No medical school has ever managed to prevent people from getting sick. Diseases go hand in hand with the respective life situations and there is no real progress that makes people "get healthier and healthier". They have different diseases today than in the past, but they do not become less ill. Where you have impressive progress in the field of surgery, for example, there is little to be happy about in other fields. Civilised and urban life goes against natural human biology. We are bipeds who use our bodies and, in keeping with the insertion of extremities to perform daily tasks, were in the habit of making certain efforts that kept both the extremities and, subsequently, the internal organs in natural flow. Civilisation therefore creates its own diseases, which are mainly stress-related. Where the body is used merely as a vehicle for a brain, it becomes sick and prone to all kinds of disorders. Every beautiful innovation in the field of medicine cannot hide the fact that it is no better than what is opposed to it. Thus progressive medicine itself is not only a salvation but also a curse at the same time.
The health system was and is never designed to be used by a majority of people. "Illness" is a state of exception and not the norm. As modern people, we tend to forget this because we are surrounded by fear scenarios. The more comfortable we are, the more anxious we become, which reduces our resilience and acceptance of even minor ailments. Every headache, every irregularity in our own body sensation suggests that something fundamental can be wrong.
If you make your data available to the countless testing and measuring methods, you canpredict that you will be found and diagnosed with illness. Basically, your normal status of being healthy would then not only be superfluous, but economically uninteresting. Whether by AI or other remote diagnostics, it will not improve people's lives overall, but only relatively for those who are healthy anyway or still too young to imagine that a visit to the doctor is often the only way for old people to come into contact with other humans.
However, making your data available will not create fewer patients, but rather more, i.e. turn people who are basically healthy into sick people through increasingly refined testing procedures and diagnostics. The threshold values, if you change them, can turn a healthy person into a sick person from one day to the next. While person to person treatment falls away, pill prescription will go up, as it already does because you cannot have one doctor for any one patient. So, people will be told that it's just fine to take the AI-diagnostics and fetch for their medicine through online delivery. So that the "real sick ones" can be cared for. Well, I don't buy it. If you are so convinced of statistics you can have a look at them and see how many millions of people take several pills a day and the harm of them. IF you are ready for those numbers and negative effects.
Since modern medicine cannot be trusted in its entirety, because it has switched to economic efficiency on a large scale, it needs patients. Not less, but more patients.
As always, the so called benefits of such a progress will effect the very old and the very young.
Do you think that nurses and doctors, who have to be prepared for a flood of old people in their practices and outpatient services once the baby boomer generation has passed sixty, won't want to keep them off their backs and especially where the elderly are too weak or too needy to resist these AI-assisted diagnostics? No, they will be the first, as always, "for whose benefit" the new technology will be used.
The way you talk, you can only talk if you understand the individual as an island who understands non-contact as something positive. The last three years have pushed it extremely in this direction and did not stop at the very young as well.
Where mothers, against their better judgement, had to submit to lockdowns and lock their children up at home in an isolationist world that pretends it is for the good of the nation. Worst affected, as always, are single mothers who actually know that they are dependent on the publicly accessible life, because motherhood can only be learned in groups, not in books and also not via data evaluations. Anyone who doesn't know today, and who first has to do research for it, that isolated parents with small children don't first have to be put through such analysis procedures so that THEN you can see how badly off they are, can't be helped. For turned mothers, the parenting group is the most important element in not feeling alone, as the extended extended family is a relic from the past.
Same counts for the old ones who, once retired, only excersize when doing groceries or visiting the doctor. Once you prevent them from doing so, they will die sooner, not later. If you have everything delivered to your home, even these occasions to go out of the house, will fall away. It takes a lot to motivate an old person with overweight to move the body. You can't do it alone. You need physical-therapy if there are no relatives or neighbors near or a garden where the old ones can do their body work. Especially, if they have no one to care for with the little they can still do. Like cooking or entertaining with stories from life. Who, I ask you, does have time for them?
You sound like an advertising drum, your words are nice and sweet but superficial.
I very much appreciate your substantive reply. I am baffled in some degree by some of your statements, however.
While there may be statements that could support this in the OP here (although I don't see that as being true, still it could be) my consistent position is, and always has been, that humanity is sacred and society is our greatest asset and value. This does not denigrate us as individuals, and I also state that only individuals have rights and responsibilities, which are only relevant to society as a collection of individuals. Society as a whole does not have rights, interests, or responsibilities. Nonetheless, as we who have rights and responsibilities associate, our association becomes more than the sum of it's parts.
I don't see that I in any way advocate non-contact.
I am very aware of this. I am old enough to be retired. I am 100% disabled by injuries to my back. I qualify for Social Security Disability payments. I do not accept them. I don't take the money. I work with my hands repairing and replacing the homes of my neighbors in the surrounding community I am part of.
If the principle of non-contact can be refuted by actions, I do absolutely live to refute it. In fact, I don't even spend Hive tokens as money, solely supporting myself by my labors for my good community.
I am saddened I write so poorly that I have communicated to you what appears to be the exact opposite of my views. I hope you can elucidate for me how I have so erred. I often point out that criticism is my most valued response to my words, because only that can show me how I am wrong and enable me to change my mind. Since I have somehow communicated the opposite view to what I live with my actions, and have intended with my post, I have clearly erred, and want to correct what I have conveyed to conform to my actual beliefs and actions in the world.
I hope you can help me understand how I have done this, so I can understand how not to do it in the future.
Thanks!