3 ms·
Nobody knows the threshold above which intervening is a good idea or worth the effort, so universal testing seems like jumping the gun a little.
by roywiggins 5y ago
Nobody knows the threshold above which intervening is a good idea or worth the effort, so universal testing seems like jumping the gun a little.
- sdenton4 5y agoPeople said similar things about lead...
- mrmuagi 5y agoThe people vested in using lead in fuel said so out of profit motive, but it seems lead was widely known to be harmful for hundreads of years [0] before it was using it fuel. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA
- roywiggins 5y agoWe don't preemptively test everyone for lead either!
- dibujante 5y agoThis is true, although I would prefer to still test everyone for plausibly important things to feed data analysts who might eventually discover something useful.
- roywiggins 5y agoThat's a lot of blood draws to ask of people, for something that doesn't even have a hypothesis. There are studies like the UK biobank that are trying to collect longitudinal information about a huge number of people, but they're volunteers.
- sorenn111 5y agoI'd love for that to be true, but there's a good chance that in doing broad tests you are incurring costs (both to patient health and cost [whether paid by patient, gov, or insurance company]) without getting anything beyond noisy data without useful signal
- vorpalhex 5y agoRelated PSA: If you do a lot of target shooting, especially with indoor ranges, it's worth asking your doctor to occasionally test your lead exposure.