22 ms·

That's not a resolution to the disagreement, though; that's just one side of it. The disagreement is about how to balance the cost of false negatives against th

That's not a resolution to the disagreement, though; that's just one side of it. The disagreement is about how to balance the cost of false negatives against the cost of additional testing. As an aside, an EKG is not remotely the most important part of diagnosis for myocardial infarction; that's the job of the person taking the history. (Myocardial infarction cannot be diagnosed purely from ECG.)

agumonkey 8y ago
Cost is fallacious. Medical world is stuck in pre advanced electronics era where any device would cost a ton and they rely on companies to make new devices but it's a lucrative market with twisted incentives. We need a musk like character to shake the medical diagnosis status quo. ps: I don't want to spend my life obsessing about monitoring my vitals but I'd still prefer to have the option rather than relying on blind faith.
- ui-explorer12 8y ago
  >> We need a musk like character to shake the medical diagnosis status quo. You first to trust your life and your loved ones to the SpaceX or Tesla of the medical world. But - disruption! Fake it till you make it!
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    Tesla used to be very safety focused. Not that much since autopilot. SpaceX is still extremely impressive in terms of progress/accident ratio.
- carbocation 8y ago
  By cost, I don't mean money.
- pandapower2 8y ago
  "Cost" is not purely monetary. The cost of additional testing includes patient's time spent traveling too and from additional appointments, additional patient stress waiting for results, additional infections or other side effects from the tests themselves. There are very few things that have zero risk. If you run something on a large enough population someone will have an adverse reaction. The cost benefit trade off for additional testing isn't just about dollars spent performing the tests. Its about how many thousands of hours of people's lives will be spent in pointless worry and how many additional people will be made sick or killed by testing Vs the additional people that could be saved by additional testing.

agumonkey 8y ago

Cost is fallacious. Medical world is stuck in pre advanced electronics era where any device would cost a ton and they rely on companies to make new devices but it's a lucrative market with twisted incentives. We need a musk like character to shake the medical diagnosis status quo. ps: I don't want to spend my life obsessing about monitoring my vitals but I'd still prefer to have the option rather than relying on blind faith.

ui-explorer12 8y ago
>> We need a musk like character to shake the medical diagnosis status quo. You first to trust your life and your loved ones to the SpaceX or Tesla of the medical world. But - disruption! Fake it till you make it!
- agumonkey 8y ago
  Tesla used to be very safety focused. Not that much since autopilot. SpaceX is still extremely impressive in terms of progress/accident ratio.
carbocation 8y ago
By cost, I don't mean money.
pandapower2 8y ago
"Cost" is not purely monetary. The cost of additional testing includes patient's time spent traveling too and from additional appointments, additional patient stress waiting for results, additional infections or other side effects from the tests themselves. There are very few things that have zero risk. If you run something on a large enough population someone will have an adverse reaction. The cost benefit trade off for additional testing isn't just about dollars spent performing the tests. Its about how many thousands of hours of people's lives will be spent in pointless worry and how many additional people will be made sick or killed by testing Vs the additional people that could be saved by additional testing.