4 ms·
They are including everything from diabetes to arthritis. If you look at statistics for disability, the numbers are a lot lower. I would also bet my lunch that
by alphaoverlord 16y ago
They are including everything from diabetes to arthritis. If you look at statistics for disability, the numbers are a lot lower. I would also bet my lunch that the numbers are heavily skewed towards older demographics. This argument is a straw man at best.
- carbocation 16y agoI agree with you, which is why I pointed out asymptomatic diseases (a tacit nod to the fact that they aren't causing any symptoms for these people at present moment).
- Alex3917 16y ago"If you look at statistics for disability, the numbers are a lot lower." I'm not sure the percent on disability would be much more relevant, considering that the majority of recent college grads taking time off for lyme disease or whatever aren't collecting disability. "I would also bet my lunch that the numbers are heavily skewed towards older demographics." 60% of those with chronic illnesses are between 18 and 64 according to this: Chronic Care in America: A 21st Century Challenge, a study of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation & Partnership for Solutions: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD for the Robert (I misread the Wikipedia article, which is why I said 60% of Americans had chronic illnesses instead of the actual close to 1 in 2 stat. My bad.) Anyway my point was just that there are an enormous number of reasons why a person might appear to be not doing anything for a while.
- roel_v 16y agoAnd it also matter how this number evolved over time, and how other places do (counting with the same criteria, which is very hard I admit). I mean if 50% has a chronic illness but in the 1950's 45% had them, then only the 5% increase can be used as an argument, which then holds a lot less weight.