Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–458 of 458 posts

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#451

Post by pvaldes »

jsgo wrote: post #79

> Wojcicki has theories Think the obvious one is that the results are shared and whether someone is a criminal or not (or will be one in the future), people are not particularly comfortable with sharing to parties they didn't initially trust it to for the purposes they trusted it for. Anecdotally, I bought a 23andme kit (just the genealogy one) but never submitted it because the labeling was to send it to the lab in…

For people glad that "crimes will be solved", must be noted that criminals could use it in their benefit also. Just submitting a strange DNA, from a deceased people for example, to be linked with their name. That would taint the database, make they invisible to computers searching (dead people don't commit crimes) and send the hounds far away eventually. If caught you can always blame the lab for mixing your data.

Looks like the modern equivalent to having a new identity after a fake new ID card.

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#452

Post by kimjongtrill »

pvaldes wrote: post #451
jsgo wrote: post #79

> Wojcicki has theories Think the obvious one is that the results are shared and whether someone is a criminal or not (or will be one in the future), people are not particularly comfortable with sharing to parties they didn't initially trust it to for the purposes they trusted it for. Anecdotally, I bought a 23andme kit (just the genealogy one) but never submitted it because the labeling was to send it to the lab in…

For people glad that "crimes will be solved", must be noted that criminals could use it in their benefit also. Just submitting a strange DNA, from a deceased people for example, to be linked with their name. That would taint the database, make they invisible to computers searching (dead people don't commit crimes) and send the hounds far away eventually. If caught you can always blame the lab for mixing your data. Lo…

Dang good call. Gonna order up a kit and throw some random homeless persons spit/hair in it

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#453

Post by brigandish »

JohnFen wrote: post #427
brigandish wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can buy shares that give you voting rights in a company, and you can decide to spend (or not) your money with a company. The latter is not available to you with the government and has been shown, I would argue, to have a greater effect over a company than voting in a democracy, and that's as an individual. Maybe that's comparable with picking parties to vote for but it's not quite the same. I wouldn't trust eithe…

> You can buy shares that give you voting rights in a company Which is saying that you can only have a "vote" if you're wealthy enough. That doesn't seem like an actual solution to me. > and you can decide to spend (or not) your money with a company. Which is what I do, but doing that doesn't affect the company's behavior.

> Which is saying that you can only have a "vote" if you're wealthy enough.

No, it's saying you can vote if you buy a share. Are you saying that wealthy individuals in a democracy don't have an outsized advantage in shaping policy and the behaviour of government? But they have the same voting rights as you or me, so there must be something else going on…

> doing that doesn't affect the company's behavior.

You're saying that withholding your money from a company has no effect on its behaviour? Try cancelling a long standing account with a company today, like your phone provider, and see if it provokes any kind of response. You might get a free upgrade out of it.

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#454

Post by prepend »

smt88 wrote: post #450
prepend wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, what they did is basically summarize all the various research related to genes. It was mildly useful, but more so as just a way to easily have some surveillance as new research came out. You may argue that it’s not useful, but saying it’s not safe is hyperbole as there is no evidence of danger or misuse and there’s been like 10-15 years for horror stories to come up. I would like some way to automate my s…

> saying it’s not safe is hyperbole It absolutely is not hyperbole. Any test that leads to unnecessary treatment is unsafe. That list typically includes anything with false positives. For example, excessive testing for certain cancers (like breast cancer) lead to higher death rates. Here's a concrete example where poorly-understood genetic testing has led to unnecessary surgery, which is obviously not safe. https://w…

> Any test that leads to unnecessary treatment is unsafe.

The AMA argues against letting patients run their own lab tests too, and fortunately lost. While it is possible that people could make mistakes using their own data, but this is rare and certainly the data being available is a net positive for people.

Using your definition, wouldn’t it be more dangerous to only make the information available to rich people and prevent the information being available affordable? $100 for webmd is much cheaper than the tens of thousands it would cost to consult with specialists, counselors, and gps.

We need to look for ways to lower healthcare costs, not scare people about hypothetical dangers that just happen to be solved by very expensive tests and consults.

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#455

Post by syshum »

JshWright wrote: post #434
syshum wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The fact that a private for-profit company decides if you live or die is absurd. Yes it is much better when corupt government bureaucrats do that ::Rolleyes::

I think the level of "corrupt" is up for some debate, but it's pretty inarguable that the US pays substantially more for a system that is objectively worse in many ways. So your sarcastic comment is actually correct...

the US Healthcare system is second to none in the world.

The actual CARE people in the US get is the best in the world, wealthy people from every nation come here to get their care

It is fucking expensive and has issues with how we go about paying for it largely do to government regulations and interference in the market place

But the actual care... No that is not "objectively worse" to any country anywhere, our health care is the best.

People often confuse care with insurance, our Insurance system sucks largely do to government

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#456

Post by dragonwriter »

syshum wrote: post #455
JshWright wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the level of "corrupt" is up for some debate, but it's pretty inarguable that the US pays substantially more for a system that is objectively worse in many ways. So your sarcastic comment is actually correct...

the US Healthcare system is second to none in the world. The actual CARE people in the US get is the best in the world, wealthy people from every nation come here to get their care It is fucking expensive and has issues with how we go about paying for it largely do to government regulations and interference in the market place But the actual care... No that is not "objectively worse" to any country anywhere, our heal…

>the US Healthcare system is second to none in the world

77th or so maybe to some, but definitely not second to anything, sure.

> The actual CARE people in the US get is the best in the world,

No, it's not consistently. The care a very small fraction get is, perhaps. But even for most of the people who get care it's not.

> It is fucking expensive and has issues with how we go about paying for it largely do to government regulations and interference in the market place

The places that provide equal or better outcomes at far lower prices (both per GDP and per capita) don't have less-regulated markets. So, no, I don't think you've identified the actual problem correctly, though I get that that's always going to be the explanation offered by those dogmatically devoted to the religion of laissez-faire.

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#457

Post by syshum »

dragonwriter wrote: post #456
syshum wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the US Healthcare system is second to none in the world. The actual CARE people in the US get is the best in the world, wealthy people from every nation come here to get their care It is fucking expensive and has issues with how we go about paying for it largely do to government regulations and interference in the market place But the actual care... No that is not "objectively worse" to any country anywhere, our heal…

>the US Healthcare system is second to none in the world 77th or so maybe to some, but definitely not second to anything, sure. > The actual CARE people in the US get is the best in the world, No, it's not consistently. The care a very small fraction get is, perhaps. But even for most of the people who get care it's not. > It is fucking expensive and has issues with how we go about paying for it largely do to governm…

I Honestly do hope the US does go Single Payer, we will see health care innovation and advancement stop, no new drugs, no new procedures, etc as almost 100% of that is funded by the very people you despise, the American people.

>The care a very small fraction gets is, perhaps. But even for most of the people who get the care it's not.

that is simply not true, most of the studies, rankings all factor in "access" due to price, if you remove price as a factor then there is no better system in the world

>>The places that provide equal or better outcomes at far lower prices (both per GDP and per capita) don't have less-regulated markets. So, no, I don't think you've identified the actual problem correctly,

I have, we have the worst of both systems. We have all the regulations of a Government-run system without the Price controls.

Single-Payer would be cheaper than our current model, it would also provide worse care.

The free market would be the best but I fear that ship has sailed, the world will need to destroy all innovation and collapse the health systems everywhere before anyone will want to try Free market again

Socialism always fails, the one thing keeping every other nations socialist system working is the American system, we pick up the slack, (just like in defense)

That is one of the reasons I become more and more isolationist every year.

Re: 23andMe lays off 100 people as DNA test sales decline

#458

Post by dragonwriter »

syshum wrote: post #457
dragonwriter wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the US Healthcare system is second to none in the world 77th or so maybe to some, but definitely not second to anything, sure. > The actual CARE people in the US get is the best in the world, No, it's not consistently. The care a very small fraction get is, perhaps. But even for most of the people who get care it's not. > It is fucking expensive and has issues with how we go about paying for it largely do to governm…

I Honestly do hope the US does go Single Payer, we will see health care innovation and advancement stop, no new drugs, no new procedures, etc as almost 100% of that is funded by the very people you despise, the American people. >The care a very small fraction gets is, perhaps. But even for most of the people who get the care it's not. that is simply not true, most of the studies, rankings all factor in "access" due t…

> that is simply not true, most of the studies, rankings all factor in "access" due to price

That's because access due to price affects what care people actually get from the system.

> if you remove price as a factor then there is no better system in the world

No, even if you don't consider how ludicrously expensive the US healthcare system is, the outcomes it produces aren't exceptional.

Now, if you mean if you remove the actual effect price has on care the US system would be great, sure, but that's different than removing separate consideration of price as a factor. And impossible, as well.

Post reply on HN