PCOS is a strange one for you to throw in there considering it has a physical manifestation that can be very reliably tested for via an ultrasound. The others are things that are quite often diagnosed via process of elimination and don’t have definitive tests.
People get negative ultrasounds and claim doctors just hate them or refuse to help them.
I think a part of this is online communities spring up around these diseases and a doctor telling you that you don't have it is basically them telling you they don't get to hang out with your friends anymore.
Better data exists for IBS on this line of thinking:
> The Illness Attitudes Scales (IAS) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were administered to 40 patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and these were compared with 35 patients with organic gastrointestinal (GI) disease, 37 depressed patients, and 40 healthy volunteers.
> All the patient groups had abnormal IAS scores compared with the healthy group, but these were most marked among the IBS patients with elevated scores on six out of the eight subscales. Three of these were specific to the IBS patients: bodily preoccupation, hypochondriacal beliefs and disease phobia.
What do you suggest is done then? Given some people experience legitimate IBS, what quantity of false negatives (i.e. legitimate sufferers who are ignored by the medical system) are you willing to tolerate?
Also - given medical developments in gut health on GABA, the gut-brain link is not so crazy. So your study could be a reverse causation.
This doesn't say what you think it does. IBS being co-morbid with anxiety is not evidence that people are spuriously identifying as sufferers. It's the expected finding for a disorder in which psychological stress and the brain-gut axis are thought to be major causative factors.
I don’t have a source handy, but I seem to recall that ultrasound as criteria for PCOS has been criticized recently because it has a high rate of both false positives and false negatives.
Yes ablation as in removal. They then refer to using the 3% experiment to estimate out revenue loss, so it appears they were running an AB test where it was removed for 3% of users so they could understand the metric impact of removal. Part of being a decent PM is monitoring SM for any feature talk.
To give context to people who may have not heard; there has been a MASSIVE amount of high profile data breaches in the Australia in the past 12 months with zero consequences for the businesses involved.
In a 6 month period I had;
- My private health insurance data leaked (AHM/Medibank) - including claim history, medicare number, password, username, email, phone
- My old phone account (Optus) - including my phone number, my current passport number(!!!), current address, phone.
- My old credit card account (Latitude finance) - including my current passport, driver license, my income history and bank statements that was provided to get the credit card originally, address, phone, email
The ONLY thing that any of these businesses have done is pay for a replacement passport and a 12 month credit watch. Optus wasn't even a 'breech', they had an API exposed with the all the data!
How is someone meant to protect themselves from this? It is pure negligence. Until governments legislate that the punishment for exposing personal data is more expensive than the work and infrastructure required to keep it secure this will continue to happen.
> Until governments legislate that the punishment for exposing personal data is more expensive
The EU did. Everyone, for some inexplicable reason hates it; and not the casual hate one spews when it rains or traffic is bad but a deep visceral hatred normally reserved for war criminals or kiddie fiddlers.
No. The additional costs to the healthcare system due to people being overweight probably exceed 12000/person/year, but if not exceed it, they certainly come close. Moreover, it's not unheard of to mandate cheaper drug prices, and now that we understand how these drugs work, there will be more of them in the pipeline.
> The additional costs to the healthcare system due to people being overweight probably exceed 12000/person/year
This is a big claim to assert without evidence. If it was the case then insurers would already be adding the drugs to their formularies.
There is undoubtedly a cost associated with obesity but you are suggesting that simply being overweight doubles the average cost of care[1], a figure that already includes overweight and obese people (which are of course a huge population in the US).
A quick Google search turned up a report[2] that suggests that
> This estimated public cost equates to an average marginal cost of $175 per year per adult for a one unit change in BMI for each adult in the U.S. population.
So, even for the extreme case of a very obese person that has a very successful treatment and goes from 40 BMI to 25 BMI, you are only saving a hypothetical $2,625 per year (perhaps an underestimate due to inflation and the age of the paper).
Therefore it would appear that unless insurers strike a deal with the drug companies (lower the price, make it up in volume), such a law would dramatically increase insurance premiums. A better compromise would be a law which requires insurance companies to offer co-insurance on these drugs up to the expected savings.
> If it was the case then insurers would already be adding the drugs to their formularies.
American healthcare system has perverse incentivizes. Most unhealthy groups are generally least likely to be privately insured, so insurers are incentivized to prioritize health issues affecting working-age adults, while neglecting those which will be someone's else concern in future.
Why would a $1k/month drug increase costs more compared to the status quo of expensive bariatric surgeries and complicated heart failure/joint issues/osteoarthritis/sleep apnea etc. cases that arise from obesity? Massively reducing obesity rates seems like a good thing from the POV of an insurer.
As someone who lives in a city where we have both a train network that doesn't run 24/7 but also seems to have crippling malfunction once every 2 weeks that causes delays of hours across the whole network; the number of hours that transport is shut for per day are not reflective of how many hours there are for maintenance.
As woman this doesn't surprise me at all. There is a lot of circumstances where a woman would not want to admit to an ER that they are sexually active; Religion, the sex was non consensual, they are with someone who doesn't know they are sexually active.
I think we will learn more about the biased sample that transcribed speech has vs private speech. I have just started thinking about this but there are huge area of speech that I use with my family and wife, and coworkers around the coffee room, that I would never consider putting into writing or a YouTube or whatever. And more types of things that I might say when with some younger folks while, trying to debug s production emergency but would not make it into the post mortem. The training I guess is not going to be able to benefit from these more private speeches, or maybe we will have to have people become convinced they are sentient and fall in love with them and share their whole humanity with the LLM.
There has been so many great reply to this comment already about how the lack of empathy is directed at the financial system itself rather than the small businesses and individuals directly impacted. The other thing that make it hard for me to have sympathy for a government backed solution is what makes these small companies and individuals anymore worthy of being 'bailed out' than any other small business that finds themselves unable to operate because of situations outside of their control or factored risk.
I don't see VC's and tech workers screaming for the government to step in when it's blue collar or service businesses failing. Thousands of small business with 5-20 people on payroll fail every year because of things outside of their direct control. I know small businesses that had to close doors because they got fucked over by things like landlords going bust and suppliers with half payments and no goods delivered collapsing. It's shitty for any small business to fail because of broader issues outside of their control, how is it fair to label this as anymore worthy of assistance?
you don't see the govt support that kick started all of the inflation and following rate hikes. I agree with the sentiment, however we can't thumb our ears to the facts that the govt HAS taken extraordinary measures to prop up the non-taxed fraction, at the expense of the middle class this decade
The subject is wrong though, SVB isn't getting bailed out, their depositors are. At the end of the day, SVB as a bank would be no more/the ownership would be washed.
The depositor didn't do anything wrong, they had the full right to withdraw at anytime and they didn't make the decision to invest into long term illiquid low interest MBS in 2021.
There are plenty of necessary reasons for business to have money in accounts above $250k. There should be no exposure here, this is the US banking system - bank deposits should be guaranteed by the entire system (not the taxpayer). Let the shareholders burn, fine... but cmon man, what does anyone get by letting depositors lose capital when placed in US banks?
> There are plenty of necessary reasons for business to have money in accounts above $250k
Sure, and they know what's insured and accept those risks.
> There should be no exposure here
Bullshit. There's a gradient here: There are some depositors who have $750k and others who have many millions. What many of them (the latter group) were doing here is simply bad financial practice. I have to do better with my personal finances. Why don't they, too? Because more people depend on them? That's pathetic, they should do better because people depend on them.
And let's not pretend like they don't have options. They do. The individuals (corporate officers) losing money here (hypothetically, since they're going to be made whole) are supposed to be competent leaders. They're showing the world their asses.
Many employees had all their 401k tied up in enron too.. They were heavily encouraged by the employer, and it saw great gains for years. Doesn't mean that they should ignore financial advices and diversify to reduce risk...
The same place that took trillions of dollars in exchange for low-yielding treasury bonds. The same place that effectively devalued said treasury bonds when they decided to rapidly raise interest rates.
It's not 30% of people, it 35% of HOUSEHOLDS were home owners of the dwelling there were in on census night, with there being a total of 9.8 million 'households' in the country. A massive % of Australians working age population have 1 or more mortgages.
Census dwelling data does not give an accurate picture of the number of Australians with mortgages. For example on my census our household reported that we rent the dwelling that we were in, because we do. We reported nothing about the mortgage we have on an apartment in the city that we moved out of 1 year earlier. According to that data point your using my household would be seemingly unaffected after interest rate rises outside of potential rent stress.
You are not disproving his claims, 35% of the households being homeowners means absolutely nothing without knowing how many live as rentees for example. Also am I an houseowner if I paid 90% of the mortgage? 'Massive numbers' can mean anything between 0.01% and 99.8% depending on where you live, who are your friends and coworkers etc.
All that being said, it sounds just like any other western country, or in fact any country in the world apart from very, very few. Welcome to 21st century, you have mostly FED to thank for this, everything else just snowballed in its bad decisions.
I don't feel as though the conclusion is unspoken. The government specifically and clearly sets out to keep wages suppressed by the number of 'skilled' and 'unskilled' visas it approves. Meanwhile we have the lowest vacancy rates ever and the rate in which we are building homes is still out stripped by immigration.
You raise a really good rate with the lack of workforce mobility. From outside Australia it is probably really hard to understand how immobile our workforce is considering how large the country is. The governments at both a federal and state level seem to be very keen on ensuring the professional working class who could be remote stay immobile putting greater pressure on cost of livings in centralised cities.
It remains criminal to have any THC in your system when driving even with a prescription though. With no meaningful way to test if someone has consumed THC in the past 5 hours vs the night before it makes it a useless medical aid for anyone who has to drive, which outside of inner suburbs of Melbourne & Sydney is the vast majority of people in Australia.
> It remains criminal to have any THC in your system when driving even with a prescription though
Rightly so. I mean maybe it’s too strict (i.e. you’re totally sober but still will be penalized for having anything show up in your blood) but in general driving under THC influence is as bad as driving on alcohol, you could get yourself and others killed.
> driving under THC influence is as bad as driving on alcohol
It's really not. There have been tests done by a government transport regulatory agency (in an EU country), comparing THC, alcohol and sober driving.
While alcohol promotes reckless driving (i know what i'm doing, i've got it, even if i don't), driving under THC is different, people are much more careful, even compared with the sober state. Slower driving, less incidents.
Alcohol makes you kill yourself and others, takes only few hours to get out of your system. THC makes you drive slower and more careful, can be found in blood days or weeks later (with no effect on cognition or faculties).
You're right that driving under any influence is (probably) not safe. But this seems like the same kind of stupid like testing your hair for drinking alcohol few months back.
Driving under the influence of THC is bad, but driving in the morning when you had THC last night while watching The Last of Us and being punished for that is ridiculous. I take it that THC shows up in your blood days after consuming, while the effects last hours.
I keep hearing this but surely if you presented your prescription in court the charges would be dropped? In my experience, magistrates are usually very reasonable. Police on the other hand...
There are plenty of completely legal prescription drugs you aren't allowed to drive on. Having a prescription will certainly not exonerate you if you're smoking a joint while driving, same as if you were caught taking Xanax while driving.
Whether magistrates would look at the levels of THC in your blood and be sympathetic to an argument that you had consumed a long time ago (and thus were no longer under the influence) is another question. I tend to think magistrates would side with the law as written in most cases, if the law explicitly prohibits driving with any amount of THC detectable in blood tests.
I don't think they're widely used yet, but there are iPad apps that police departments can use to test for marijuana impairment before administrating a THC test, similar to the "touch your nose, walk on this line" tests they use prior to pulling out a breathalyzer.
