Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 697534812650733592
yes
This worsen does not equal deaths, which is an even lower percentage
the people who dont consume tests
see their conditions worsen in some cases
this is not represented in the survival statistics
And in even smaller cases, die.
what do you think worsened conditions mean in relation to cancer
While that may be true, it does not change the statistic much. Because they're a tiny fraction of the population.
As in stage 1 becomes stage 2
Or symptoms become worse.
ok
However this does not equal death.
it hastens death
GG @good luck durruti, you just advanced to level 6!
from a mathematical perspective
if you took the most vulnerable 7% of patients off of any fatality list about a disease
But it does *not equal death*
the disease survival rate would rise astronomically
Death would probably be a small minority of those cases
we're measuring how long they live
so your argument is that
Survival rates are the % of patients alive after 5 years
a small amount of the population that is the most vulnerable to a disease not being factored into data doesnt matter
because its a small amount
is that right?
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
The stat will not change at all.
we have 100 people. 10 of those people are the most vulnerable to a disease.
🤢
all these people are given the disease. the 10 most vulnerable are not treated
🤢 🦮
what do you think the survival rate looks including and excluding those 10?
🛵
Point being those vulnerable people skipping treatment do not see reductions in conditions, around 23% of them do.
That's roughly 2 people, and of those 2 people a small minority die.
That's less than 1.
no
thats roughly 6 people
23% of 27%
Huh?