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

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#61

Post by littlestymaar »

throw_pm23 wrote: post #28
littlestymaar wrote: post #26

While conservatives love the stories of interventions failing with second order effects being worse than the initial situation, in practice these are only rare instances among plenty of successful intervention we don't even think about. The main factor leading to a disaster is usually the desire to make grandiose interventions (instead of steadily increasing ones that have proven successful at small scale) and refusa…

In the medical field, cases of interventions being harmful are not rare, and entire classes of interventions have been reconsidered in light of evidence.

There's several billion medical intervention of all kinds every year, harmful interventions do exist but they are only a very tiny fraction of the total.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#62

Post by throw_pm23 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #61
throw_pm23 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the medical field, cases of interventions being harmful are not rare, and entire classes of interventions have been reconsidered in light of evidence.

There's several billion medical intervention of all kinds every year, harmful interventions do exist but they are only a very tiny fraction of the total.

Yes, but there are _kinds of_ interventions which turned out to be systematically harmful. For instance, in most developed countries it was a policy to thoroughly wash newborns, until they realized it was harmful.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#63

Post by photochemsyn »

kryogen1c wrote: post #11
HPsquared wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also, Le Chatelier's principle. It kind of makes sense, if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" at work to hold it there.

> if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" I think this is one of those things that is True with a capital T. If you start with the premise that life is valuable, it is eventually derivable. Life tries to exist, and since existence is path-dependent making a change is likelier to be wrong than right.

Complex systems can have multiple different 'steady' states (many valleys in a complex mountain range of energy minima and maxima, in that sense), so while there may be local restoring forces, climbing out of one steady state and into another is extremely common.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#64

Post by photochemsyn »

Homeopathy has been widely ridiculed as having no scientific basis, but in terms of outcomes, it might have been better than the heroic interventions of times past, such as bloodletting, mercuric chloride enemas, and whatnot.

Of course, there are no 'crystal signatures' in water and homeopathy has no more scientific basis than astrology does as an actual cure for anything - just a less bad approach compared to the above.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#65

Post by WillPostForFood »

vosper wrote: post #46
kaczordon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

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

Cost is incurred by the children who have no voice, so zero cost to decision makers. Benefit is to one of the largest donor groups to politicians, so also large benefit to decision makers. Cost/benefit to society, population at large, the country? Seems to be willfully ignored.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#67

Post by jtc331 »

vosper wrote: post #46
kaczordon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Not having any studies to ignore is by definition not doing cost benefit analysis.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#68

Post by vosper »

dial9-1 wrote: post #58
vosper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

your second paragraph kinda answers itself

My parent said cost-benefit was ignored, not that it wasn’t considered.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#69

Post by jtc331 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #26

While conservatives love the stories of interventions failing with second order effects being worse than the initial situation, in practice these are only rare instances among plenty of successful intervention we don't even think about. The main factor leading to a disaster is usually the desire to make grandiose interventions (instead of steadily increasing ones that have proven successful at small scale) and refusa…

Given virtually all interventions have no control how do you know they’re successful?

Now it may well be that many interventions are successful. But your assumption of your conclusion is actually the bias the article describes.

Re: Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

#70

Post by defen »

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…

> 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.

No, they won't, unless they really want to lose a slam-dunk lawsuit and possibly face criminal charges. Outside of a very limited set of circumstances, you can't just perform surgery on a person without their consent (or in this case, the proxy consent of the parents).

Post reply on HN