidence of the correctness of your assertions? If you are unwilling or unable to provide anything to back up claims then why should anyone believe you?

 

[Dr. Keith]

That fact that people who claim expertise in the field are still arguing about this confirms my suspicion that detecting contagious people should probably not be left up to those not trained in the field at all. Have a medical professional on call or don't attempt to make the call.

 

[quadraginta]

I recently looked up a walk from A to B which I undertook recently. Google maps describes the walk as 'flat'. Does the fact Google says it's a flat walk mean that my personal experience of this walk actually being up a steep gradient (hey, it is part way up a mountainside!!!) is trumped by Google maps claiming it is 'flat'?

It just means that you may have found something using a Google search that isn't exactly right.

(Leaving aside such issues as the difference between "flat" and "level", the subjective nature of "steep", and the fact that you have not shared any links to allow other people to evaluate the validity of your claims. Which, it bears pointing, SG's posts have. Which is sort of the point. It isn't using Google as a search engine which matters, it is the content of what is found. The search engine only finds what is out there. Whether the content is good, bad, or indifferent is an entirely separate question.)​

This isn't the fault of the search engine, just that of the material that was found when you used it. You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

Was that the only map that a Google search disclosed? What made you choose to use that one? Did you look for any others after you found that error? Did you report the error? Google Maps has has many crowd-sourced components and gratefully accepts corrections.

Did you think that all maps are, or should be inerrant, gospel truth? I don't. Perhaps that is because my father was a geographer by profession and taught me at an early age not to do that, but it should be somewhat obvious even without such help.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

<sigh> Some of us don't need google to get our education.

What does that mean?

I have an education, I'm a nurse practitioner. The citations were to educate you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you really believe a reference to an obscure research paper on Google trumps all?

Take your own neighbourhood. Do you think what you have to tell me about it is not worth nearly as much as something I happened to Google in five seconds as proof I know better than you?

Huh?

Didn't you post the 1995 paper that discussed skin care (as opposed to etiology and medical interventions)?

Like I said, I know about these skin conditions, I posted links to help you understand why they are not the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That fact that people who claim expertise in the field are still arguing about this confirms my suspicion that detecting contagious people should probably not be left up to those not trained in the field at all. Have a medical professional on call or don't attempt to make the call.

That's not what I suggested. Management needs a proper protocol that includes guidelines as to what to be concerned about. You can do that for lay people if the guidelines are adequate. It would avoid this kind of reaction to something icky looking that was essentially not contagious.

You don't need a medical professional, you need a proper screening tool.

Consider we teach lay-persons to use defibrillators, to do CPR, to give Narcan, to give insulin, and in many cases to give first aid.

 

[Vixen]

Huh?

Didn't you post the 1995 paper that discussed skin care (as opposed to etiology and medical interventions)?

Like I said, I know about these skin conditions, I posted links to help you understand why they are not the same.

I have never said they are the same. Stop putting words in my mouth. I do not need to read Google to know what the difference is. The link I posted was simply the populist NHS page. The ordinary layman does not need to pass medical exams in order to understand common conditions as you keep trying to imply.

 

[Vixen]

It just means that you may have found something using a Google search that isn't exactly right.

(Leaving aside such issues as the difference between "flat" and "level", the subjective nature of "steep", and the fact that you have not shared any links to allow other people to evaluate the validity of your claims. Which, it bears pointing, SG's posts have. Which is sort of the point. It isn't using Google as a search engine which matters, it is the content of what is found. The search engine only finds what is out there. Whether the content is good, bad, or indifferent is an entirely separate question.)​

This isn't the fault of the search engine, just that of the material that was found when you used it. You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

Was that the only map that a Google search disclosed? What made you choose to use that one? Did you look for any others after you found that error? Did you report the error? Google Maps has has many crowd-sourced components and gratefully accepts corrections.

Did you think that all maps are, or should be inerrant, gospel truth? I don't. Perhaps that is because my father was a geographer by profession and taught me at an early age not to do that, but it should be somewhat obvious even without such help.

Here's the link. It says 'mostly flat' but none of it is flat at all. It rises to 88 metres very steeply.



They have even kindly added steps further down the footpath. further down the footpath.

Google have something on the menu called 'see terrain' and from that they can see it is higher ground as they have shaded it in themselves, so why would I need to tell them?

As for the topic at hand I have hands on knowledge and experience without having to scour Google looking for medical minutiae in order to score a point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sounds like a form of eczema. ....

It is not.

I've known people with psoraiasis and it can look alarming, but it is very characteristic of a dry skin condition (scaliness, redness, dryness). Looking at the kid in the photo it is clear the baby has this group of condition. (NB: In the medical profession psoriasis, ichthyosis and eczema are variations of similar conditions and treated similarly). ...

Wrong! The are not treated the same.

I think they go hand in hand:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ichthyosis/
Treatment:
ibid
Psoriasis:
Treatment:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/psoriasis/
corticosteroids= aka Betnovate - used to treat eczema.

They don't go hand in hand.

I did not say they were all the same. I simply said skin consultants tend to group them together. Psoriasis sufferers might benefit from further sun lamp treatment, but essentially the treatment of these conditions are quite similar to each other.

Wrong. They are not grouped together.

I didn't say they were the same. I said they were grouped and treated similarly by skin specialists....
Only an ignoramus would claim psoriasis is the same as eczema. Stop wilfully putting words in my mouth.

I think you should re-read your posts.

I have never said they are the same. Stop putting words in my mouth. I do not need to read Google to know what the difference is. The link I posted was simply the populist NHS page. The ordinary layman does not need to pass medical exams in order to understand common conditions as you keep trying to imply.

I've implied no such thing. Please quote where I said that. I've been saying the opposite, lay persons could screen airline passengers with a minimal education and guidelines.

I don't know what you mean by populist NHS page. If they are citing a 1995 paper maybe they should update their resources.


I wouldn't have taken this so far if you hadn't accused me of "willfully putting words in [your] mouth" and denying you said what you clearly said. I believe I said it was best to move along a couple pages back. It's still not to late to move along now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

As for the topic at hand I have hands on knowledge and experience without having to scour Google looking for medical minutiae in order to score a point.

If this is what you think I did, that is a false accusation.

 

[Vixen]

If this is what you think I did, that is a false accusation.

OK, fair enough. You were not urging me to turn to Google to find out the differences between various skin conditions. My bad.

 

[Darat]

Still wouldn't work, not all illnesses show up in blood tests, and you can be sick and contagious with things that don't show up until later. It's basically impossible to prove that as of the present moment someone is healthy, you can only demonstrate that as of various points in the past there hadn't been any indications of illness.

Perhaps as we do with some animals, if you want to travel you have to go into quarantine for 6 months before you travel and undergo rigorous testing through that period?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps as we do with some animals, if you want to travel you have to go into quarantine for 6 months before you travel and undergo rigorous testing through that period?

What if it's an illness that incubates for longer than 6 months, and isn't detectable before then? No, it's far too much a risk. All travel must be forbidden. It's the only way to be safe.

 

[Steve]

What if it's an illness that incubates for longer than 6 months, and isn't detectable before then? No, it's far too much a risk. All travel must be forbidden. It's the only way to be safe.

Nuke all the airports from orbit.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Nuke all the airports from orbit.

No, that risks the radiation mutating the viruses at the airports, turning them into ultraviruses with superpowers. Don't you know any science at all?

 

[Steve]

No, that risks the radiation mutating the viruses at the airports, turning them into ultraviruses with superpowers. Don't you know any science at all?

All the science I know is what I have been told by the experts. Are you an expert?

 

[TragicMonkey]

All the science I know is what I have been told by the experts. Are you an expert?

Yes, I hold correspondence school degrees in scientonomy and scientology! With a double major in superscience and the sciencey arts. And I've run a thriving science practice for over fourteen years, providing custom scientalic solutions to various small businesses. Just this morning, for fun, I fired up my science forge and made a science, which I shall launch tonight at batfart.

 

[Steve]

Yes, I hold correspondence school degrees in scientonomy and scientology! With a double major in superscience and the sciencey arts. And I've run a thriving science practice for over fourteen years, providing custom scientalic solutions to various small businesses. Just this morning, for fun, I fired up my science forge and made a science, which I shall launch tonight at batfart.

Thank you. I apologize for doubting you. I accept your expertise and concede that nukes are off the table. No more air travel then. From now on everyone must travel by train. That with be a sure way to prevent the spread of disease between people in confined spaces.

 

[Pterodactyl]

What if a person had a genetic predisposition to smelling really badly. Like some kind of bowel issue. Should everyone on the plane just have to deal with it?

 

[Steve]

What if a person had a genetic predisposition to smelling really badly. Like some kind of bowel issue. Should everyone on the plane just have to deal with it?

Or a person who talks loudly to himself but does not otherwise interact with other passengers.

This question cones down to what level of annoyance other passengers are expected to tolerate. I doubt that this can actually be defined. There will always be cases where some passengers will be treated unfairly.