6 ms·
A problem with bureaucracies is that they often care deeply if people die from an action they are responsible for, but are fine if there are massive deaths due
by drcode 6y ago
A problem with bureaucracies is that they often care deeply if people die from an action they are responsible for, but are fine if there are massive deaths due to inaction.
- yowlingcat 6y agoOof. I think you strike upon a generally accurate point. Thinking about how this applies to all sorts of bureaucracies now (including corporate ones)
- ampdepolymerase 6y agoExhibit A, the FDA when it comes to new drug approvals.
- justapassenger 6y agoBecause you can very easily destroy public trust medicines if you approve something unsafe, even if in grand scheme of things, it was better for humans. Just look at antivaccination movement, and imagine how many more people would be there if their claims were actually supported by data. Humans aren’t rational.
- blablabla123 6y agoPractically the last half year of Germany's corona policy is influenced by the anti vaccination movement. It's really annoying, on the other hand I think the anti vaxxers seemed to have stopped all major public appearances. So at least one positive thing.
- subltemelt 6y agoIt's interesting because I feel the opposite as an acute care doctor in the US. If I give a medication, or get a scan, or whatever, and the patient has an adverse reaction, it's the medication/scan's fault. If I don't give the medication, don't get the scan, and something bad happens, it's my fault. At least that's how people see it for now. Leads to a lot of over-treatment and extra unnecessary testing in my opinion, especially around COVID (for example, I frequently see high-dose dexamethasone given for longer than 10 days or given to normoxic patients, despite the recommendation being for 6 mg daily for 10 days, and only for patients requiring oxygen).
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoExactly. You care if people die on your lawn. So you give out medication, do scans, etc. so that if people die they do it on someone else's lawn. It's ass-covering all the way down.
- andyjohnson0 6y ago> You care if people die on your lawn. I don't know how you know that. Given the significant time and effort required to become a doctor, isn't it at least as likely that they are motivated about people not dying on any lawn?
- midoBB 6y agoA doctor is a job like any other job to be honest. Most people are in it to make a better life for themselves not to think about other people.
- drcode 6y agoWhat you say makes complete sense, I'd argue the incentives are different for government agencies, however.
- nradov 6y agoI thought that methylprednisolone was now preferred over dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/methylprednisolone/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/methylpredn...
- jayd16 6y ago>If I give a medication, or get a scan, or whatever, and the patient has an adverse reaction, it's the medication/scan's fault. What about the Hippocratic oath? First do no harm.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mrtksn 6y agoAlmost as if people are doing their jobs then? I don’t think that beurocrats are supposed to be leaders. The elected officials should be pushing for the change, not the people who run the operations.
- lxgr 6y agoThe cliché of the EU is that it's bureaucrats all the way up, though. Of course this is an exaggeration, but there is a somewhat disturbing neglect of EU elections, functions and political appointments in the public view (it's seen as less prestigious than national/federal elections in many EU member states). As a result, it's a climate that doesn't always attract and get the leadership it really needs (given that the EU formally and practically overrules legislation and jurisdiction of member states).
- thepangolino 6y agoHow do you explain the lockdowns then?
- lastofthemojito 6y agoFeels similar to government IT risk aversion that I've seen. Folks are afraid to approve a new piece of software, or a new version, or a hotfix or whatever, because what if it goes awry and causes problems? But little weight seems to be put on "what if we keep running the same version we've been running for years and now that there's a known vulnerability, someone exploits it?".
- kitd 6y ago"Better the devil you know" etc etc
- kspacewalk2 6y agoWell, yeah. First, do no harm. It's not ethically acceptable to kill or seriously hurt a bunch of otherwise healthy people in order to plow on through with vaccination that'll save a bunch of other people. Especially since there are many other vaccine types, the issue with AZ could be a tainted batch instead of a fundamental problem with AZ per se, etc.
- numpad0 6y agoI’m not sure if it’s bureaucracy or human nature, as government procedures had been responsive to the pandemic, and pressure to urge inactions have been overriding the pre-pandemic determined actions.
- drcode 6y agoPretty much all the responses of the government that were done quickly were to prevent action (i.e. no going to restaurants, no flights to certain areas, etc) so I'd argue that that also represents "inaction", just in a roundabout way.
- mikem170 6y agoRight. They were playing it safe, as opposed to having to defend themselves some day in the future for not playing it safe. This would explain why the Swedish state were so heavily criticised for not locking down. Also would explain the UK government arresting people for being outdoors (there's not really any data supporting outdoor transmission, that I know of).
- amelius 6y agoThe solution is simple though: politicians simply ask experts how many people die if they do X versus Y, and make sure it is recorded (e.g. by journalists) so they can refer to it later.
- dahfizz 6y agoEven assuming this utilitarian viewpoint is the correct one, you're putting a lot of faith in the general population to trust the experts / journalists and to be un-emotional when examining the facts.
- levosmetalo 6y agoNow as a politician, you just need to find the right expert that will recommend you whatever you want to do.
- amelius 6y agoOf course you ask a reputable one, e.g. head of CDC etc. otherwise prepare to get in trouble with journalists.
- DiggyJohnson 6y ago> of course you ask a reputable one What if that turns out to be more difficult than you originally realized.
- cutemonster 6y agoYou can just forget about it all and don't tell anyone you ever asked him/her.
- hntrader 6y agoWhy would any politician/regulator/expert willingly opt-in to accountability? The best strategy (however cynical) is to not be quantitatively explicit about expectations so that you can frame it as though you succeeded no matter what happens.
- rebuilder 6y agoIt's not just bureaucracies. People in general prefer bad outcomes due to inaction to bad outcomes due to action. See: trolley problem.