3 ms·
From the comments: "One forgotten contribution could possibly be the large number of canceled surgeries. The last number I saw was appx 30k canceled surgeries
by pelasaco 6y ago
From the comments:
"One forgotten contribution could possibly be the large number of canceled surgeries.
The last number I saw was appx 30k canceled surgeries in Sweden since Mar -20. Historical data from Argentina, Israel and Denmark show significant reductions in death rates when doctors go on strike. The last strike was in the 1960's and I have been repeatedly promised (by doctors) that "..it is different now.."
We have also noted a quite dramatic reduction of cancer diagnoses because of reduced screening for breast- and gyn cancer. The common wisdom among "experts" is that there is a large number of undiscovered cases which will show up later and with much more severe and deadly cancer in the months and years ahead. I doubt this. I have read a couple of the research papers defining guidelines for interpretation of pathological finds and they state explicitly that it is better to "overdiagnose" by at least a factor of 10 (and in reality up to a factor of 50) in order to not miss any "real" cases of cancer. Better to cut nine healthy breasts or prostates than to have one undiagnosed case.
Well, in just a couple of years we will have clear and unambigous evidence for or against the efficency of the cancer screening programs. This is a form of full scale clinical trial happening in front of our eyes."
And
"Oh, todays newspaper say it is 75k less surgeries in Sweden since Mar -20."
- yread 6y agoThis is complete FUD. Overtreatment is a real concern that oncologists take seriously - for cancer precursors the recommended treatment now is often just "monitoring"
- pelasaco 6y agoSaid.. you? It doesn't change the problem of the large number of canceled surgeries. The narrative from the linked post is "because Sweden went through a different route to fight COVID-19 than France and Germany, now they are paying the price".. and the comments add some variables to this equation.
- viraptor 6y ago> defining guidelines for interpretation of pathological finds and they state explicitly that it is better to "overdiagnose" Was it definitely after pathology reporting? It's normal to have a low threshold to send people to biopsy. From the number of developed cases you can get some idea about what ratio of "ok" results you should have as a referring doctor. (this is tracked) But once you do biopsy / further checks I haven't heard of overdiagnosis by a large factor - not the "you should have surgery" overdiagnosis anyway. "Wait, see how it develops, retest" seems more common.