4 ms·

Hmm, you could use that argument to dissuade all of scientific research. Science is zero sum, if we devote resources to it then you are taking them from someon

Hmm, you could use that argument to dissuade all of scientific research. Science is zero sum, if we devote resources to it then you are taking them from someone else! But at the end of the day we all know there are significant potential benefits to this type of testing. Not only that, more demand can increase jobs & labs in the first place. Just because the system is dysfunctional is not a good argument for ceasing progress.

haldujai 4y ago
Suggesting we perform niche lab examinations annually on the entire population is not scientific research, that’s jumping straight into a screening program. Such an initiative would require more lab resources than currently exists in the US. I’m questioning whether this is the best use of $100-200 billion a year. Instead, I suggested a small study (appropriately powered) to further investigate.
barry-cotter 4y ago
> But at the end of the day we all know there are significant potential benefits to this type of testing. Not only that, more demand can increase jobs & labs in the first place. But at the end of the day we all know there are significant potential benefits to [testing cars every year]. Not only that, more demand can increase jobs [in testing centres] in the first place. The question isn’t whether there are benefits. It’s whether the benefits exceed the costs. You need to actually measure those to find out. You can’t just assume it. Jobs in testing centres and labs are not a benefit. If they are doing useless work they don’t just cost money. They cost the potential output from the jobs those people could have done instead. The TSA doesn’t just massively inconvenience millions every year to almost zero benefit. It also wastes the labor of tens of thousands of people who could have done something better and more useful with their lives.

haldujai 4y ago

Suggesting we perform niche lab examinations annually on the entire population is not scientific research, that’s jumping straight into a screening program. Such an initiative would require more lab resources than currently exists in the US. I’m questioning whether this is the best use of $100-200 billion a year. Instead, I suggested a small study (appropriately powered) to further investigate.

barry-cotter 4y ago

> But at the end of the day we all know there are significant potential benefits to this type of testing. Not only that, more demand can increase jobs & labs in the first place. But at the end of the day we all know there are significant potential benefits to [testing cars every year]. Not only that, more demand can increase jobs [in testing centres] in the first place. The question isn’t whether there are benefits. It’s whether the benefits exceed the costs. You need to actually measure those to find out. You can’t just assume it. Jobs in testing centres and labs are not a benefit. If they are doing useless work they don’t just cost money. They cost the potential output from the jobs those people could have done instead. The TSA doesn’t just massively inconvenience millions every year to almost zero benefit. It also wastes the labor of tens of thousands of people who could have done something better and more useful with their lives.