5 ms·
> If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a cure, no? no. being able to detect cance
by pasquinelli 4y ago
> If our testing were perfect such that we could detect all cancers early enough to stop, that would functionally be a cure, no?
no. being able to detect cancer doesn't mean people are getting tested twice a year for their whole life. for example, you wouldn't have routine cancer screenings for children, but sometimes they get cancer, and on those occasions it'd be nice to have better treatment options.
- nluken 4y ago> it'd be nice to have better treatment options. No disagreement with you there. By "perfect screening" I assumed a "perfect" patient set where problems brought up at annual checkups lead directly to tests which lead to detection, but perhaps that's a naïve assumption to the point of uselessness. Still, I think it's easy to write off screening advances as skewing the data set vs. actually saving lives, when they do in fact help people that otherwise could have been much sicker.
- tshaddox 4y agoWe wouldn’t normally even consider talking about these things as if they’re in any way mutually exclusive, would we? Like normally we would all understand that it’s good for cars to get safer and for trauma care to get better.
- kragen 4y agoif cancer screenings for children were painless, lower risk than the cancer, and cost five dollars, you would totally have routine cancer screenings for children i mean maybe not in the usa but in sane places