←back to thread

CDC's top laboratory on STDs is shut by Trump administration

(www.statnews.com)
157 points pmags | 1 comments | 07 Apr 25 05:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
classichasclass ◴[07 Apr 25 05:56 UTC] No.43608238[source]▶
I've had to use the CDC lab to figure out a drug-resistant Trichomonas infection. Lots of very skilled people at that facility and this is a bad one to lose; it was the only lab that did those sorts of tests. There's not enough money in it for commercial labs.
replies(2): >>43608512 #>>43610354 #
pfannkuchen ◴[07 Apr 25 06:42 UTC] No.43608512[source]▶
How is there not enough money in it? Do only poor people get these sorts of issues? Serious question, no shade on poor people.
replies(4): >>43608559 #>>43608606 #>>43608818 #>>43608836 #
Cthulhu_ ◴[07 Apr 25 06:52 UTC] No.43608559[source]▶
The article mentions something about resistant strains; that's going to be low volume, so high upfront investments for a one time result. In theory, I'm not an expert.

But this is the problem with capitalism and health care, the providers just stop if there's not enough money in it for them.

replies(1): >>43608846 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[07 Apr 25 07:35 UTC] No.43608846[source]▶
> But this is the problem with capitalism and health care, the providers just stop if there's not enough money in it for them.

Is this supposed to be a flaw?

If the cost of a lab is $500/patient then the patient (or their insurance) pays the $500 and the lab exists. If the cost of the lab is $50,000,000/patient, the lab probably shouldn't be funded, because its cost/benefit ratio is very bad and the same money could have saved more lives by putting it somewhere else.

What would you do in the alternative? Have the government provide unlimited funding for things that cost more than they're worth?

replies(4): >>43608916 #>>43610233 #>>43611792 #>>43611838 #
quantified ◴[07 Apr 25 11:52 UTC] No.43610233[source]▶
STDs spread. It's not just the one patient who benefits, is it? Fantasize about people not spreading STDs all you want, it came from somewhere and can go further. Public health isn't just the one person.
replies(2): >>43613519 #>>43614341 #
1. Volundr ◴[07 Apr 25 16:57 UTC] No.43613519{3}[source]▶
Exactly this. If it's a novel test, it might cost $50,000 a person to do the test, while if it's mainstream and your doing millions, it might cost $50. Doing the test on one person at $50k may prevent you from ever having to reach the scale where you can do it for $50 (but have millions of infections).