3 ms·

'portion of cancer incodence in never-smokers' seems like a bad number to use. Clearly if we completely eliminated smoking, then the number would be 100%. It's

• incomingpain 4y ago
  >It's clear to me that you and the doctors know that... But then why is this metric even mentioned? I think we all agree as well that tobacco smoking is bad and should stop. But not only are we never getting there, we also know this isn't the sole source of lung cancer or cancer in general. It's even possible that some new chemical or something else anytime in history might show up and start causing cancer far worse than tobacco. This is a proactive measurement that is necessary ongoing the rest of history or at least until we eliminate cancer in some manner. We also ultimately always want to be trending downwards. It means we know what we are doing and are improving the situation. If the situation is regressing, that's fine but as expected the appropriate people analyzed WHY. The answer they found... politically problematic. Same reason I'm flagged and unable to post on HN now.
  • manwe150 4y ago
    I have seen you say the answer is problematic, and obvious, but I am not sure I have actually seen you point to what that answer is. I think you partly might be flagged for forgetting to write your main point and just jumping right into defending it.