[jbob2000]

Science doesn't have all the answers. My partner recently got into a heated debate with a pharmaceutical company she was working for because they wanted something added to their standards of care document for a rare genetic disorder they developed a therapy for.

She couldn't find a study to backup the claims that the medical team wanted to make in the document, but the lead doctor said that if this wasn't included, the patients would suffer and ultimately die.

So she said "you need to prove this in a study so it can be included, otherwise you put the company at risk". To which the doctor said "We could do that, but it would take 3-4 years, and in the mean time, the patients we're caring for would go back home, the doctors would be missing the one key piece of advice, and then they'll all suffer and die".

Science is slow. People are dying now.

[jcims]

I'm sure many, including myself, have experienced this issue very personally and tragically. Both parties were correct in your example. In my case I was the patient advocate and would argue very strongly on the side of the doctor. Your partners case has merit as well, however, as malpractice insurance and lawsuits are impacting healthcare costs and risk management decisions considerably.

[djsumdog]

> People are dying now

But not a lot. That's what's fascinating. At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55. We're at 200k ~ 300k deaths for the year in the US (and I think there is reason to believe this is an overestimate, not an underestimate). That's lower than heart disease and cancer (500~600k yearly). I doubt we'll even approach those numbers by March.

Science is slow because it needs to be right. We're no longer in a time 185 years ago when Jenner could just stab people with puss he pulled off of a Horsepox infected cow. Remember that 500 years ago, the Chinese were blowing smallbox puss into people's noses (infections in the nose were typically not bad and people recovered faster) and isolated them. Many of them survived fine, but some died.

Do you want to return to that world where we just experiment on humans without regards to what that means?

This vaccine should be a choice. I'm under 40 and not in a high risk group. I'm fine with people volunteering to take this vaccine. Maybe I'll take it in 5 years. But I don't want to see this become mandatory for going to work or being able to enter a music venue.

You can quote the Jacobson decision all you want, but that SCOTUS decision only said Jacobson had to pay the $5 fine, he never was forced to take the vaccine. Furthermore Jacobson lead to the Buck decision (forced sterilization) and the SCOTUS decision that led to the WW2 Japanese internment camps. It's bad law that's bread a poisoned well of bad law.

[natalyarostova]

> At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55

I'll never understand people who say this, thinking it somehow proves their point or something. My parents are nearly 60, and easily have 20 more years of time with me and their grandkids. Why are we okay with that?

[djsumdog]

Then why not protect them specifically? Give money to isolate them if they don't live in their own homes. Provide grocery delivery services. Let them make the choice. There are some old people who are 70 and say "I want to live my life" and so let them go out and do whatever and assume the risk themselves.

We can provide support specifically to those at risk, while also respecting the liberty and freedom of everyone else. Someone with an autoimmune disease or who is 65 can choose not to go to a pub and simply not interact with the rest of the world using technology. At the same time, the pub owner should be allowed to make a damn living.

I don't understand why this is so complicated.

[AnthonBerg]

> I don't understand why this is so complicated.

There are people who are competent enough to do so. Those people carry the actual responsibility.

Your thoughts have answers readily available.

[JacobSuperslav]

it's not very realistic in western countries. we're not very organized as a society. just look at the US government.

[free2OSS]

Is the issue that the doctor didn't make records of their patients? It sounds like they have data.

Formal Peer review is good, but not necessary in science. Replication is necessary.

And as a note, we can still have Authority based healthcare, but a science based healthcare system would be cheaper and more reliable.