Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gerdesj 2096 days ago
Freely available advice from the UK's NHS would seem to be a good idea. We fund the NHS mostly out of taxation, so advice provided there has to be as close to non partisan as is reasonably possible.

I personally don't give a shit if you are a foreigner. If the NHS website can provide good advice and help someone - anyone, then my tax squids are being put to good use.

There are bound to be other good sources of health related advice around the place but why not start with the NHS and work out from there?
1 comments
gridlockd 2096 days ago
If you pay close attention, health authorities always play it safe, for example by saying "there's not enough evidence". That's why they didn't recommend masks in the beginning.

Then, if some sort of expert consensus comes up, the authorities adopt that. When that consensus is challenged by new evidence, authorities are slow to change, because that would be implicit admission that they were giving the wrong advice, which is not something that the human egos involved there can easily stomach.

A good example for this is the food pyramid[1]. It was never supported by good evidence, it was adopted through expert consensus (one might also call it lobbying), and it was later removed from the guidelines. You can still see posters of it hanging in doctor's offices, of course.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_USDA_nutrition_guid...

link
rossdavidh 2096 days ago
True that, but the incentives for government bureaucrats in the U.S. and the U.K. are somewhat different. Of the two, the former seem more likely to be swayed by industrial concerns/lobbying. Not saying that the U.K. is totally immune to this kind of thing, but I'd trust the NHS over the USDA.
link
gridlockd 2095 days ago
> I'd trust the NHS over the USDA

Yet, the UK essentially adopted the advice given by the USDA. Why? Expert consensus is formed by research, which is usually funded by interest groups, and a lot of it ultimately comes out of the pockets of US industry.

For instance, the lipid hypothesis (that cholesterol causes heart disease) has been popularized once (with US industry support), became expert consensus, despite lack of evidence to support it, despite lots of contradictory data.

Once something is expert consensus for a while, it becomes harder and harder to challenge. At that point, there is no need for industry to control the narrative anymore, the experts (who do not want to admit being wrong) will control it all by themselves.

The point I am making is that the authorities are the last ones to set things right, their advice is forever outdated and therefore likely wrong.

link