Lots of different measuring sticks for the same thing tend to create chaos:
The patient wants best treatment, pref. affordable.
The doctor wants to use best treatment, but his employer also wants profit.
So we have two pairs of metric, one of which is in harmony and one pair in conflict.
Add to this politicians, media, and governement agencies in which each individual making decisions have both their own personal priorites and metric, as well as their groups and their leaders. Try drawing it as a diagram, where you go from your state's highest placed decisionmaker re: best medical practice all the way down to yourself.
If I were to guess, any decision has at least 10 waystations it must pass before being communicated to you. If every waystation enables only two different pairs as in my initial example... well.
We should really be in a state of perpetual wonder that there's not /more/ chaos.
Simple example from my country: the governement pays a premium of ca 150 000:- ($16 500) to anyone buying a new electric car. You get to keep this premium even if you resell the car immediately. So buy new car for 850 000:-, cash premium, resell unused car for 800 000:-, pocket the difference, do it again.
This is however not seen as a bug or failure. How? Because of different metrics:
The agency in charge of the premium measures the success of the programme against how much of allocated tax funds they pay out.
The political parties behind it measure success in people switching from petrol to electricity.
And the dealerships measures success in number of cars sold.
No conspiracy needed, just very human fallability.
Great read, thank you for logically writing what has been swirling inside my head. I too am curious of how the FDA will handle the EAU on the "vaccine". If it's not the only tool in the toolbox, how can they justify cover it's use under the EAU umbrella? Time will tell I guess. I don't see anyone in Washington willing to speak up and turn the train around.
Lots of different measuring sticks for the same thing tend to create chaos:
The patient wants best treatment, pref. affordable.
The doctor wants to use best treatment, but his employer also wants profit.
So we have two pairs of metric, one of which is in harmony and one pair in conflict.
Add to this politicians, media, and governement agencies in which each individual making decisions have both their own personal priorites and metric, as well as their groups and their leaders. Try drawing it as a diagram, where you go from your state's highest placed decisionmaker re: best medical practice all the way down to yourself.
If I were to guess, any decision has at least 10 waystations it must pass before being communicated to you. If every waystation enables only two different pairs as in my initial example... well.
We should really be in a state of perpetual wonder that there's not /more/ chaos.
Simple example from my country: the governement pays a premium of ca 150 000:- ($16 500) to anyone buying a new electric car. You get to keep this premium even if you resell the car immediately. So buy new car for 850 000:-, cash premium, resell unused car for 800 000:-, pocket the difference, do it again.
This is however not seen as a bug or failure. How? Because of different metrics:
The agency in charge of the premium measures the success of the programme against how much of allocated tax funds they pay out.
The political parties behind it measure success in people switching from petrol to electricity.
And the dealerships measures success in number of cars sold.
No conspiracy needed, just very human fallability.
Great read, thank you for logically writing what has been swirling inside my head. I too am curious of how the FDA will handle the EAU on the "vaccine". If it's not the only tool in the toolbox, how can they justify cover it's use under the EAU umbrella? Time will tell I guess. I don't see anyone in Washington willing to speak up and turn the train around.