Hacker News Reader

Comment by baggy_trough | Hacker News Reader

What does 'statistical murder' mean in this case?

   “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"

   "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.

   "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"

   "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.

   "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

   "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

   ― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

If that's what it is, then -- regardless of whether it should be punished or not -- this is manifestly not statistical murder.

Your story is describing a situation where one person's decision so strongly and clearly affects numerous unrelated people's lives that it's statistically guaranteed that some of them died as a result. Moreover, there's no plausible argument presented that the decision was in any sense intended to prevent unintended/unpredictable harm to those who would be ultimately affected by it. It's for the "joy of the game".

Whereas the article is describing a situation where one person's decision is increasing the risk of death of one person (their own child). There's no statistical guarantee of anyone's death at the time of the parent's decision to not inject their child. Nor is the parent's decision affecting numerous people. Nor is the parent's decision affecting unrelated people - it's affecting exactly the people they have the most connection to & responsibility over: their own child. Nor are they refusing this "for sport" or "for the joy of the game"...

The statistical murder isn’t by the parents who fell for disinformation; they’re victims, to at least some extent.

The statistical murder is done by the people spreading that disinformation. Wakefield. RFK Jr. Alex Jones. etc.

It means making an informed choice that you know raises fatality rates.

Who did that in this case? The parents? Isn't it more likely that they don't believe it raises fatality rates (however incorrectly)?

> Who did that in this case?

Anti-vax activists like RFK Jr. https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy...

by not saying anything about it, he committed statistical murder?

Yes.

He's rather infamous for his part in the 2019 Samoa measles outbreak.

See: https://apnews.com/article/rfk-jr-samoa-measles-kennedy-vacc...

See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rfk-jr-samoa-measles-va...

See: https://www.newsweek.com/rfk-jr-denies-samoa-visit-was-vacci...

The changes he's made upon taking over HHS are almost certain to have far-reaching affects which eclipse that.

Don't be disingenuous.

He's actively suppressing publication of studies showing vaccine safety as a government official.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/05/us/politics/fda-covid-vac...

He said nothing about the medication in question, so does your original comment mean that RFK is guilty of statistical murder and should be punished for his general vaccine skepticism? I'm not sure how else to read "another case of statistical murder that can't be punished as it should, unfortunately".

That would be an extraordinary claim.

If you witness child abuse and say nothing, you bear some responsibility for its continuation.

If you’re the top health official of the country and spread doubt about numerous public health interventions, including actively suppressing research showing their safety and efficacy, yes, you’re guilty as fuck.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Of course he’s probably wrong about much of that. Punishing him for it in a court, if that’s what you mean, would be illiberal and grotesque.

Why? It’s negligent homicide.

It’s just so diffuse that it doesn’t fit in our crime model. Like polluters who shave years off an entire neighborhood’s lives via health impacts.

Because an opinion can’t rise to homicide, even if it influences policy. That’s not what homicide is. Instead, it’s simply bad policy, to be punished at the ballot box.

Bad policy that needlessly kills thousands of people should be punishable outside the ballot box.

If your policy of letting kindergarteners play with grenades goes bad, you go to jail.

This is a broken system. When somebody allegedly steals a backpack they get thrown in Riker's. When somebody with substantial power causes a whole bunch of people to die in aggregate via pollution, misinformation, or whatever our society has no mechanism to punish them.

It means you’re deliberately killing people, but indirectly enough it can’t be prosecuted.

Fucking with vaccines kills people. Getting rid of USAID kills people. Selling cigarettes kills people. But none of these are crimes. Some of them probably should be.

It's not the same for an individual choice vs government choice.

Individual different is real. Law of large number is true only for large number. Until you can claim omniscience, I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual.

Government policy, on the other hand, ...

> I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual.

Why not? We know tobacco execs lied about the dangers, even in Congressional testimony, and suppressed evidence. It's documented; no omniscience required.

Musk's DOGE cuts killed, at minimum, hundreds of thousands. It's highly likely he was aware of that likelihood.

There is no way to have enough nuance for this to actually mean anything. If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence? Or driving at all, very likely the most dangerous thing people do daily. What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal. But many people accept that death is inevitable and minimizing the chance of it isn’t worth doing. Society also speaks out both sides of its mouth — why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value?

The world has a lot of things it needs to figure out with all this stuff. Blanket statements just aren’t very valuable IMO.

> If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence?

No, I'd say the responsibility there lies on the car company execs making F-250s ever-bigger to the point they have worse forward visibility than a M1 Abrams tank. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...

> What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal.

If you don't maintain your trees and they kill your neighbor or damage their house, you'll often be on the hook for it, yes. Insurance won't cover you if it was negligence.

> why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value?

Virtually zero abortions happen 11 days before term. When they do, they're medical emergencies, not voluntary.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gesta...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com