3 ms·

That's what I'm wondering too. Even if 1%, if the follow up is very expensive, the initial test might be cheap but overall cost might be very expensive / prohi

by duxup 2y ago

That's what I'm wondering too. Even if 1%, if the follow up is very expensive, the initial test might be cheap but overall cost might be very expensive / prohibitive.

bluGill 2y ago
So you are arguing we should just let people die? This is a cancer that is typically detected only after it advances far enough that you will be dead in 6 months (not treatment possible). If we could detect it 2 years sooner it would be treatable and most people could life for many more years. Sure the total cost of a positive will be much higher - between whatever tests to verify it isn't a false positive, and all the treatment it will be a lot more money. However by spending that money many people will live a lot longer. Maybe you don't like any old people, but I often wish I could show my dad my latest project. This test could have saved his life if we had it 15 years ago.
- cameronh90 2y ago
  Technically we just "let people die" all the time. We could spend more money on road safety (or say, reduce the speed limit to 10 mph) but we don't because the costs are too high. Now, given the relatively common but almost universally fatal nature of pancreatic cancer, any sort of moderately effective screening is probably worth doing, but the argument that if we don't then some people will die isn't very strong.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    That is a very differnt problem.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  If you test enough people, you can reach a point where given you have a positive test, there is say a 90% chance it's a false positive. Taking further action can potentially harm you. Given the danger of further testing, and that many time people see no benefit from treatment, its is completely possible on average it can make die more often to get tested.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Only sometimes. A generalization like that is false. Until we have more data we won't know how the risks play out .

by duxup 2y ago

That's what I'm wondering too. Even if 1%, if the follow up is very expensive, the initial test might be cheap but overall cost might be very expensive / prohibitive.

bluGill 2y ago

So you are arguing we should just let people die? This is a cancer that is typically detected only after it advances far enough that you will be dead in 6 months (not treatment possible). If we could detect it 2 years sooner it would be treatable and most people could life for many more years. Sure the total cost of a positive will be much higher - between whatever tests to verify it isn't a false positive, and all the treatment it will be a lot more money. However by spending that money many people will live a lot longer. Maybe you don't like any old people, but I often wish I could show my dad my latest project. This test could have saved his life if we had it 15 years ago.

cameronh90 2y ago
Technically we just "let people die" all the time. We could spend more money on road safety (or say, reduce the speed limit to 10 mph) but we don't because the costs are too high. Now, given the relatively common but almost universally fatal nature of pancreatic cancer, any sort of moderately effective screening is probably worth doing, but the argument that if we don't then some people will die isn't very strong.
- bluGill 2y ago
  That is a very differnt problem.
daedrdev 2y ago
If you test enough people, you can reach a point where given you have a positive test, there is say a 90% chance it's a false positive. Taking further action can potentially harm you. Given the danger of further testing, and that many time people see no benefit from treatment, its is completely possible on average it can make die more often to get tested.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Only sometimes. A generalization like that is false. Until we have more data we won't know how the risks play out .