[BigV]

so, there's no perfect security. not in healthcare, not in national defense, not in threads on a message board on the internet.

What I want is good enough. I want to be well. I appreciate your point that the fuckstick that sues on the basis of the missing sixth test becomes a powerful reason to do six goddamn tests for e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. is a "real thing" (tm). Witness the galactic majority of us who are not bombers who've had to take off our goddamn shoes to pass security to board a plane.

It sucks.

Being in the position of having to defend against the lowest, most remote possibility, and in every case, regardless of the unlikelihood of a positive result SUCKS. and it's expensive. that sloooow burn is more insidious because you DO pay for it and you generally don't notice it. Unlike the test for a nonexistent circumstance that you DO notice, but DO NOT notice paying for. It's fucked up.

Y'know, a friend of mine sent me an article the other day. I read it and liked it, mostly because it had lots of cartoons in it. I'll post it here. It applies to our conversation. How much testing, defense, erring on the side of caution is the right amount. No one wants to die, so stipulated. But at what cost do we raise the possible defenses against the possible assaults? How high is high enough? How many tests are enough? How do you know? Why not do ALL of them. Every test. Because, you know, better safe than sorry.

Actually, actually sorry there. I'm trying to keep it in check, and sarcasm aside, my point is there's always some degree of mortality at a given point, and at another given point absolute mortality.

Fuck.