1. Person suffers a loss or misfortune.
2. Person makes widely inaccurate extrapolations on the actual danger, without seeing the broad implications or consequences by scaring people into woefully uninformed behavior, under the guise of 'but look! it happened to me! It'll happen to you!'.
Case in point from the media last week: ticks and Lyme disease. Some woman on the news on a personal crusade against Lyme because she contracted it when she was 13 and it caused major issues in her 20's. Sucks for her, of course, and some sort of public awareness about checking for ticks when you've been out in nature is good; but her message was hysterical. Our local equivalent of the CDC basically says 'we have basic awareness campaigns, but we don't want to scare people from going outside, because the benefits outweigh the risks'. And then you have one person who has her 15 minutes of fame, spreading massive misinformation about risks to a general population that isn't capable of understanding the concept a normal distribution curve, let alone make an assessment on an epidemiological risk.
Case in point: Child commits suicide. Parents seize on admission that he smoked salvia in his diary. Parents become convinced Salvia Killed Their Son, launch crusade to criminalize use of salvia. All available scientific evidence points to child being depressed and salvia not being capable of causing depression or thoughts of suicide. No one cares because parents are loud and convinced and passionate. State passes law banning salvia; names it after dead child.
I saw a campaign once from a parent who's child was injured at a park trying to get monkey bars banned claiming they were deadly. Life's full of small risks and tradeoffs, you have to just accept the small ones for the greater good.
Sometimes bad stuff happens, and that sucks, but it doesn't always mean something is wrong or needs to change.
But I believe more often than not people will remain passive in the face of a misfortune, and will simply carry on with their lives. And this what prompted me to want to recognize people – such as the lady in the article – because through little tweaks like theirs our society becomes safer, better.
It depends on where you live, whether or not you check yourself after you leave the woods, what kinds of ticks they are, whether the disease is being carried, and what kind of disease it is.
I grew up in the woods. I've had lots of ticks crawl all over me. I've only been bitten a time or two. And the ticks I've encountered don't carry Lyme's disease.
And that is NOT to say that my experience is everyone's experience and that there is no danger. But your comment is absolutely exaggerated.
While if the gruesome story of how 'a tick I got just from being outside' is front page news for a few days, many people will think 'o I better keep my children inside'. And the aggregate effects of that (while not as spectacular, or even reducible to this news item), are worse than whatever it is they're trying to prevent.
How often do you see 'person has something horrible happen to them, studies the field for 10 years, becomes expert and launches a well-balanced education or prevention campaign'? I've never heard it. What I do hear and see is 'person with median intelligence has something happen to them, goes on myopic crusade using mostly pathos in the form of graphic descriptions of their physical tribulations as a crutch for their own emotional healing'. Nothing wrong with people of median intelligence (or less), but it is wrong when they use things that happened to them by accident as a means of presenting a distorted vision of reality to others.
Wash your hands and dry them before fitting contacts..
James Titcombe who has been campaigning around maternity safety, particularly culture of midwives, after his child died. He used to work in nuclear safety, he now works in patient safety. https://twitter.com/JamesTitcombe?lang=en
Martin Bromiley, who campaigns around clinical human factors after his wife died. He uses his knowledge of airline style investigation. https://twitter.com/MartinBromiley?lang=en
And the @NHS twitter account features a range of different clinicians, patients, and carers. https://www.england.nhs.uk/atnhs/curator-archive/irenie-ekke...
It happens to them, suddenly they do care, now they are a great person?
Person is not an expert in the field but they educate people about it? Now they are a worse person quite frankly.
What you describe is exactly why part of current society is so toxic.
Lucky we have people who do care about issues that are real and serious (not just what they are invested in) and do fight and educate. But sometimes I think they are losing to the people above.
Nothing in particular about OP case.
> Person doesn't care.
Nope. She didn't know there was a risk.
> Person is not an expert in the field but they educate people about it? Now they are a worse person quite frankly.
She was treated by experts who told her what the problem was. Contact lens producers are experts too, and this person is cooperating with them.
When the person in the OP (original post) is in the comments I have no comment on the specific case.
But will reiterate, when someone is getting revenge on their white whale, you need to take a step back when listening to them.
It's why every law with a name on it (mostly girls names, let's be honest) has taken us backwards.
It isn't completely clear from the article (and maybe she can inform us, because I'd like to know), but it sounded like there was a warning included somewhere, it just wasn't in bolded 48pt red letters or something...?
I used to wear contacts for several years, but later switched back to contacts. I live in the United States, so I understand that may have bearing here, with our laws on medical information via the FDA and CDC informing things, which may be different from what the NHS did.
I do recall, though, when I got my contacts and my lens cleaning solution and other stuff, that there was a pamphlet included in the boxes of both the contacts and the lens solution, that unfolded into this large-ish document with fine print (you know what I mean - such documents are included with every single kind of prescription drug or device, and often with every kind of OTC drug as well - especially ones involving the eyes, or which were once Rx only) describing everything about the contacts, about the solution, about care and cleaning, about the molecular structure of the solution (seriously!), and...about potential problems of improper care and other issues which could arise.
I remember reading the whole thing, which I tend to do with all such pamphlets, because you never know what interesting and useful information you'll find (sometimes, you'll even find humor buried in them - almost like they don't expect anyone to read them, and so you hit on weird things many people never see). I recall reading about this particular issue, and so I paid special attention to dry my hands before handling the contacts, and flushing them well with the solution before I put them in. If I had any irritation at all before putting them in or afterward, I didn't wear them, and/or removed them - and put on a pair of glasses (which I had gotten with every new prescription as a backup).
Was this information written in bold on the outside of the box or whatnot? No. Should it have been? I don't know. Again, the fact that it was included at all may just be due to our laws here in the United States. Furthermore, I'm not even sure if it would matter if it were included in bold print on the outside (or if, over time, this woman's campaign won't suffer in the same manner); much like the various "Are you sure? (Y/N)?" dialog popups on software, or the various "may cause cancer" warning in bold print on cigarette packs, such warning may ultimately be ignored instead of followed or read. Then we're right back to where we were. People will even claim up and down that they weren't warned enough, too (and make post-hoc rationalizations when shown the evidence that the warnings were there).
There's not much we can do to fix this; this woman's campaign is laudable in trying to fix it, but I think that much like nobody reads those pamphlets except weirdos like me, many are going to ignore the message written in bold on the outside of the boxes - because reasons.
2. Person decides to dedicate resources to educate and prevent the misfortune from happening to somebody else.
I think these people should get more recognition; it is a proof of their commitment to our society and to the well-being of their fellow humans. Much appreciated!