qwazse

I think that was one of my pandemic guy's first lessons learned. While a pediatric fever is disconcerting to parents, it translates directly into lost income in parents with terrible jobs. Those same parents have the nation's lowest math literacy so it's difficult to tell them how likely things can go bad by forgoing vaccines. (Since you mentioned hearing loss, here's an article about viruses that drive permanent or temporary hearing loss https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222184/ .) Furthermore, since many people feel pressured to contain costs by minimizing visits, the pediatric vaccine schedule is aggressive. The sole reason for this is to give a fighting chance to kids whose parents may not bring them back to the clinic often enough for a staggered schedule. A pediatrician friend of ours arranged a less aggressive schedule for her kids, and pulled it off because she was a very good time manager. Most of us simply don't have it together that well to manage frequent returns to the clinics for different shots.

The problem long preceded Wakefield's infamous paper. Some of us didn't notice it because we were in communities who put a lot of stock in medical advice -- and understood risks, roughly. When I first met my pandemic guy in the 80's, he was trying understand why minority parents were often vaccine adverse -- which often led to their children more likely to suffer from preventable disease. This storm has been brewing for some time. But @walk in the woods it was heartbreaking to see families facing autism having their energy wasted spurning vaccines. The very decisive Danish study (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M18-2101 ) was aggressively challenged by correspondents who regurgitated stale facts. The saddest thing that I saw after reading of that article was slightly higher rates of autism in older unvaccinated children. It captures what you've described at the beginning of this century -- as no doubt many parents who had a family member with autism struggled to "protect" their children from the same, and they hoped in vain that not getting vaccinated would do the trick. However, these are our fellow citizens. They dread "big pharma" to the point where they may fall prey to those who need a population debilitated and dependent on the alternative treatments that they claim to offer.

I was on a church board meeting last week. We are asking childcare staff to continue masking regardless of vaccination status. It was a contentious decision, albeit consistent with CDC guidelines.

No. But to be clear ... I am very much in favor of the mRNA vaccines, but that’s only because acquiring immunity to SARS-Cov-2 naturally comes with a 10-20x higher risk of death and disability. The shots are not fun. Neither is going to pay last respects to your neighbor. So, if someone has to take a pass on the shot, I encourage them to find 4 out of every 5 folks around them to get it on their behalf. In general however, vaccine mandates don’t sit well with Americans. Historically we have had more success on a national level by giving folks the information they need and time to process it. That is why you have not and will not see a mandate from Council or your CO. The unit committee however is facing youth and depending on the situation in which those youth live, they have a concern about transmission among unvaccinated and potentially from unvaccinated to vaccinated. We now know that he vaccine slows transmission. So, if a higher portion of folks are immunized we could see 50 to 100x reduction in the risk of disease, disability, and death. So, I could see why a unit my put something of the sort in place. One would still have a personal choice of participating in another unit.

I work a couple blocks from the town cathedral and rectory, boy's high school, girl's high school, and the collegiate center. I all but trip over priests and seminarians on my way to afternoon coffee. The Catholic church right now is seen very positively -- almost better for having their warts revealed.

Around here, it is not uncommon to discover tornado ‘blow downs’ across a trail as if a giants finger pressed down a piled rug. And those are disorienting. I saw the burn scars in the Smokies a few weeks back, and would not want to hike through those ravines. I could only imagine the challenges of a fresh burn in the Rockies.

That’s not quite how unrestricted funds are used. Nicer camps are built with newer unrestricted donations. New restricted donations are often turned down. Old unrestricted properties are used as collateral for new capital or sold to pay pensions or fund a new program. There’s not that much selling of old camps to purchase new. Units love old camps. Without knowing that they were restricted, my scouts sought them out because they were typically primitive, “gently used”, and the rangers were generally very welcoming of whatever service project the scouts would perform.

We'd have to dig through some old forums to find the discussions. But, there has been a shift in policy away from developing restricted assets. Chances are most of the newer camps (or camps with newer expansions) are unrestricted. Camps with restrictions are older because councils can't sell them off. The acquisition land in the face of declining membership has been an ongoing topic of these forums.

Clarification: the parents are the post modern nomads. On these forums this shows up when many of us old guard have to contend with the expectation that everything -- especially advancement is to work for the convenience of the parent. The scouts really don't care. But the parents sure do. And they face post-modern nomadic problems. On our way back from the coffee shop, a lady asked if she could borrow my flip phone. She had just locked her keys in the car -- along with her cell phone -- an needed to call her dad because he had her spare car key. Her house was unlocked so she could wait okay, but she didn't have a land line. I offered to let her keep my phone so she could call work, but she didn't know the number because it was on her phone locked in a car. Her office just relocated that week, so she was just adjusting to the routine! Scouting taught us how to prepare for when things don't work. Youth will still need that. But they will also need to learn what to do when things "work" all too well!

As I've mentioned before, it is more helpful to refer to this broad range young adults as post-modern nomads. That encapsulates their outlook quite accurately. As I went to morning coffee with my grandson on my back, we heard the click and remote-start of a car. I explained to him that in our day we opened the door and sat down before starting the engine. Not sure how much he understood of that, but my scoutmaster minute to you is that these generations are ready to go before the door is even unlocked. A lot of institutions previously relied on generations of members willing to mold to them. A post-modern nomad seeks out organizations who mold to him/her. As a practical matter this means scouting can't grow numerically if it is one thing. I foresee an American Federation of Scouting Organizations of which BSA would be one part, cooperating with others.

@johnsch322, I’m only basing this on the extant victims who I’ve known. And, none of those where in scouting. Their responses toward their abusers and the institutions where it happened are so diverse that I could not put a one-size-fits-all pattern. I first thought, like you, that they’d all be inclined in one direction. But some were unexpectedly content, others were crushed. Of course, I don’t think any were offered some kind of settlement, and perhaps that would change their perspective. Perhaps at the hands of a scout leader changes things. On these forums over the years, we have heard from one or two survivors who became scouters and were strong proponents of the organization. It’s not clear if they joined the class or not. One has said he did not. Regarding the dead or currently disabled, we have the same problem with estimating rates from general population, since most surveys are on adults looking retrospectively, and many victims aren’t there to report. I have only analyzed one survey that queried sexual abuse in children (reported by child or parent), and I’m almost certain those surveys are biased against responding to the abuse question in the affirmative. That’s why it would be useful if someone could tally the present list of complaints by estimated year of incident. Such data would serve as a good research tool.

@johnsch322, that's a problem in and of itself if the TCC has only garnered claims from 10% of survivors. If we believe that we must offer survivors a path to being made whole, then there are two conclusions, I think. Neither are satisfactory: Many victims do not want to be part of this class. Either they've found healing elsewhere, or don't value their injury on a scale that would demand restitution. Victims have remained ignorant of this opportunity. In which case, the the process was not sufficiently thorough. So, supposing 1 million (male) victims among 110 million boys who have ever been scouts puts BSA at a rate of 0.9%, and comparing that to general population of male youth would put its program at 90% effectiveness. That said, I would argue that the process for soliciting victims here was as thorough as most research studies (which typically don't compensate subjects based on their history of abuse). So, if this targeted, incentivized, sweep has only captured a fraction of victims, studies of American males in general may be grossly underestimating rates -- and that is a very chilling thought.

I calculated it based on a cumulative membership number as of 2010 and the results of an historic solicitation for claimants for incidents since the start of scouting up to and including last year. Furthermore, I am not treating 99% effectiveness as "hard", but as a likely upper limit with the suspicion that BSA's strategies might actually be 90% effective, maybe lower. If we think a "fairer" number can be reached by only considering 1950 forward, let's produce it. By what percent should we reduce the denominator? By what percent the numerator (if anyone charted the dates of the claimed incidents chronologically)? This kind of perspective, for me, has nothing to do with money. My grandchild and your children will have to navigate a 21st century landscape of risks. Let's give them a map.

@johnsch322, it's hard to say if and how anyone will know. These things are most successfully tracked in nations with a centralized health system. And, that is simply not us.

There should not be a punishment for crime reduction. No dignity is gained by exacting pounds of flesh from those who reduce crime. On the other hand BSA thought it was more than 99% effective. That's the arrogance I described some months ago. I guess the question then hinges on what the punishment for arrogance should be. And the current answer is long, protracted negotiations. As I've always stated, scouting will happen absent BSA. There is enough literature and media for boys and girls to launch out and do it on their own. Unfortunately, there is also enough literature for people of ill-will to learn how to infiltrate such youth. The 21st century has the potential to be quite violent on our nation's youth. @yknot yeah sure, "Figures lie and lairs figure." But you have to always ask how they've done it. I have not made any attempt to lower the .07% figure to account for suspected false claims. I have not attempted to pick the largest possible denominator. Nor have I made an attempt to cite any literature that came up with extreme background rates. I haven't use Australia's rates in place of America. I've not tried to narrow the population more narrowly than what is BSA's target demographic. If you think I haven't done good enough. That's fine. Do better. Arguing that we can't know the rates isn't good enough. By that logic, one could claim that the background rate is 21%, and BSA 99.6% effective. But, one would be saying it without foundation. I am just trying to provide a foundation ... one that might help improve discernment. How could this help? Let's say in the next 50 years BSA continues and it turns out that 10,000 victims come forward. They might claim some it is due to some improved YP. That they are 5 times better. But, if over the next 5 decades their cumulative youth membership only reaches 500,000, their rate would have increased threefold.

There are several reasons: As I've mentioned before, the survivors who've come forward to me have all been victimized outside of scouting. Same for the predators who I've had the misfortune of meeting. This is the more typical American experience. I think the simplest reason for this is that YPT is not applied across all youth activities. Those of us who've seen our youth march off to sports or church camps should know that this is true. Many attribute BSA's motive as purely fiduciary -- that they are just trying to keep their jobs. But they may also see a loss of their assets as denying youth an opportunity to be 10 to 100x less likely to be victimized. You and others have cited raw numbers of claims as if it is some sort of justification that demands retribution. I am merely putting it in a public health perspective. Comparing rates ... that's what we do. It's how we know that Sars-Cov-2 is worse than Ebola. There are obvious open questions: The .07%, although discovered using an unprecedented media campaign, may still be an underestimate. Likewise, the population percentages might be an underestimate because in most studies, there was no motivation to answer in the affirmative. You pointed out that even under the most confidential of conditions, participants in these surveys may under-report and even suppress memories. A public health perspective does not always translate into criminology. It certainly is far removed from civil litigation. Scouts at risk vary as a function of age, sex and cohort. So, choice of denominator is extremely complicated. There is ongoing independent analysis of BSA's IVF to try to parameterize that. I'm not expecting a paper anytime soon. Sociology is hard. I have not attempted to sway the .07%-ers one way or the other. But I do think that knocking something that is 90% to 99% effective because it is not 100% effective does not put one on a moral high ground. Leverage in negotiation is not moral high ground. My motivation? I want kids to be safer. Show me a strategy that makes them safer and I'll favor it.

K. I'll reply there!

You are making gross assumptions about the rest of the world’s cultural norms. But let’s run with that. Supposing that males were forced into some form of culturally normalized ritual of genital manipulation by adults. That would not be reported as abuse. The numbers reported from a given country are unwanted and unacceptable advances. So those countries will report lower rates where our fairly conservative but vocal would pull it up. But here’s a meta-analysis that breaks it down by country and sex. From the USA they acquired data from 57 studies with 99,000 males surveyed and found the same rate: Stoltenborgh, M., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child maltreatment, 16(2), 79-101. I am really trying to find a study that shows the rate of child sexual abuse in general US population to be lower than 5%. So far, none.

You’re welcome. I included the other reference for those who’d prefer meta-analysis. In that:paper the prevalence among males was 8%. That’s consistent with other work that combined numerous studies. I understand the perception that meta-analysis gives more precise estimates, but they, too, may be “collating responses from separately conducted studies.” I’ve consulted on several, and they often don’t shed more light than the most recent one or two studies. That’s usually because the peer review process puts increasing demands that authors present data that are an improvement over what’s come before. So far, I haven’t found a paper that puts the overall rate lower than 5% of US males. I’m sorry to say that the litigious environment around social crimes like this will make it highly unlikely that we’ll have a finely tuned survey of a random sample in the US any time soon. A study like that is more likely to succeed in countries where institutions don’t face a threat of extinction if they allow investigators in, and where sexual assault victims feel less stigma and isolation if they report. But, one can’t simply sweep the published background rate aside and claim that BSA has no reason to think it provides an environment with reduced risk of sexual assault. Boys are safer in scouting. They might be arrogant. But not without reason.

For those who want to look into more robust (but certainly not void of limitations) analysis: Global: Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., & Tonia, T. (2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of public health, 58(3), 469-483. National: Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329-333. I chose a 7% "background rate" based on older research that extrapolated to age 18 because that was specific to boys through adolescence. That rate is within the probable rate reported by 17 year olds in Finkelhor et al. Note: BSA also attempted to track predators of female youth, e.g. Explorers. So the risk to females has been a concern. Does the TCC have a breakdown of victims by sex? I might have a tally of female youth participants somewhere for us to get a handle on this. This is not to say that the YP program itself has made scouting "100x safer" than background. Boys at risk due to poverty or some other unstable family situation might never enroll. Furthermore, the percent of claimants joining a class is not the same as respondents in the affirmative in a broad-based survey. It's not clear at all which one would yield a more accurate rate.

This is what I mentioned earlier about "demonizing" the other side. Never be so sure. My first YPT training was in camp was by a former camp director and involved a run-down of recent incidents. The instructor was as open as the law would allow him. If, legally, a survivor could give us a walk-through, he/she would have been welcomed -- and supported as best we amateurs could. A subsequent video training involved interviews with survivors. So, there is evidence that BSA is in favor engaging survivors in practical ways would empower future scouters to create an environment that reduces risk even more than the current 100-fold below what children face elsewhere. But, as we see above ... this kind of restorative justice isn't for everyone. If someone couldn't face returning to their old camp, would they be able to do so at another camp? Could a camp vet survivors? What if some have since become perpetrators? If the camp is long gone, could a willing survivor be welcome to visit a pack/troop and instruct its volunteers? What kind of standing committee would we need to assist victims, camps, and units in coordinating all of these issues? And, would it be possible to protect both sides from reprisals? I think it is a solution that a number of folks on both sides would welcome. But, it might cost more to make it work than any current dollar settlement.

@johnsch322, welcome to the forums. Yes BSA is fighting. That’s generally what happens when someone demands more money than someone else is willing to give. It’s hard giving an opponent any benefit of the doubt. But, BSA May see the plan as forcing it to “continue” by making costs prohibitive to our most vulnerable youth, making safe camps too remote for them to attend, leading to upright volunteers unwilling to risk contributing to our nation’s youth programs. It may fear that as result, more youth will be isolated in high risk environments where the risk of abuse is far higher than 1%. From one perspective they BSA is acting like modern land barons. From another perspective TCC seems reckless. The demonization cuts both ways.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the fee increases. I also would not be surprised if the diminishing returns curb increases for a while.

Splitting hairs ... but the CO owns the assets and has an obligation to use them for the purposes of scouting in their vicinity. That obligation trickles down to the unit committee. So, if the CO wanted the cash to guild their roof that would be a problem. This is not that. In this case, it’s fairly straightforward. The committee appointed by the CO — most likely formed from the parents staying in the pack — get to the say in how to use the $ in the pack treasury.

I’m not sure what’s in it for BSA. Will the dollar amount of the settlement be lowered if they provide a plan?