> This is a common attitude amongst the public, but it is completely at odds with how public health officials operate, because it's incredibly harmful and count

> This is a common attitude amongst the public, but it is completely at odds with how public health officials operate, because it's incredibly harmful and counterproductive. That's an ABSURD statement. Your statement is completely at odds with how public health operates in most countries. I've worked in it both in the US and in Germany, and worked with two more countries' health systems. In Germany at a leadership level, that is actually very close to the layer that decides what gets covered by public health insurance. Most public health insurance only covers older treatments because the new treatments are too risky for them with too little data on successful treatments. Things such as shockwave treatment that performance athletes frequently use or mothers use for their thumb after breastfeeding are completely out of pocket, because not enough longterm studies show statistical significance on the treatment. I understand that public health officials in the RECENT years(ten years is considered recent in public health or healthcare in general by the way) are trying to completely change the way public health works, because they want more direct control, but it is absolutely not YET how it works.