I’m aware that parallelism is how you usually speeds things up. I am saying that it doesnt work in cases where you are studing a long term phenomenon.
As Pakinson described, he British foreign service managed to get by with orders of magnitude less bureaucrats when they had an actual empire to manage then they have employed afterwards
They also didn’t mind millions starving. You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it.
In this case we got vaccines with extremely high side effects compared to the vaccines that we usually use as a result of the regulation
I’m aware that parallelism is how you usually speeds things up. I am saying that it doesnt work in cases where you are studing a long term phenomenon.
You can’t study effects of COVID a few years out. At the same time we could now have information about what 6-month after infection effects the vaccines prevent.
You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it.
I can also consider that increased bureaucracy and regulation is due to God making it happen. There are a lot of bad explanations that I can consider.
If the increased bureaucracy is due to increased value of individual wellbeing, we would only see it in situations where the point of the regulation is increased wellbeing. Few people think about tax law as being primarily about wellbeing, yet the complexity of it grows constantly.
Just like cancer grows naturally bureaucracy does as well. Pakinson did good work on describing how it works.
That’s hindsight fallacy.
Hindsight fallacy would be saying that it would have been predictable when the pandemic started that the process leads to vaccines with higher side-effects. What I said was just that it did lead to vaccines with higher side-effects. That’s an observation that does come from hindsight and it would have been possible for regulation to produce no net damage in this case. At the same time I have written about how regulation increases side-effects of drugs before, so it’s not completely a thesis that comes out of hindsight.
If we look at vaccines, vaccines that get developed in a way where the inventor of the vaccine vaccinates himself early are more likely to be safe then ones that get validated through clinical trials where increasing the chance of the trials finding a clinical effect is more important then reducing side effects.
You could write a regulation that the first human in which a new vaccine gets tested as to be the CEO of the vaccine company to create skin-in-the-game. Such regulation wouldn’t slow down vaccine development but would help with safety.
You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it
You could also consider that the truth lies somewhere between.
If the increased bureaucracy is due to increased value of individual wellbeing, we would only see it in situations where the point of the regulation is increased wellbeing
Which is to say : “if the increased bureaucracy is entirely due to increased value of individual wellbeing...”
If we look at vaccines, vaccines that get developed in a way where the inventor of the vaccine vaccinates himself early are more likely to be safe then ones that get validated through clinical trials where increasing the chance of the trials finding a clinical effect is more important then reducing side effects.
I am finding that hard to parse. How are you defining “safe”, how are you checking that they actually took their miracle cure, and why are you placing so much confidence on a single (at best) data point?
It’s easy to justify having some non-zero level of regulation by looking at the quackery prevalant in the nineteenth early twentieth century. And claiming to have benefited from a cure you had never personally taken is quackery 101.
I’m aware that parallelism is how you usually speeds things up. I am saying that it doesnt work in cases where you are studing a long term phenomenon.
They also didn’t mind millions starving. You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it.
That’s hindsight fallacy.
You can’t study effects of COVID a few years out. At the same time we could now have information about what 6-month after infection effects the vaccines prevent.
I can also consider that increased bureaucracy and regulation is due to God making it happen. There are a lot of bad explanations that I can consider.
If the increased bureaucracy is due to increased value of individual wellbeing, we would only see it in situations where the point of the regulation is increased wellbeing. Few people think about tax law as being primarily about wellbeing, yet the complexity of it grows constantly.
Just like cancer grows naturally bureaucracy does as well. Pakinson did good work on describing how it works.
Hindsight fallacy would be saying that it would have been predictable when the pandemic started that the process leads to vaccines with higher side-effects. What I said was just that it did lead to vaccines with higher side-effects. That’s an observation that does come from hindsight and it would have been possible for regulation to produce no net damage in this case. At the same time I have written about how regulation increases side-effects of drugs before, so it’s not completely a thesis that comes out of hindsight.
If we look at vaccines, vaccines that get developed in a way where the inventor of the vaccine vaccinates himself early are more likely to be safe then ones that get validated through clinical trials where increasing the chance of the trials finding a clinical effect is more important then reducing side effects.
You could write a regulation that the first human in which a new vaccine gets tested as to be the CEO of the vaccine company to create skin-in-the-game. Such regulation wouldn’t slow down vaccine development but would help with safety.
No,not even for five extra dollars a dose.
You could also consider that the truth lies somewhere between.
Which is to say : “if the increased bureaucracy is entirely due to increased value of individual wellbeing...”
I am finding that hard to parse. How are you defining “safe”, how are you checking that they actually took their miracle cure, and why are you placing so much confidence on a single (at best) data point?
It’s easy to justify having some non-zero level of regulation by looking at the quackery prevalant in the nineteenth early twentieth century. And claiming to have benefited from a cure you had never personally taken is quackery 101.