3 ms·

"the people can't be trusted with knowledge" is a bad argument we don't need to do much differently to take advantage of this data anyway. doctors already ask

"the people can't be trusted with knowledge" is a bad argument we don't need to do much differently to take advantage of this data anyway. doctors already ask patients what changed recently collect data passively. when a medical condition arises, you have a data source to correlate against the onset of the condition currently we have almost no data, so doctors need to run multiple tests to identify possible causes

jmye 4mo ago
> we don't need to do much differently to take advantage of this data anyway. doctors already ask patients what changed recently So your take is we just do the testing and ignore it's outputs entirely, until something comes up? And that is somehow different and better than current imaging processes? > currently we have almost no data This is absolute fucking nonsense.
- spongebobstoes 4mo ago
  my take is simply three points 1/ telemetry is operationally useful in systems engineering 2/ the human body is a system 3/ this is a step towards telemetry for the human body > currently we have almost no data this is accurate. ordinary people might get blood drawn once per year. that is almost no data, relative to a monthly or weekly full-body ultrasound
mapkkk 4mo ago
It's not that I don't believe people can't be trusted with information. I regularly introduce basic diagnostic/statistical concepts to patients to explain why a certain test is needed, and why another would be wasted time and anxiety. Tools are only effective in their purpose when one knows when and how to use them. Most things are imperfect, or a game of balancing benefits vs. shortcomings. If a patient learns the potential pitfalls and strengths of a testing method, then I would trust them to apply it judiciously. But a biweekly medical scan you can go to as easily as a spa is not that. Similarly: data matters, sure, but the quality of the data matters just as much. If the signal to noise ratio is too low then what's the point of gathering it?

jmye 4mo ago

> we don't need to do much differently to take advantage of this data anyway. doctors already ask patients what changed recently So your take is we just do the testing and ignore it's outputs entirely, until something comes up? And that is somehow different and better than current imaging processes? > currently we have almost no data This is absolute fucking nonsense.

spongebobstoes 4mo ago
my take is simply three points 1/ telemetry is operationally useful in systems engineering 2/ the human body is a system 3/ this is a step towards telemetry for the human body > currently we have almost no data this is accurate. ordinary people might get blood drawn once per year. that is almost no data, relative to a monthly or weekly full-body ultrasound

mapkkk 4mo ago

It's not that I don't believe people can't be trusted with information. I regularly introduce basic diagnostic/statistical concepts to patients to explain why a certain test is needed, and why another would be wasted time and anxiety. Tools are only effective in their purpose when one knows when and how to use them. Most things are imperfect, or a game of balancing benefits vs. shortcomings. If a patient learns the potential pitfalls and strengths of a testing method, then I would trust them to apply it judiciously. But a biweekly medical scan you can go to as easily as a spa is not that. Similarly: data matters, sure, but the quality of the data matters just as much. If the signal to noise ratio is too low then what's the point of gathering it?