1/ Regulations are ultimately about managing risk, whether that risk is fraud, unsafe practices or someone building an ugly building.

The more (actually or performatively) worried you are about the specific risk, the more checks, approvals, rules and guidelines you put in place.

2/ Governments on both the left and right actually have similarly low appetites for risk, they just focus primarily on different risk categories and operate from an assumption that different groups are bastards that must be watched.
3/ Left wing governments have a tendency to focus on risks arising from business activities and capital.

Their regulations tend to assume that management are bastards, and must be monitored and constrained lest they exploit people or generate negative externalities for profit.
4/ Right wing governments have a tendency to focus on benefits fraud risks.

Their regulations tend to assume folks are out to scam any benefits scheme, and must be monitored and constrained lest they take advantage of the tax-payer's generosity.
5/ Both left wing and right wing governments also use regulations to target social behaviors they deem undesirable.

The specific behaviors targeted tend to be different (criminalizing hate speech vs criminalizing drug use, for example), but it's still all regulation.
6/ Side note:

Because cutting regulations on something you don't think should be controlled is harder administratively and politically than new rules on an area you think is too lax, the democratic back and forth tends to lead to ever increasing aggregate levels of regulation.
7/ That's why when governments try to paint themselves as "red-tape cutting" what they almost always mean is:

"We want to (largely performatively) trim some regulation in the areas we aren't worried about, but we'll be adding much more in the areas we are."
8/ A more intellectually honest position would be a review that aimed not at 'slashing regulations' but at reviewing them and making them easier to navigate.

Transparency, digitization, single windows, removing arbitrary gatekeepers, and removing pointless redundancy. /end
9/ P.S Yes, I know you have a thousand examples of governments being hypocrites around all this stuff.

More from For later read

#IDTwitter #IDFellows
Introducing our new series: “IDFN top 10 articles every fellow should read”🔖

#1: SAB management
by @mmcclean1 @LeMiguelChavez
Reviewers @KaBourgi, @IgeGeorgeMD, @Courtcita, @MDdreamchaser

We know is subjective & expect feedback/future improvements 👇

1. Clinical management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a review.
https://t.co/9tBCtp9mlP
👉 A must read written by Holland et al. where they review the evidence of the management of SAB.

2. Impact of Infectious Disease Consultation on Quality of Care, Mortality, and Length of Stay in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Results From a Large Multicenter Cohort Study.
https://t.co/XujO68pCuH
👉ID consult associated with reduced inpatient mortality.

3. Predicting Risk of Endocarditis Using a Clinical Tool (PREDICT): Scoring System to Guide Use of Echocardiography in the Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
https://t.co/otcA1pxjAw
👉Predictive risk factors for infective endocarditis, and thus the need for TEE.

4. The Cefazolin Inoculum Effect Is Associated With Increased Mortality in Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.
https://t.co/CQZiryVWZz
👉Presence of cefazolin inoculum effect in the infecting isolate was associated with an increase 30-day mortality.

You May Also Like