Yeah, I agree that the hypothetical EA seems less like a "radical" abolitionist (for some definition of "radical"). 

"Its mandate was to promote gradual emancipation"

Your hypothetical EA sounds kind of like an abolitionist to me :)

The Society formed a ways-and-means committee to deal with the difficulty that more than half of the members, including Troup and Jay, owned slaves (mostly a few domestic servants per household). The committee proposed a plan for gradual emancipation: members would free slaves younger than 28 when they reached the age of 35, slaves between 28 and 38 in seven years' time, and slaves over 45 immediately. This proposal failed however, and the committee was dissolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Manumission_Society 

Thanks for finding this and writing it up! And thanks to FRI for updating their report. 

I thought this was an interesting point, thanks for writing it.

Thanks!

I feel confused about this response. You're asking for people to give you examples of a thing occurring, I'm asking by what date range you wish to see examples in.

What time frame are you interested in? E.g. if someone says that they have <30y timelines today, would that meet your criteria?

Thanks! Perhaps I phrased this poorly; a person being a patient or not isn't the relevant factor, it's whether or not they are licensed. E.g. if you look at the FDA authorization for the first product it says:

The ContaCT mobile application is intended to be used by neurovascular specialists, such as vascular neurologists, neuro-interventional specialists, or users with similar training who have been pre-authorized by their Healthcare Organization or Facility.

I'm actually not sure whether one could generously interpret "similar training" to include e.g. radiology technicians.  They wouldn't be allowed to make diagnoses, and my guess is that the government would not look kindly on a rad tech saying something like "I'm not diagnosing you with a stroke, but the AI thinks you've had one, wink, wink," but I'm not sure. Perhaps someone with more legal experience could chime in.

In any case, I'm skeptical that a business would want to run that malpractice risk (particularly since, as mentioned above, insurance wouldn't reimburse them for doing so).

And yes, I agree that this probably means these products aren't more clearly safe and effective than e.g. eyeglasses (where businesses are analogously legally prohibited from giving glasses to patients without a licensed human optometrist first performing an exam). It's just worth considering that this is a very high bar!^[1]

1. ^{^}

   Although I think maybe it's more accurate to just say that medical device authorization is based on a bunch of factors that are largely unrelated to the safety and efficacy of the product. E.g. I think there's no one who believes that cigarettes are safer than eyeglasses, despite them being available OTC.

I doubt that there are surveys of when people stayed home. You could maybe try to look at prediction markets but I'm not sure what you would compare them to to see if the prediction market was more accurate than some other reference group.