4 ms·

If you try too hard to prevent deaths, you wind up causing deaths.

by WalterBright 5mo ago

Retric 5mo ago
Only if you’re ineffective. One of the best ways to prevent people dying is promoting long term economic growth.
coldtea 5mo ago
If you try too hard to be anti-regulation you cause even more deaths and misery.
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives. https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-Amendments-Evaluative/dp/0844731285/ https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-... https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation/dp/0300116640/ https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharma... Aviation engines still use leaded gas for general aviation due to regulations that make it impractical to redesign the engines. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa... For more information, google "why do cessna engines still use leaded gas?"
  - Retric 5mo ago
    Net deaths is what matters here. Obviously they aren’t perfect, but no human system is. The market for effective drugs is global. FDA regulations have a significant but not that burdensome influence on drug discovery. At the other end, the opioid epidemic is a demonstration of just how many deaths can result from insufficient regulation of just a single drug family. Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. Conservative estimates put it somewhere in the 2 orders of magnitude range.
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      > Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. The first book I linked to did the research and showed otherwise. The key aspect usually not admitted is the deaths caused by drugs not developed due to costly regulations.
      - Retric 5mo ago
        I hope you can understand why a book with a “Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 31, 1974” might have some gaps here in terms of relevant research and current regulations. As to the leaded gas issue, that’s a function of less strict regulations allowing unleaded gas. Many countries have banned it without issue.
        WalterBright 5mo ago
        Peltzman had 10 years of statistical data to make the case. Any subsequent study that does not take into account lives saved by drugs never developed because of regulation costs is not a useful study. As for leaded gas, the problem was changing the engine designs would require recertification so expensive that people just keep using 1960s engine designs. Regulations have an effect of stifling new development - in drugs and airplane engines. As for drugs, there is a way out. Allow legally consenting adults the right to sign a piece of paper stating that they understand that drug X is not approved by the FDA and they take it at their own risk.
        Retric 5mo ago
        > Peltzman had 10 years of statistical data to make the case. Any subsequent study that does not take into account lives saved by drugs never developed because of regulation costs is not a useful study. You say that as if no such study exists. They do and the costs are known to reasonable levels of accuracy, what’s generally excluded is the benefit of drug regulations. Regulations on opioids alone (granted there’s a lot of opioids) have saved million of American lives since that book was published, but it’s easy to exclude such numbers if you want to make regulations look bad. > As for leaded gas, the problem was changing the engine designs would require recertification so expensive that people just keep using 1960s engine designs. Nope, ~80% of existing light aircraft in the US can 100% legally fly on unleaded gasoline. This isn’t a technical problem or the burden of regulations. This is a group of people that didn’t want to spend money because the transition isn’t free.
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    >Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives. What about the lives saved by crappy unsafe drugs coming to an unregulated market, either because they're snake oil / ineffective but marketed as potent, or because they're actively harmful, or non properly tested? As for the book suggestions: free market economists in favor of deregulation? Color me surprised!
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      That's covered by the book I linked to.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
wwweston 5mo ago
Some may notice this response is in good company with the other psychological mechanisms we use to avoid confronting "lotteries." Like "they didn't prepare correctly" or "they didn't do the right things" or "mondays amirite" there may even be cases where it's true, and a robust analysis of lottery situations sometimes reveals local maxima or tradeoffs that are tough to shake. But they can also be spoken with a post-hoc resignation that discourages the very analysis that might confirm them... because such an analysis might also disaffirm them. One question to ask is whether a way of addressing a "lottery" encourages you to stop analysis and reflection, or to work your way through analysis and reflection.
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  Everything you do risks death in one way or another. Even eating (you can choke to death). Maybe a regulation requiring all food must be liquefied?
  - wwweston 5mo ago
    That's a great way of announcing that you didn't read my comment, which actually accounts for the principled version of the point you're ideologically abusing.
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      I find your prose difficult to read, and made my best guess at it. Your prose could also be improved by omitting the rude remarks.

If you try too hard to prevent deaths, you wind up causing deaths.

Retric 5mo ago

Only if you’re ineffective. One of the best ways to prevent people dying is promoting long term economic growth.

coldtea 5mo ago

If you try too hard to be anti-regulation you cause even more deaths and misery.

WalterBright 5mo ago
Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives. https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-Amendments-Evaluative/dp/0844731285/ https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-... https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation/dp/0300116640/ https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharma... Aviation engines still use leaded gas for general aviation due to regulations that make it impractical to redesign the engines. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa... For more information, google "why do cessna engines still use leaded gas?"
- Retric 5mo ago
  Net deaths is what matters here. Obviously they aren’t perfect, but no human system is. The market for effective drugs is global. FDA regulations have a significant but not that burdensome influence on drug discovery. At the other end, the opioid epidemic is a demonstration of just how many deaths can result from insufficient regulation of just a single drug family. Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. Conservative estimates put it somewhere in the 2 orders of magnitude range.
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    > Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. The first book I linked to did the research and showed otherwise. The key aspect usually not admitted is the deaths caused by drugs not developed due to costly regulations.
    - Retric 5mo ago
      I hope you can understand why a book with a “Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 31, 1974” might have some gaps here in terms of relevant research and current regulations. As to the leaded gas issue, that’s a function of less strict regulations allowing unleaded gas. Many countries have banned it without issue.
      - WalterBright 5mo ago
        Peltzman had 10 years of statistical data to make the case. Any subsequent study that does not take into account lives saved by drugs never developed because of regulation costs is not a useful study. As for leaded gas, the problem was changing the engine designs would require recertification so expensive that people just keep using 1960s engine designs. Regulations have an effect of stifling new development - in drugs and airplane engines. As for drugs, there is a way out. Allow legally consenting adults the right to sign a piece of paper stating that they understand that drug X is not approved by the FDA and they take it at their own risk.
        Retric 5mo ago
        > Peltzman had 10 years of statistical data to make the case. Any subsequent study that does not take into account lives saved by drugs never developed because of regulation costs is not a useful study. You say that as if no such study exists. They do and the costs are known to reasonable levels of accuracy, what’s generally excluded is the benefit of drug regulations. Regulations on opioids alone (granted there’s a lot of opioids) have saved million of American lives since that book was published, but it’s easy to exclude such numbers if you want to make regulations look bad. > As for leaded gas, the problem was changing the engine designs would require recertification so expensive that people just keep using 1960s engine designs. Nope, ~80% of existing light aircraft in the US can 100% legally fly on unleaded gasoline. This isn’t a technical problem or the burden of regulations. This is a group of people that didn’t want to spend money because the transition isn’t free.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  >Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives. What about the lives saved by crappy unsafe drugs coming to an unregulated market, either because they're snake oil / ineffective but marketed as potent, or because they're actively harmful, or non properly tested? As for the book suggestions: free market economists in favor of deregulation? Color me surprised!
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    That's covered by the book I linked to.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]

wwweston 5mo ago

Some may notice this response is in good company with the other psychological mechanisms we use to avoid confronting "lotteries." Like "they didn't prepare correctly" or "they didn't do the right things" or "mondays amirite" there may even be cases where it's true, and a robust analysis of lottery situations sometimes reveals local maxima or tradeoffs that are tough to shake. But they can also be spoken with a post-hoc resignation that discourages the very analysis that might confirm them... because such an analysis might also disaffirm them. One question to ask is whether a way of addressing a "lottery" encourages you to stop analysis and reflection, or to work your way through analysis and reflection.

WalterBright 5mo ago
Everything you do risks death in one way or another. Even eating (you can choke to death). Maybe a regulation requiring all food must be liquefied?
- wwweston 5mo ago
  That's a great way of announcing that you didn't read my comment, which actually accounts for the principled version of the point you're ideologically abusing.
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    I find your prose difficult to read, and made my best guess at it. Your prose could also be improved by omitting the rude remarks.