>The problem is that it is impossible to know if someone’s cancer will be deadly or not.

And that is the issue, I know 2 people who developed cancers when they were around 40, one died, the other person survived but had to be treated. So we close our eyes and hope for the best ?

▲

bryanlarsen 15 hours ago | parent [-]

And I'm sure neither were one of the cancers discussed in the article as candidates for lower screening. Nobody's suggesting we stop looking for lung cancer or any of the other many deadly ones. OTOH, increased screening for thyroid cancer had 0 impact on life expectancy in South Korea.

	▲	creer 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They ARE suggesting such things (including forms of "not looking") even for deadly ones. In these cases, it is couched in terms of what follow-up is "deemed necessary" (see later) depending on stage classification of that cancer. There is a range of responses that's possible and new research and procedure advancement coming online on a 5-yearly basis in addition to variations in capabilities from hospital to hospital - so a pretty volatile environment - yet the staging recommendation gets changed often based on what health care professionals estimate they can sustain society-wide - i.e. manpower - rather than what might be optimal from a survival point of view for that patient. To pick one specific example, skin cancer visual screening seems currently recommended on a frequency based not on the speed of evolution of, say, melanoma - which can start and evolve pretty fast -, but on the manpower availability of dermatologists.