Every time the government of a country with 65+ million citizens change any policy, even the most obscure one, people die. Statistically that’s just the way it is with that many people.
I’m not saying 4000 is insignificant, I’m just saying the government can’t be paralysed from making decisions.
Yes, hold on, I’ll go and find my list of every policy reviewed against how many people it will kill.
Of course that doesn’t exist.
My point is that if you make the slightest statistical change, when you multiply it by 65 million, you’ll get something happening.
Change how much fertiliser farmers are allowed to wash into stream by a millionth; give slightly more to councils to fix potholes; change what day of the week pensions are paid out; change the frequency with which airports have to check for moisture in their fuel depots; allow a new type of plastic to be used to reline leaky drainage pipes running under old buildings; change the percentage that side windows in cars are allowed to be darkened etc etc.
I’ll give you a concrete example; in many countries ibuprofen isn’t allowed to be bought over the counter, but only after a consultation with a pharmacist. That’s because if may cause as adverse reaction if your stomach lining is affected by other medicines or illness. This kills people. Yet we happily keep buying it over the counter because it’s convenient and works better than paracetamol.
Should we move ibuprofen behind a pharmacist consultation?
Everything is a trade off when you’re dealing with 65 million people.
Every time the government of a country with 65+ million citizens change any policy, even the most obscure one, people die. Statistically that’s just the way it is with that many people.
I’m not saying 4000 is insignificant, I’m just saying the government can’t be paralysed from making decisions.
They could make decisions that actually benefit people for one.
And I would love a source that shows any policy change kills people. Sounds like ripe bullshit to me.
Yes, hold on, I’ll go and find my list of every policy reviewed against how many people it will kill.
Of course that doesn’t exist.
My point is that if you make the slightest statistical change, when you multiply it by 65 million, you’ll get something happening.
Change how much fertiliser farmers are allowed to wash into stream by a millionth; give slightly more to councils to fix potholes; change what day of the week pensions are paid out; change the frequency with which airports have to check for moisture in their fuel depots; allow a new type of plastic to be used to reline leaky drainage pipes running under old buildings; change the percentage that side windows in cars are allowed to be darkened etc etc.
I’ll give you a concrete example; in many countries ibuprofen isn’t allowed to be bought over the counter, but only after a consultation with a pharmacist. That’s because if may cause as adverse reaction if your stomach lining is affected by other medicines or illness. This kills people. Yet we happily keep buying it over the counter because it’s convenient and works better than paracetamol.
Should we move ibuprofen behind a pharmacist consultation?
Everything is a trade off when you’re dealing with 65 million people.