> in part because of the very numbers from 2019 you quoted I gave those links to show that there are no "numbers". They based the change on modeling results. T

> in part because of the very numbers from 2019 you quoted I gave those links to show that there are no "numbers". They based the change on modeling results. The modeling results are based on assumptions. The assumptions may or may not be valid. > > essentially, just "updated models" > is literally how science is done? My PhD is in statistical modeling of biological systems. To answer your question: no. Modeling, on it's own, is not "science". I would never suggest to anyone that a statistical model is the same thing as evidence. It's a model, which is based on evidence (maybe), after a thick layer of human meddling. Modeling can be an input to a scientific process, but it isn't "how science is done". If you want to make a big change to all of health care like this, you need to do the damned experiment -- randomize people, and see what the effect of screening at 45 (vs 50) is on a hard endpoint like overall survival.