5 ms·

This is easy 20/20. At the time they were not entirely sure how widespread and if the incidences would increase. Remember doctors follow the Hippocratic oath -

This is easy 20/20. At the time they were not entirely sure how widespread and if the incidences would increase. Remember doctors follow the Hippocratic oath - First, do no harm.

maxerickson 5y ago
How do they administer chemo or radiation then? Or just do an X-ray for that matter. Doctors make tradeoffs all the time.
- ravedave5 5y ago
  Apples to oranges but I'll take the bait. Chemo's risks are well studied and known. Is a long discussion with a patient to understand all the risks/rewards. X-rays risks are so negligible it's not worth discussing. This was a oh crap, we don't know what's happening and we're doing this to millions of people a day.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Its not apples and oranges, you presented the oath as an absolute and now you are talking about risk analysis and some harms being dismissible.
- mint2 5y ago
  The effect of low dose X-rays or other low dose radiation is unquantified below a certain threshold. Some people believe it’s actually good for you. In other words, prescribing an X-ray is not doing harm based on our current understanding, it is doing “undefined”
ravedave5 5y ago
Also Dan appears to be walking back some on his theories - https://twitter.com/FT__Dan https://twitter.com/FT__Dan
failwhaleshark 5y ago
No, the rates were already known to be extremely low. It was political theater to look cautious when no pause was warranted. It cost more lives than it saved. That is greater than zero net harm and the wrong choice.
- chaorace 5y ago
  I'll lament political theater as much as the next guy, but it's not a pointless exercise. Last I checked, there's a solid 1/3 Americans making the largely irrational decision to forgo vaccination. We may soon have more vaccines than willing recipients... if science will not convince these stragglers, then perhaps theatrics will.
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    It is exactly a pointless exercise when it kills more people than it saves. They should've said that the rates were very, very low, they're monitoring the situation closely and conducting research into it in parallel, but not pausing it because it would kill more people indirectly by not vaccinating them than would it save by pausing. This is a big problem of "democracy" (Socrates' absolute favorite political system - mob rule by popular sentiment rather than science or expertise) where benevolent dictators are essential to override the stupidity of individual "choice" for vital public health policies for the actual greater good. Anyone who refuses a vaccine without a narrow, valid medical excuse should get 3 years of prison time. If they don't like it, too bad. "Democracies" have to quit pandering to the crazies and make people do what is best for all during an emergency.

This is easy 20/20. At the time they were not entirely sure how widespread and if the incidences would increase. Remember doctors follow the Hippocratic oath - First, do no harm.

maxerickson 5y ago

How do they administer chemo or radiation then? Or just do an X-ray for that matter. Doctors make tradeoffs all the time.

ravedave5 5y ago
Apples to oranges but I'll take the bait. Chemo's risks are well studied and known. Is a long discussion with a patient to understand all the risks/rewards. X-rays risks are so negligible it's not worth discussing. This was a oh crap, we don't know what's happening and we're doing this to millions of people a day.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Its not apples and oranges, you presented the oath as an absolute and now you are talking about risk analysis and some harms being dismissible.
mint2 5y ago
The effect of low dose X-rays or other low dose radiation is unquantified below a certain threshold. Some people believe it’s actually good for you. In other words, prescribing an X-ray is not doing harm based on our current understanding, it is doing “undefined”

ravedave5 5y ago

Also Dan appears to be walking back some on his theories - https://twitter.com/FT__Dan https://twitter.com/FT__Dan

failwhaleshark 5y ago

No, the rates were already known to be extremely low. It was political theater to look cautious when no pause was warranted. It cost more lives than it saved. That is greater than zero net harm and the wrong choice.

chaorace 5y ago
I'll lament political theater as much as the next guy, but it's not a pointless exercise. Last I checked, there's a solid 1/3 Americans making the largely irrational decision to forgo vaccination. We may soon have more vaccines than willing recipients... if science will not convince these stragglers, then perhaps theatrics will.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  It is exactly a pointless exercise when it kills more people than it saves. They should've said that the rates were very, very low, they're monitoring the situation closely and conducting research into it in parallel, but not pausing it because it would kill more people indirectly by not vaccinating them than would it save by pausing. This is a big problem of "democracy" (Socrates' absolute favorite political system - mob rule by popular sentiment rather than science or expertise) where benevolent dictators are essential to override the stupidity of individual "choice" for vital public health policies for the actual greater good. Anyone who refuses a vaccine without a narrow, valid medical excuse should get 3 years of prison time. If they don't like it, too bad. "Democracies" have to quit pandering to the crazies and make people do what is best for all during an emergency.