7 ms·

Define "necessary". Good luck.

by IshKebab 8d ago

tcfhgj 8d ago
the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone
- MaxBarraclough 8d ago
  It's not uncommon to travel for medical care, or for medics to travel for work.
  - tcfhgj 8d ago
    If you set traveling and flying equal, I very much think it is.
    - MaxBarraclough 6d ago
      No, it's as I said. There was a famous case in 2017 where a surgeon was violently removed from an overbooked United Express airliner. He had refused to leave voluntarily, as doing so would have meant not seeing his patients the next day. [0] I'm not sure this strictly counts as travelling for work, but the points remains. Plenty of people fly abroad for medical care. [1] Over 2,000 flights were cancelled in this incident. Over 300,000 would-be passengers were affected. [2] It's implausible that nobody's medical care was affected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism [2] https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/uk-airport-disruption-flights-cancelled/ https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/uk-airport-disruption-f...
      - tcfhgj 5d ago
        I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. It could have happened if it was uncommon and it could have happened if it is common. My claims: 1) most flight's are not necessary 2) it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is)
        MaxBarraclough 4d ago
        > I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. You said the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone. Interfering with medical care is a clear form of harm, that's why I focused on it. > it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is) That's incorrect on both counts: it's common, and it's not just rich patients. Please take a look at the Medical tourism Wikipedia article I linked above. Cost-reduction is a major motivation of medical tourism. From [0] : > in 2016 nearly 144,000 UK citizens travelled abroad for medical treatment. The survey suggests a steady increase since 2000, even though the 2016 sample of 250,000 travellers represent 0.23% of the total number of travellers entering or leaving the UK. See also [1]. [0] https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 Outward medical tourism (2020) [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ Medical Tourism: A Cost or Benefit to the NHS? (2013)
    - tialaramex 8d ago
      The US has a bunch of highly paid medics who fly every week or in some cases every day because they work somewhere with enough population to justify their practice but they choose to live somewhere hundreds of miles away, and at their income it's actually practical to have a small private jet. It's probably only a small minority of the most highly paid (so e.g. cosmetic surgeons) where this makes sense but it's more than a handful of people. Likewise because it's big and a lot of it is empty the US does more medical flights than a country like the UK, if a Wyoming multi-millionaire needs urgent treatment in a Californian hospital you're not going to load him into a truck and drive there, you use a plane. This is relatively high risk commercial air travel, it's not quite as dangerous as most GA but there's some get-there-itis because you don't want to abort the flight and let down your patient, and you're often flying one-off journeys whereas the people doing scheduled passenger travel it's like a bus, same route, every time, regular as clockwork, and if things go wrong you just scratch the flight and no harm, no foul.
- IshKebab 8d ago
  That is a super weird definition. If you only want to allow that you're going to have to ban basically everything.
  - tcfhgj 7d ago
    not everything is as harmful as flying

Define "necessary". Good luck.

tcfhgj 8d ago

the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone

MaxBarraclough 8d ago
It's not uncommon to travel for medical care, or for medics to travel for work.
- tcfhgj 8d ago
  If you set traveling and flying equal, I very much think it is.
  - MaxBarraclough 6d ago
    No, it's as I said. There was a famous case in 2017 where a surgeon was violently removed from an overbooked United Express airliner. He had refused to leave voluntarily, as doing so would have meant not seeing his patients the next day. [0] I'm not sure this strictly counts as travelling for work, but the points remains. Plenty of people fly abroad for medical care. [1] Over 2,000 flights were cancelled in this incident. Over 300,000 would-be passengers were affected. [2] It's implausible that nobody's medical care was affected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism [2] https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/uk-airport-disruption-flights-cancelled/ https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/uk-airport-disruption-f...
    - tcfhgj 5d ago
      I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. It could have happened if it was uncommon and it could have happened if it is common. My claims: 1) most flight's are not necessary 2) it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is)
      - MaxBarraclough 4d ago
        > I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. You said the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone. Interfering with medical care is a clear form of harm, that's why I focused on it. > it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is) That's incorrect on both counts: it's common, and it's not just rich patients. Please take a look at the Medical tourism Wikipedia article I linked above. Cost-reduction is a major motivation of medical tourism. From [0] : > in 2016 nearly 144,000 UK citizens travelled abroad for medical treatment. The survey suggests a steady increase since 2000, even though the 2016 sample of 250,000 travellers represent 0.23% of the total number of travellers entering or leaving the UK. See also [1]. [0] https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 Outward medical tourism (2020) [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ Medical Tourism: A Cost or Benefit to the NHS? (2013)
  - tialaramex 8d ago
    The US has a bunch of highly paid medics who fly every week or in some cases every day because they work somewhere with enough population to justify their practice but they choose to live somewhere hundreds of miles away, and at their income it's actually practical to have a small private jet. It's probably only a small minority of the most highly paid (so e.g. cosmetic surgeons) where this makes sense but it's more than a handful of people. Likewise because it's big and a lot of it is empty the US does more medical flights than a country like the UK, if a Wyoming multi-millionaire needs urgent treatment in a Californian hospital you're not going to load him into a truck and drive there, you use a plane. This is relatively high risk commercial air travel, it's not quite as dangerous as most GA but there's some get-there-itis because you don't want to abort the flight and let down your patient, and you're often flying one-off journeys whereas the people doing scheduled passenger travel it's like a bus, same route, every time, regular as clockwork, and if things go wrong you just scratch the flight and no harm, no foul.
IshKebab 8d ago
That is a super weird definition. If you only want to allow that you're going to have to ban basically everything.
- tcfhgj 7d ago
  not everything is as harmful as flying