>Civil engineering did more to end communicable diseases than vaccines.

This is a cute statement but really shouldn't be part of the basis for vaccine skepticism.

Hand washing is also one of the most significant medical practice advancements... That doesn't mean we stop there.

Sure, civil engineering did a lot for water borne illness and the like. And I'll even grant that building design and HVAC systems can reduce respiratory virus transmission. But it's not doing anything for measles, smallpox, polio, ebola, hepatitis, HIV, Yellow fever, etc etc. I mean come on.

And if I do have to go to a place with worse infrastructure, I'll take that typhoid vaccine please...

> Civil engineering did more to end communicable diseases than vaccines.

You need to show some work on that.

Textbook vocal minority.

You have personally contributed 5/84 = 6% of the comments on this article.

Ive had a bone marrow biopsy done. Those are done fully awake with no anesthetic except for the skin incision.

You literally feel the push of the sharp needle cutting through your bone. Slowly. methodically. Half a millimeter by half millimeter every time the practitioner puts her weight on the needle.

Then, as they aspirate the marrow, you feel as if your balls are being sucked into your hips.

Then, despite the pain, I volunteered to sign up as a bone marrow donor.

Please, call me an idiot if you must, but don't explain away my distrust of vaccines with cowardice.

That was sarcasm

"which is if there’s no compelling evidence, it’s safe to say it doesn’t happen."

I call BS.

Until there was compelling evidence that antidepressants cause suicidal ideation it's safe to say it doesn't

Until there was compelling evidence that contaminated water causes cholera it's safe to say it doesn't

Until there was compelling evidence that dirty hands cause maternal death it's safe to say it doesn't

Until there was compelling evidence that lack of sunlight causes neo-natal jaundice it's safe to say it doesn't

These examples span centuries, including the 21st, that were vigorously rejected by experts

Yeah man, if you went around telling people not to take their meds because someone suspected jt might cause suicidal ideation, you’d end up causing far more harm to all the unmedicated people.

Also, the internet makes this sort of well-intentioned deception both impossible and counter-productive.

What is your point? You can't suspect things without evidence or you'd never be able to leave your house afraid of everything.

Why is it reasonable for operational security? They're not Israeli satellites!

1. Scholarships 2. The top 10 were once top 10 000

Small market

So society would actually NOT be more efficient if another company developed a slightly cheaper fire truck because there isn’t enough gluttony to make it worth it?

You asked why there's only one company, not what would be good.

The comment we are replying to:

> As usual, things are the way they are because of unchecked capitalism and private equity being allowed to do whatever they hell they want.

Roads in the US have more space and homes in the US are more flammable

But it's perfectly valid to question results that don't make sense, and the role of the supposed expert is to explain why it does.

After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner.

Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software.

Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.

>they expect me to explain themselves

But the experts did explain themselves. They’ve published numerous studies on how small wolf populations impact the larger ecosystem.

It’s not even that hard to understand. Yes Yellowstone is large, but there are a finite number of elk herds and the wolves move to follow and prey upon the elk herds.

Wolf packs can kill 20 elk per year per wolf, there are 120 wolves inside the park and 500 immediately around the park wandering inside it and killing elk that wander outside.

At the peak there were 18k elk in the park and now the numbers are down to 2000. There’s plenty of evidence that the decline is a direct result of the wolves.

Controlling elk population has tons of 2nd and 3rd order effects which have also been well documented.

Well there you are! Good for you for writing that, and not the self-righteous snark I was replying to.

The beauty of HN is that when someone doesnt know, or is wrong, we don't assume bad intent, but explain with good intentions at heart.

It's literally in the rules

Here on HN we are looking at the effects and beliefs of the people reading the studies? What effect does this have on us?

Many downvoted comments etc. ( and much thanks for explaining the population numbers!)