> Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C
I think that's the wrong metaphor. Regulation functions well when it is 1 - clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied and 2 - conservative, in the sense of being a bit "behind the times". By this I don't mean reactive.
There are cases when those approaches can't be followed, for example when you see an army being built up on a border, medical cases (not just the one you cite, which isn't a regulation, but drug approval) and other incipient life-threatening cases. But those cases are messy, often wrong (but with a risk vs cost profile that makes it worth doing), and often controversial.
But this is simply an ipad. The kind of metaphor I think of is I'll speed at 120 km/h when my passenger is bleeding profusely, but if I'm late to a contract negotiation, well, I still have to drive the speed limit. A sense of arbitrariness discourages compliance with the rules.
Consider the EU ETS. They already had an example to follow (the north american SO2 trading scheme), had the emissions and other data, and it is indeed an issue killing people. But they took the time to make sure it was right, and it works great, a little grumbling aside. At the end of the day the ipad is even less than that, and so clarity and consistency serves the wider goal.
Yet if you drive recklessly at 110 you can still be in trouble over for what is deemed dangerous or aggressive driving despite the speed limit being 120. Law isn't (and shouldn't) just be clear cut objective criteria, real life is more complicated than that. Again, the difference between a hard cap and a floor - you can't go over 120 but that doesn't mean if you go 110 there should be no other criteria for you breaking the law.
I think that's the wrong metaphor. Regulation functions well when it is 1 - clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied and 2 - conservative, in the sense of being a bit "behind the times". By this I don't mean reactive.
There are cases when those approaches can't be followed, for example when you see an army being built up on a border, medical cases (not just the one you cite, which isn't a regulation, but drug approval) and other incipient life-threatening cases. But those cases are messy, often wrong (but with a risk vs cost profile that makes it worth doing), and often controversial.
But this is simply an ipad. The kind of metaphor I think of is I'll speed at 120 km/h when my passenger is bleeding profusely, but if I'm late to a contract negotiation, well, I still have to drive the speed limit. A sense of arbitrariness discourages compliance with the rules.
Consider the EU ETS. They already had an example to follow (the north american SO2 trading scheme), had the emissions and other data, and it is indeed an issue killing people. But they took the time to make sure it was right, and it works great, a little grumbling aside. At the end of the day the ipad is even less than that, and so clarity and consistency serves the wider goal.