Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

Discord ID: 697534492465823774


2020-04-08 19:50:04 UTC  

Because the vast majority of people are diagnosed.

2020-04-08 19:50:06 UTC  

that the poorest people

2020-04-08 19:50:14 UTC  

niggerrrrr

2020-04-08 19:50:18 UTC  

the ones who are the most likely to die of cnacer

2020-04-08 19:50:22 UTC  

are not in fact dying of cancer

2020-04-08 19:50:27 UTC  

because reasons

2020-04-08 19:51:00 UTC  

Yeah but you aren't proving that, the data I gave was on people with serious med conditions.

2020-04-08 19:51:11 UTC  

This includes everyone, the people who skip because of costs tend to be poorer.

2020-04-08 19:51:23 UTC  

my entire argument is that there seems to be around 7% of the us population that cannot afford adequate medical treatment; these are the people who are at the greatest risk of diseases. these people are left out of survival data thus skewing the numbers up

2020-04-08 19:51:30 UTC  

And of these poorer people, 23% found a reduction in condition.

2020-04-08 19:51:33 UTC  

the data you gave supports my argument

2020-04-08 19:51:50 UTC  

23% of 27% is around 7%

2020-04-08 19:52:07 UTC  

How? My data is arguing the *vast majority* of people consume tests, and 23% of the 27% who *skip* see their condition *worsen*

2020-04-08 19:52:16 UTC  

yes

2020-04-08 19:52:20 UTC  

This worsen does not equal deaths, which is an even lower percentage

2020-04-08 19:52:25 UTC  

the people who dont consume tests

2020-04-08 19:52:34 UTC  

see their conditions worsen in some cases

2020-04-08 19:52:42 UTC  

this is not represented in the survival statistics

2020-04-08 19:52:43 UTC  

And in even smaller cases, die.

2020-04-08 19:52:58 UTC  

what do you think worsened conditions mean in relation to cancer

2020-04-08 19:53:02 UTC  

While that may be true, it does not change the statistic much. Because they're a tiny fraction of the population.

2020-04-08 19:53:11 UTC  

As in stage 1 becomes stage 2

2020-04-08 19:53:15 UTC  

Or symptoms become worse.

2020-04-08 19:53:20 UTC  

ok

2020-04-08 19:53:21 UTC  

However this does not equal death.

2020-04-08 19:53:29 UTC  

it hastens death

2020-04-08 19:53:29 UTC  

GG @good luck durruti, you just advanced to level 6!

2020-04-08 19:53:44 UTC  

from a mathematical perspective

2020-04-08 19:53:58 UTC  

if you took the most vulnerable 7% of patients off of any fatality list about a disease

2020-04-08 19:54:04 UTC  

But it does *not equal death*

2020-04-08 19:54:06 UTC  

the disease survival rate would rise astronomically

2020-04-08 19:54:11 UTC  

Death would probably be a small minority of those cases

2020-04-08 19:54:13 UTC  

we're measuring how long they live

2020-04-08 19:54:18 UTC  

A minority of that 23%.

2020-04-08 19:54:50 UTC  

so your argument is that

2020-04-08 19:55:02 UTC  

Survival rates are the % of patients alive after 5 years

2020-04-08 19:55:05 UTC  

a small amount of the population that is the most vulnerable to a disease not being factored into data doesnt matter

2020-04-08 19:55:09 UTC  

because its a small amount

2020-04-08 19:55:12 UTC  

is that right?

2020-04-08 19:55:28 UTC  

It's not based on life expectancy or what not. If we have 200 people, and 190 of them are included in the stat but 10 aren't. And of those 10 7 die

2020-04-08 19:55:32 UTC  

The stat will not change at all.