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

Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#41

Post by Spooky23 »

4RealFreedom wrote: post #33
Spooky23 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, lame duck administrations are when you’re in office with a selected successor. Both of the laws referenced were very strategic laws that largely accomplished their purpose. The ACA in particular was designed to appeal to republicans first - it was in alignment with old guard GOP values. It patched some of the holes in healthcare (pre existing conditions, etc) and drove the economic activity that will drive future…

I agree that I didn't use lame duck in the textbook definition but it does show the derogatory nature of not doing anything. Likewise congress would be called ineffective if they didn't pass laws. We often hear about gridlock when there's a balance of power with the 2 party system. I think saying 'deliberately designed to make doing something impossible' is an overstatement. Compromise is required. I see more and mor…

The Senate is a brake on change. In the most egregious example, the House passed anti-lynching legislation for 50 years, which never made it out of Senate committee.

Patriot act was ultimately designed to avoid the types of failures to coordinate that stopped the authorities from preventing 9/11 attacks. It was very successful at that aim, but created a bunch of other problems in the process. My statement isn’t an endorsement of it.

ACA reduced the number of uninsured individuals by 50%, eliminated a few key policy holes (ie pre-existing conditions) and slowed cost growth.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#42

Post by 4RealFreedom »

m0llusk wrote: post #35
4RealFreedom wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What context was missing? You can argue that the ACA has benefits or the US system is complicated but I did not simplify anything. From the article "Intervention—by people or governments—should only be used when the benefits visibly outweigh the negatives." My argument was 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' and politicians do not worry about the consequences of their actions.

You are asking a question yet seem committed to ideas and political views already. here is an attempt to answer: Through the Industrial Revolution medicine increased in scope and complexity and cost. By the 1970s people expected access to hospital care which was increasingly expensive to provide. Around the world most developed nations came up with some kind of universal insurance or single payer system to handle thi…

It seems like you're focused on the implementation of the ACA here. I used the ACA as an example of secondary consequences. My question of context was because that's literally what you said. I was wondering how context related to my post which I could have been more clear about. You seem to be saying that context is everything no matter the secondary consequences and go so far as to give more context. Many people characterized the ACA as a Trojan horse at the time. Was that it's purpose? That's maybe a more appropriate question to all this - why doesn't congress add purpose to bills? We need measurable benefits to weigh. By sidestepping that part of the process, it's a guessing game - all bills are just a mash of secondary consequences. That's convenient for politicians and political parties but not the people.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#43

Post by anonymouskimmer »

> The key lesson here is that if we are to intervene, we need a solid idea of not only the benefits of our interventions but also the harm we may cause—the second and subsequent order consequences. Otherwise, how will we know when, despite our best intentions, we cause more harm than we do good?

I've watched enough time travel shows to know that we don't fully know the "benefits" of our intervention, in addition to the "harm".

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#44

Post by anonymouskimmer »

MadSudaca wrote: post #17

Intervention wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so hard to roll back on interventions set in motion that turned out to be a failure. When dealing with complex systems specially, our attempts to make things "better" often don't go so well.

The sunk cost fallacy applies to both interventionism and noninterventionism. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is an idiom for a reason.

What made interventions such as the Berlin Air Lift work is that they were stuck with until they were no longer needed. An unanticipatable effect of the Berlin Air Lift was the "Tear down this wall" speech and the end of the USSR.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#45

Post by DVassallo »

CipherThrowaway wrote: post #37

Although it is certainly written by a human being, this article gives me a similar feeling to ChatGPT essays. The tone is compelling and plausible. But when I thought about it, I realized it didn't make much sense. > Rarely do we even consider that the cost of doing something might outweigh the benefits. Cost vs benefit is the main thing that people consider when making decisions. It's a core decision making framewor…

Iatrogenics happens when the benefits are clear and the harms are hidden. So “rational” people tend to intervene because it would seem the benefits outweigh the costs.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#46

Post by vosper »

kaczordon wrote: post #38
CipherThrowaway wrote: post #37

Although it is certainly written by a human being, this article gives me a similar feeling to ChatGPT essays. The tone is compelling and plausible. But when I thought about it, I realized it didn't make much sense. > Rarely do we even consider that the cost of doing something might outweigh the benefits. Cost vs benefit is the main thing that people consider when making decisions. It's a core decision making framewor…

And yet governments worldwide ignored the cost-benefit of lockdowns and removing kids from schools. Perhaps it’s not such an obvious thing…

Or their cost-benefit analysis said that the cost of removing kids from schools was worth it.

Do you have any evidence of ignored cost-benefit studies that were available at lockdown decision time (there wasn’t much time for studies when these decisions needed to be made)?

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#47

Post by anonymouskimmer »

hcayless wrote: post #36
cracrecry wrote: post #22

He talks about bloodletting but ignores the elephant in the room: circumcision. You go to the US and you have to be careful if you have a boy because they will circumcise your child without asking for permission. If you ask Americans they will tell you that it is an hygienic, prophylactic measure, but the real reason is that it became fashion to copy the British royal family that did it, and after that they just cont…

I had an interesting experience as a child. I grew up in Barbados, where circumcision is not a common practice. In Biology class on day, the teacher talked about the practice, and basically everyone in the class went “Eww”. I moved to the US the next year, and when the same topic came up in Biology, the teacher mentioned that in other countries, most men are uncircumcised. And the class went “Eww”.

Talk about private parts in a K-12 class and the response will universally be "eww". :)

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#49

Post by fwungy »

cracrecry wrote: post #22

He talks about bloodletting but ignores the elephant in the room: circumcision. You go to the US and you have to be careful if you have a boy because they will circumcise your child without asking for permission. If you ask Americans they will tell you that it is an hygienic, prophylactic measure, but the real reason is that it became fashion to copy the British royal family that did it, and after that they just cont…

The foreskins are used for expensive skin rejuvenation cosmetics and other high end products.

Modern circumcision is evil. The foreskin is analogous to the clitorus. It is filled with nerve endings and keeps the head skin from keratinizing (hardening and losing sensitivity).

Biblical circumcision was a notch in the foreskin. It was not the radical removal of it entirely.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#50

Post by MadSudaca »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #44
MadSudaca wrote: post #17

Intervention wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so hard to roll back on interventions set in motion that turned out to be a failure. When dealing with complex systems specially, our attempts to make things "better" often don't go so well.

The sunk cost fallacy applies to both interventionism and noninterventionism. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is an idiom for a reason. What made interventions such as the Berlin Air Lift work is that they were stuck with until they were no longer needed. An unanticipatable effect of the Berlin Air Lift was the "Tear down this wall" speech and the end of the USSR.

How do you know that was an unanticipated effect? Also, what about all other cases where interventionism didn't work, that is, made things worse? How can you tell a priori wether intervening will have good results? Moreover, if you're a decision-maker, will you bear any cost if your decision turns out wrong? If not, how is that supposed to be ethical?
Post reply on HN