4 ms·
Pretty disappointed with 538 on this article. The basic argument is that we shouldn't do more medical testing as doctors aren't sure how to interpret the result
by chuckcode 10y ago
Pretty disappointed with 538 on this article. The basic argument is that we shouldn't do more medical testing as doctors aren't sure how to interpret the results, public isn't sophisticated enough to understand and too lazy to do anything even if they did.
Personally I feel that if we had more data over a larger group of people we would be able to learn what leads to disease better. Further I'm a little shocked that the medical industry can get away with a stated policy that patients should wait until their symptoms are acute and then get a minimum number of tests so their doctors don't get confused. I'd like to see us have more data about our health even if we're not sure what to do about it right away. Ignorance is easier to implement but isn't always bliss.
- nemothekid 10y ago>Personally I feel that if we had more data over a larger group of people we would be able to learn what leads to disease better. The article is pretty much arguing that there isn't currently a method that exists that will accurately give us more data. How useful is "more data" when 73% of it is garbage?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> Further I'm a little shocked that the medical industry can get away with a stated policy that patients should wait until their symptoms are acute and then get a minimum number of tests so their doctors don't get confused. It's because this is a reasonable strategy, that takes into the account the actual quality of the tests, the base rate, and the fact that people are idiots^W^Woverreact dramatically when it comes to health. This is a combination of insight that most of the serious diseases are rare, so most patients will be fine if they wait a little bit more, coupled with the insight that they most definitely won't be fine if they freak out, and most of them will.