Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 697534106099253339
Of these people, 23% had a negative effect on health.
ok
I.e condition worsened.
And that 23% does not mean death either
???
whats your point here
your agreeing with my case
That we can reasonably conclude any effect on survival rates would be small or negligible.
no
we cannot reasonably conclude
I am gonna say the n word
Because the vast majority of people are diagnosed.
that the poorest people
niggerrrrr
the ones who are the most likely to die of cnacer
are not in fact dying of cancer
because reasons
Yeah but you aren't proving that, the data I gave was on people with serious med conditions.
This includes everyone, the people who skip because of costs tend to be poorer.
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
the data you gave supports my argument
23% of 27% is around 7%
How? My data is arguing the *vast majority* of people consume tests, and 23% of the 27% who *skip* see their condition *worsen*
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*