Some years ago a new contraceptive product went on sale. It offered a superior kind of rhythm method which measured hormone levels
Before long complaints were being made. The marketing was misleading
I remember one surprised new mother on tv saying that she had relied on the claim of 94% reliability. She would never have gone ahead with something which had a failure rate of 1 in 16
That kind of misunderstanding is very common. Over 90% sounds so very reassuring
And fertility is not the only human variable for which new methods of measurement are being sought. Biometrics is a growth industry.
Yesterdays Times carried a letter from Malcolm Windsor from Edinburgh about how 'faulty' biometrics frustrated his plans to fly home from Heathrow
I do not know what is the quoted reliability of the new BAA biometric system at Terminal 5. Nor do I know how many passengers they expect once the terminal is fully open. But say the figures are 99% reliability and 1 million a year. Then nearly 30 people a day can expect an experience like Mr Windsors, without any 'fault' at all
One final thought: Mr Windsor was trying to fly to Scotland. Ms Booth had her contraceptive accident at Balmoral. Is this significant?
Is the link royalty, or Scotland?
Oh no! 100,000 Scotsmen are visiting Manchester today (I am not). Should we be very afraid?
