4 ms·

> Cancer and other life threatening diseases rarely bankrupt Europeans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis, Japanese etc. Sure, but they're also dramatically less l

> Cancer and other life threatening diseases rarely bankrupt Europeans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis, Japanese etc. Sure, but they're also dramatically less likely to survive the cancer than Americans are at a population level. There have been multiple long-term studies on cancer survival rates that have demonstrated this.

flexie 8y ago
The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer-frequency-country https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer... And it's notoriously difficult to compare. If cancer is registered as "discovered" early, because a for profit doctor starts treating it early, but the government hired doctor maybe doesn't, the early treated will statistically appear as living longer.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer.. https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer.... First, you're posting data that isn't relevant: that's the rate of cancer incidence, not the survival rates. That says nothing about how well the cancer is treated. Secondly, it's nonsensical to compare aggregated cancer statistics between countries, because the demographics vary drastically, many cancer risk factors are highly hereditary, and the survival rates for different types of cancers vary so dramatically. If you look at the actual survival rates, once adjusted for racial composition and type of cancer, the US comes out far ahead. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491
  - donaldknuth123 8y ago
    1. The data you posted is 20 years old. 2. The data is talking about 5 year survival rates and not actual survival. The US Healthcare system is great at keeping people alive who should have stopped treatment long ago. 3. The US is behind on every other major health indicator, Infant Mortality, Life Expectancy, Cardiovascular Disease, Obesity etc. Cancer isn't the only expensive illness in the US. This thread is overrun with Astroturfers.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > 1. The data you posted is 20 years old. It's from a study published 10 years ago. The study was repeated more recently and republished less than a year ago, reaffirming the original results. > 2. The data is talking about 5 year survival rates and not actual survival. The US Healthcare system is great at keeping people alive who should have stopped treatment long ago. There is no such thing as "actual survival". 5-year survival rates are the global standard for cancer epidemiology. > 3. The US is behind on every other major health indicator, Infant Mortality, Life Expectancy, Cardiovascular Disease, Obesity etc. Cancer isn't the only expensive illness in the US. This thread is about cancer, in response to an article posted about cancer. > This thread is overrun with Astroturfers. From the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data.
      - tzs 8y ago
        Aren't those 5 year survival rates from time of diagnosis? If so, it is possible for two countries that have the same survival rate measured from actual onset of the cancer to have a different 5 year survival rate.
        ams6110 8y ago
        I think it's always from time of diagnosis. Determining the "actual onset" of cancer would be little more than a guessing game.
  - flexie 8y ago
    Yes, I posted the wrong data. Sorry. See above :-)
- nostromo 8y ago
  How does your link relate to your comment?
  - flexie 8y ago
    It didn't. Sorry. Clearly I shouldn't post from my phone while cooking. These were the comparisons I meant to post: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/cancer-survival/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/cancer-survival... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...
DanBC 8y ago
You've failed to correct for over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment which all cause harm. It's worrying that the US places so much emphasis on 5 year survival rates, and not on eg all cause mortality.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > You've failed to correct for over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment which all cause harm. It's worrying that the US places so much emphasis on 5 year survival rates, and not on eg all cause mortality. I'm not, if you actually read the research I linked instead of speculating.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    I have read the research. You're using 5 year survival rates, not all cause mortality. This causes people to get tested, get treated, and sometimes get harmed by that treatment, but does not extend their life.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > You're using 5 year survival rates, not all cause mortality. This causes people to get tested, get treated, and sometimes get harmed by that treatment, but does not extend their life This is discussed and addressed in each of the three instances of the study that have been conducted, so I recommend reading those for the response.

flexie 8y ago

The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer-frequency-country https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer... And it's notoriously difficult to compare. If cancer is registered as "discovered" early, because a for profit doctor starts treating it early, but the government hired doctor maybe doesn't, the early treated will statistically appear as living longer.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> The US is barely in the top among developed nations, and it's not much better than the next 10-15 countries: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer.. https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer.... First, you're posting data that isn't relevant: that's the rate of cancer incidence, not the survival rates. That says nothing about how well the cancer is treated. Secondly, it's nonsensical to compare aggregated cancer statistics between countries, because the demographics vary drastically, many cancer risk factors are highly hereditary, and the survival rates for different types of cancers vary so dramatically. If you look at the actual survival rates, once adjusted for racial composition and type of cancer, the US comes out far ahead. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491
- donaldknuth123 8y ago
  1. The data you posted is 20 years old. 2. The data is talking about 5 year survival rates and not actual survival. The US Healthcare system is great at keeping people alive who should have stopped treatment long ago. 3. The US is behind on every other major health indicator, Infant Mortality, Life Expectancy, Cardiovascular Disease, Obesity etc. Cancer isn't the only expensive illness in the US. This thread is overrun with Astroturfers.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > 1. The data you posted is 20 years old. It's from a study published 10 years ago. The study was repeated more recently and republished less than a year ago, reaffirming the original results. > 2. The data is talking about 5 year survival rates and not actual survival. The US Healthcare system is great at keeping people alive who should have stopped treatment long ago. There is no such thing as "actual survival". 5-year survival rates are the global standard for cancer epidemiology. > 3. The US is behind on every other major health indicator, Infant Mortality, Life Expectancy, Cardiovascular Disease, Obesity etc. Cancer isn't the only expensive illness in the US. This thread is about cancer, in response to an article posted about cancer. > This thread is overrun with Astroturfers. From the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data.
    - tzs 8y ago
      Aren't those 5 year survival rates from time of diagnosis? If so, it is possible for two countries that have the same survival rate measured from actual onset of the cancer to have a different 5 year survival rate.
      - ams6110 8y ago
        I think it's always from time of diagnosis. Determining the "actual onset" of cancer would be little more than a guessing game.
- flexie 8y ago
  Yes, I posted the wrong data. Sorry. See above :-)
nostromo 8y ago
How does your link relate to your comment?
- flexie 8y ago
  It didn't. Sorry. Clearly I shouldn't post from my phone while cooking. These were the comparisons I meant to post: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/cancer-survival/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/cancer-survival... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...

DanBC 8y ago

You've failed to correct for over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment which all cause harm. It's worrying that the US places so much emphasis on 5 year survival rates, and not on eg all cause mortality.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> You've failed to correct for over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment which all cause harm. It's worrying that the US places so much emphasis on 5 year survival rates, and not on eg all cause mortality. I'm not, if you actually read the research I linked instead of speculating.
- DanBC 8y ago
  I have read the research. You're using 5 year survival rates, not all cause mortality. This causes people to get tested, get treated, and sometimes get harmed by that treatment, but does not extend their life.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > You're using 5 year survival rates, not all cause mortality. This causes people to get tested, get treated, and sometimes get harmed by that treatment, but does not extend their life This is discussed and addressed in each of the three instances of the study that have been conducted, so I recommend reading those for the response.