| >I feel like you've misunderstood this. >If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm. Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues. > Here's a blog that explains why testing people who don't have symptoms causes more false positives. The link you provided talks about Covid19 situation, don't think that was part of the discussion. >> It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible >This is often incorrect. Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so? |
This sentence doesn't make much sense.
> Blood/urine test =/= testing.
If the patient has symptoms then it's a test. If the patient does not have symptoms then it's screening.
> People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.
But this is screening, and screening is often harmful, which is why it's strictly controlled.
The blog is not only about covid-19, it uses Covid-19 testing as an example. But the information about screening, especially false positives, applies to the type of blood testing you're talking about.
If you want a different blog: https://understandinguncertainty.org/node/1279
> Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so?
The problem is of "over testing", "over diagnosis", and "over treatment". https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/1/1
Your claim is that early detection means that treatment can start earlier, and that this reduces side effects and prolongs life.
My claim is that often screening sometimes does not prolong life, and sometimes causes harm.
https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/early-detection-prostate-can...
Take 1000 men aged 50. Give them yearly screening for prostate cancer. Take another group of 1000 men and don't give them prostate cancer screening.
In both groups about 7 men will die from prostate cancer, and about 210 men will die from any cause. But in the screening group 160 men will have a false alarm and needless biopsy, and 20 will have needless treatment. (And the treatment for prostate cancer can leave people incontinent or impotent).
See also this for a discussion of 5 year survival rates and why they're problematic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24022426