5 ms·

why wouldn't the official people already involved track fucking everything? It costs exactly zero over and above what they are doing now, so why exclude it? I'

why wouldn't the official people already involved track fucking everything? It costs exactly zero over and above what they are doing now, so why exclude it? I'm not really sure who are those "official people already involved", but what I would really like to know is how you're so sure that "it costs exactly zero and above what they are doing now" to track "fucking everything"? First, let's go with the simple thing: how this tracking is supposed to be done. I'm just extrapolating here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I've had no doctor follow my kid around after vaccination 24/7 to monitor whether he's suddenly developed a symptom, so I suppose it's not by direct observation. Therefore, it must depend on some doctor connecting the dots ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Which leads me to the next issue. To put it like you did: how the fuck do you track "fucking everything"? I can understand that the doctors would be informed about a suspected link between A and B and would therefore report any cases of A and B happening "together", where "together" is defined as a parameter of this suspected link. But for that, you need to at least suspect that there's a link between A and B. Maybe I'm too naive, but to me it stands to reason that tracking "fucking everything" does not cost "zero", because otherwise someone would have been doing it already. Whenever someone claims that it would be easy to do something someone's not doing already, I remember Yegge's post "Have you ever legalized marijuana?": http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... Combine that with some weird stories I hear, and the fact that it is free for you to counter them with data, but you don't, and there you go, a conspiracy theory. Okay. Here's how that reads: "I hear stories from people and nobody seems to counter that with data, so I choose to believe in a conspiracy. Especially because I believe it would be 'free' to come up with data." ...in case you actually are interested in the truth. In case you are, here's a dose of it: http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

mistermann 16y ago
This: ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Why is this not done? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? And yes, I was exaggerating, it wouldn't be free. But it could be done for very little cost.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  Okay, I see the message is not getting through. What makes you claim it could be done for very little cost? I mean, I don't work in the medical field, so I don't have any insider information on the existing infrastructure. If you have some -- or any other argument to support your claim, for that matter -- please share. For example, what tracking body would the doctors report to? Is it CDC? If so, will existing staff take on their new duties, meaning that they will now have less time for other duties? Or will they have to hire new staff for that? If not CDC, which organization? Who pays their wages? How to disseminate information (to all doctors) on what to report to the tracking body? Do doctors now have a legal duty to inform themselves? Or is it someone else's duty to inform the doctors? Can I sue for malpractice if my doctor doesn't report? Or is it voluntary for doctors to report? What channels do they have for reporting: phone, Internet, some other? Who will pay for establishing those channels? I could go on, but there should be no need to, hopefully.

mistermann 16y ago

This: ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Why is this not done? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? And yes, I was exaggerating, it wouldn't be free. But it could be done for very little cost.

CodeMage 16y ago
Okay, I see the message is not getting through. What makes you claim it could be done for very little cost? I mean, I don't work in the medical field, so I don't have any insider information on the existing infrastructure. If you have some -- or any other argument to support your claim, for that matter -- please share. For example, what tracking body would the doctors report to? Is it CDC? If so, will existing staff take on their new duties, meaning that they will now have less time for other duties? Or will they have to hire new staff for that? If not CDC, which organization? Who pays their wages? How to disseminate information (to all doctors) on what to report to the tracking body? Do doctors now have a legal duty to inform themselves? Or is it someone else's duty to inform the doctors? Can I sue for malpractice if my doctor doesn't report? Or is it voluntary for doctors to report? What channels do they have for reporting: phone, Internet, some other? Who will pay for establishing those channels? I could go on, but there should be no need to, hopefully.