> There may "be between 135 and 270 women who had their lives shortened as a result"
> between 2009 and the start of 2018
> were not invited to their final breast screening
So over 9 years less than 270 people (30 people per year) over the age of 68 who weren't sent a checkup reminder, and chose not to take an active role in their own health care, and may have died of cancer.
Its a shame that people may have died, but in the grand scheme of this is this a huge issue? Is the algorithm to blame, or the people who chose to not take responsibility in their own health?
Is this now the most costly software error in history, measured in human lives lost?
Imagine if the UK Parliament or the EU decides that the best response is enact laws mandating a particular software testing approach, or mandates extensive regression testing on production systems after all changes?
3 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 16.2 ms ] thread> between 2009 and the start of 2018
> were not invited to their final breast screening
So over 9 years less than 270 people (30 people per year) over the age of 68 who weren't sent a checkup reminder, and chose not to take an active role in their own health care, and may have died of cancer.
Its a shame that people may have died, but in the grand scheme of this is this a huge issue? Is the algorithm to blame, or the people who chose to not take responsibility in their own health?
Imagine if the UK Parliament or the EU decides that the best response is enact laws mandating a particular software testing approach, or mandates extensive regression testing on production systems after all changes?
No, it's a drop in the bucket.
Here's a 1.2 billion screw up, it'd have to also be hundreds if not thousands of lives (A human life in the west is worth around 1 or 2 million $)
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/queensland-health-payroll-...
Even if you looked at humans per lines of code I suspect this wouldn't be it.