15 ms·

Yeah, I get your point, at the end of the day the net result is what we care about. But the assumptions that you use to calculate that net are where all of the

Yeah, I get your point, at the end of the day the net result is what we care about. But the assumptions that you use to calculate that net are where all of the disagreements stem from. In your example, you've constrained it to losing well defined revenue, and "you know this fix is low risk", so the answer is easy. Maybe (wrongly or rightly) you don't have faith in the revenue numbers, or in the test suite or the engineers writing the tests or the fix, maybe there's office politics involved, etc. This thread started with my reaction to these lines from op: > Knowing long-term effects (1+ years) is not a precondition of approval for most vaccines. It just so happens that vaccines usually take a long time for approval, so we end up knowing long-term effects as a side effect. This is because there generally isn't a known mechanism for vaccines to have long term effects. Not ruling out the possibility, but we understand how vaccines work pretty well. [...] I've seen this claim dozens of times, and it always always always makes me think of those scenarios where you find a bug in code that you or someone you trust/respect wrote from the ground up, and you wonder "how in the f*** did this ever work?". I'm not claiming I'm right to feel that way, maybe this is a defect in my character, but I just can't buy the "we understand vaccines pretty well" thing.

joshuamorton 5y ago
I think the place where the disagreement or misunderstanding lies is in how we're describing thinking about unknowns. You seem to be taking this from the perspective that, because there are unknowns, literally anything could happen. And we don't think that's the case with my vaccines or code. Pushing v2 of your webapp to master isn't going to cause rockets to launch. There are things that could happen and there are even very surprising things that are unlikely but could happen. But not everything is possible. When we say "we understand how vaccines work pretty well", we mean that in the same was as "we know how our app works pretty well". That doesn't mean that we can't still be surprised, but it does mean that we have some things that we can be confident won't happen. One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect (to use the code analogy, you enable an experiment, it modifies database writes for a while, then you disable the experiment and delete the code. Once you've deleted the code, we know it can't do anything else, because it's not there anymore. That's true with both vaccines and webapps.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  > One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect The hard part about conversations like this are that you could have written the definitive book on this stuff, or you could be just another dummy on the internet like me. So I have to take a statement like that and do my best to evaluate it myself, since I have no idea how to value your expertise. If you're an expert of some sort, I apologize in advance. We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Symptoms could start immediately but be undetectable until they progress far enough (think a tiny little tumor for just one example). Again, not claiming this is happening, just saying that it seems nutty to assume it can't happen. When I read "we understand how vaccines work pretty well", I automatically translate it to "we understand pretty well what happens when we inject a substance into a human body", and then I think "really?". We have some useful models, sure, but "understanding pretty well" seems a vast overstatement of the situation, especially when its laypeople chatting on the internet. The abstract concept of a vaccine is pretty simple. Anybody can regurgitate the picture book version of it. Any specific instantiation of one is remarkably complex, all the way from manufacturing, to transport, to administration, and then interacting with the legacy ball of spaghetti that is the human body and it's various systems. The fact that we humans decided to name some substance the same thing that we named some other substances that we created in the past doesn't necessarily tell you how that substance is going to interact with the body. It can provide you with hypotheses, but hypotheses need to be tested.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Correct, but, and this is the important bit: the only lasting thing the vaccines do is leave your body primed to react to certain proteins (everything else they "do" leaves the body pretty quickly, you can think of this as a fairly limited api they're interacting with). This could be a bad thing, but if it is 1. Anyone who naturally caught covid would also suffer the same consequences 2. you'd expect to see the issues as soon as the immune system was primed, this takes days to weeks, not months. So yes, there are all sorts of weird thins that could happen, but I'll reiterate: we know of know biological mechanisms that would make those things happen suddenly, without warning, months after the vaccine. We understand, very well, that such things can't really happen. Just because you don't understand the human body very well doesn't mean the medical establishment also has equally no clue.

joshuamorton 5y ago

I think the place where the disagreement or misunderstanding lies is in how we're describing thinking about unknowns. You seem to be taking this from the perspective that, because there are unknowns, literally anything could happen. And we don't think that's the case with my vaccines or code. Pushing v2 of your webapp to master isn't going to cause rockets to launch. There are things that could happen and there are even very surprising things that are unlikely but could happen. But not everything is possible. When we say "we understand how vaccines work pretty well", we mean that in the same was as "we know how our app works pretty well". That doesn't mean that we can't still be surprised, but it does mean that we have some things that we can be confident won't happen. One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect (to use the code analogy, you enable an experiment, it modifies database writes for a while, then you disable the experiment and delete the code. Once you've deleted the code, we know it can't do anything else, because it's not there anymore. That's true with both vaccines and webapps.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
> One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect The hard part about conversations like this are that you could have written the definitive book on this stuff, or you could be just another dummy on the internet like me. So I have to take a statement like that and do my best to evaluate it myself, since I have no idea how to value your expertise. If you're an expert of some sort, I apologize in advance. We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Symptoms could start immediately but be undetectable until they progress far enough (think a tiny little tumor for just one example). Again, not claiming this is happening, just saying that it seems nutty to assume it can't happen. When I read "we understand how vaccines work pretty well", I automatically translate it to "we understand pretty well what happens when we inject a substance into a human body", and then I think "really?". We have some useful models, sure, but "understanding pretty well" seems a vast overstatement of the situation, especially when its laypeople chatting on the internet. The abstract concept of a vaccine is pretty simple. Anybody can regurgitate the picture book version of it. Any specific instantiation of one is remarkably complex, all the way from manufacturing, to transport, to administration, and then interacting with the legacy ball of spaghetti that is the human body and it's various systems. The fact that we humans decided to name some substance the same thing that we named some other substances that we created in the past doesn't necessarily tell you how that substance is going to interact with the body. It can provide you with hypotheses, but hypotheses need to be tested.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Correct, but, and this is the important bit: the only lasting thing the vaccines do is leave your body primed to react to certain proteins (everything else they "do" leaves the body pretty quickly, you can think of this as a fairly limited api they're interacting with). This could be a bad thing, but if it is 1. Anyone who naturally caught covid would also suffer the same consequences 2. you'd expect to see the issues as soon as the immune system was primed, this takes days to weeks, not months. So yes, there are all sorts of weird thins that could happen, but I'll reiterate: we know of know biological mechanisms that would make those things happen suddenly, without warning, months after the vaccine. We understand, very well, that such things can't really happen. Just because you don't understand the human body very well doesn't mean the medical establishment also has equally no clue.