= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Action vs. inaction - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
Good point - but they didn't give that as their justification. Also, you can get a better cost (in dollars and other measures) per life saved by giving women mammograms once every 2 years; and probably better still by giving them every 3 years.
Of course they wouldn't give that as a justification. Look at the reaction of the BC community over the change in recommendation with the justification of unnecessary anxiety/morbidity-- do you imagine there'd be less outrage if the reported reason for changing the guideline was money? They were retarded enough to bring this up during the health-care debate as it is...
To make the cost argument, you'd need to also present the cost differences caused by earlier detection of a small number of cancers. The cost of treating a single case might be greater than the cost of testing a thousand cases.
I suspect that the only way skipping early detection can be a win, cost-wise, is if it enables more people to die before they receive costly treatment.
Early detection can also lead to overdiagnosis. The report discusses that as a factor in their decision.