|
|
|
|
|
|
by whafro
1909 days ago
|
|
|
I don't disagree in general. What I'm saying is that if what's dangerous is a head injury with a [purely fictional/illustrative] severity of 5 on a scale of 1-10, but this test detects only a diagnosable concussion at 8+, it would be a double-edged sword: - Individuals with severe injuries (8+) would be detected and could not deny it. You'd rid sports of the trainer who asks how many fingers he's holding up, and the answer is always "two." This is a good thing. - Individuals with significant injuries (5+) would not be detected and would continue playing, causing perhaps worse outcomes. These injuries are more common, and sports would build up to accept and embrace them, since evidence may take decades to gather that reducing diagnosable concussions is not enough. The latter case could affect thousands/millions more people, and may in fact be the real metric we should be targeting, rather than the as-currently-defined diagnosable concussion. |
|
|
Thing is, I doubt a saliva test would ever replace the "Well, he just asked the entire opposing team to marry him and told us he can see the future"[1] detection of concussion, or all the other known symptoms of concussions that referees at the club levels, and team doctors at the professional levels are trained to notice.
So yeah, if this can detect concussions not detectable via current methods, it's a definite win. But I also agree that if it were to replace the existing techniques, it'd be a net loss.
But I believe that, ultimately, the administrators of these sports realise a bunch of brain damaged former players is bad for the sport, so they will use it in a manner that complements, not replaces, existing diagnostic techniques.
[1]: Pretty much how my last concussion went down (thanks rugby league), except it was my teacher and half of my class I asked to marry me before they sent to me the sick bay. The delusions of predicting the future were very much real.