> The NIH table implies that incorrectly associating Tamiflu with psychosis is worse than correctly failing to correctly associate Tamiflu with psychosis. One could also formulate an hypothesis in the opposite manner.
I'd take this one on a case-by-case basis, comparing the severity of the two problems being looked at. The flu is a pretty mild disease, for the most part. Psychosis is significantly worse. If this drug successfully treats the flu, but also causes psychosis, that is not a worthwhile tradeoff, therefore it's better to err on the side of caution (Type I error is preferable to Type II error.) But in cases where the side effect is notably less bad than the disease the drug is treating, Type II errors are preferable to Type I errors.
Of course, the numbers come into play, as well. if you prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of flu—plus some percentage that turn fatal—is that worth a couple of cases of psychosis? It’s subjective. In the 70s, this question arose in the case of swine flu vaccines and Guillain-Barre. Here’s a CDC page on the topic, including numbers: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html
In Western culture, these considerations go back at least as far as Genesis. There, God and Abraham haggle over how many righteous people must exist in Sodom to justify leaving the city intact. Same utilitarian calculus, where the numbers matter.
Well... sort of. God made it clear that any number of good people living there would be worth saving the city, but we also see that Sodom was a hostile environment for righteous people, so God evacuated Lot and his family, then wiped out the city with no good people left in it.
I know about the book, though I haven’t read it. Quite the battle between the two. As for the fellow in the video, I’m wondering whether something about his case that just makes the newer ones unusable or less efficacious. Or whether he just got used to this technology. Quite a story when the parts started to fail and there just happened to be some local mechanic with a passion for these old technologies. Kind of like when Stephen Hawking’s “voice” started to fail. It was generated with old technology, old operating system, old software. There are much “better” voices available now, but that old-school voice had become “his” voice. He just didn’t want to change it. So, some techies salvaged it, cobbled it together, kept it going just long enough to last his lifetime.
> The NIH table implies that incorrectly associating Tamiflu with psychosis is worse than correctly failing to correctly associate Tamiflu with psychosis. One could also formulate an hypothesis in the opposite manner.
I'd take this one on a case-by-case basis, comparing the severity of the two problems being looked at. The flu is a pretty mild disease, for the most part. Psychosis is significantly worse. If this drug successfully treats the flu, but also causes psychosis, that is not a worthwhile tradeoff, therefore it's better to err on the side of caution (Type I error is preferable to Type II error.) But in cases where the side effect is notably less bad than the disease the drug is treating, Type II errors are preferable to Type I errors.
Of course, the numbers come into play, as well. if you prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of flu—plus some percentage that turn fatal—is that worth a couple of cases of psychosis? It’s subjective. In the 70s, this question arose in the case of swine flu vaccines and Guillain-Barre. Here’s a CDC page on the topic, including numbers: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html
In Western culture, these considerations go back at least as far as Genesis. There, God and Abraham haggle over how many righteous people must exist in Sodom to justify leaving the city intact. Same utilitarian calculus, where the numbers matter.
Well... sort of. God made it clear that any number of good people living there would be worth saving the city, but we also see that Sodom was a hostile environment for righteous people, so God evacuated Lot and his family, then wiped out the city with no good people left in it.
So, a “focused protection” strategy against the epidemic of sin. :)
As you no doubt know, Oshinsky wrote a book about polio and the Salk/Sabin sagas, titled oddly enough, "Polio." Fascinating story.
Odd that that fellow has been maintained in an "iron lung" all this time. Ventilator technology has advanced considerably since the 50's.
I know about the book, though I haven’t read it. Quite the battle between the two. As for the fellow in the video, I’m wondering whether something about his case that just makes the newer ones unusable or less efficacious. Or whether he just got used to this technology. Quite a story when the parts started to fail and there just happened to be some local mechanic with a passion for these old technologies. Kind of like when Stephen Hawking’s “voice” started to fail. It was generated with old technology, old operating system, old software. There are much “better” voices available now, but that old-school voice had become “his” voice. He just didn’t want to change it. So, some techies salvaged it, cobbled it together, kept it going just long enough to last his lifetime.
Really enjoyed the radio broadcast.
Lola
So glad! I’m still bringing a smile to you after half a century. :)
Wonderfully informed and precise writing - thank you!
And thank you, Dex!