5 ms·
Just to play devils advocate, without knowing the exact details of the OP's product: you provide an electronic map, much like a subway map, of trauma centers wi
by wahern 5y ago
Just to play devils advocate, without knowing the exact details of the OP's product: you provide an electronic map, much like a subway map, of trauma centers with minimum necessary details, like only through streets and clearly labeled names which makes it effortless to plan, at a glance, the shortest route. Great. If they take what looks like the shortest route and hit road construction or traffic, they won't hesitate to analyze the situation on the spot and reroute if they believe it the better bet.
But now you add some helpful little details--a colored route from A to B with a label, "5 minutes drive time". Now they reach the obstruction. Will they immediately assess the situation as they see it, or will they believe that "5 minutes" already accounts for the time necessary to pass the obstruction, thus hesitating under the false belief that the electronic map is using hidden information?
EDIT: Note that this situation describes the error in the CDC's mask decision as discussed in the article. What the CDC should have said at the time was that it wasn't going to mandate masks because it lacked confidence in its information regarding mask advocacy and efficacy. Instead what the CDC did was affirmatively tell people not to wear masks. If gave people too much detail and implied that it knew more than it really did. We can argue over whether the CDC should have known that masks were beneficial, but I think most can agree that they should have been more careful about giving false confidence either way. People aren't stupid, but they are easily misled, and once misled they'll continue rationalizing the direction they're headed. That describes not only how people responded to the CDC guidance but to the CDC itself--its false confidence in the poor 1960s-era aerosol experiments that claimed more than it actually proved.
Misleading information is poisonous. First rule: "do no harm". That's paramount over the responsibility to affirmatively help people.
- maxerickson 5y agoWithholding information that is largely accurate but not perfect is not harmless. Say someone is moving to a new city and wants housing that is close to high level medical care. It's useful if they are able to access information about where it is located.
- afiori 5y agopart of the problem is that in med-speak things are often classified as "does good" "does nothing" "does bad" and by default new or untested things are never in "does good" I mean, until a few years ago there was no scientific evidence that parachutes helped with surviving jumping off a plane
- kelseyfrog 5y agoI'm still not convinced[1]. 1. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094