3 ms·
I know this is a stupid question, but the article states there are more than 7000 (but presumably less than 8000) diseases effecting 1 in 200000 or fewer, with
by advisedwang 13y ago
I know this is a stupid question, but the article states there are more than 7000 (but presumably less than 8000) diseases effecting 1 in 200000 or fewer, with 25-30 million suffers in the USA.
With a population of 300 000 000, * 7000 / 200 000, shouldn't that be about 10 million?
- jacalata 13y agoYou misread it - it says a rare disease is a condition affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States., not 1 in 200,000 or fewer.
- corin_ 13y agoI was wondering about that stat - their estimates suggest that of the 7,000 "rare diseases" which affect <200,000, they each affect, on average, around 4,000 people. Would be interesting to see how that distribution looks on a graph.
- advisedwang 13y agoI was providing the largest estimate, fewer than 200 000 means less than 10 million, which is even further from the articles 25-30 million.
- Someone 13y agoYou misread it - it says a rare disease is a condition affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States., not 1 in 200,000 or fewer (in other words: those rare diseases aren't that rare; according to this definition, 1 in 1,500 people can suffer from a rare disease) So, the math should be 7,000 rare diseases times at most 200,000 sufferers per rare disease = at most 1,400,000,000 sufferers for all rare diseases combined. The actual number will be way lower because many of those 7,000 will be much rarer, because some people may have more than one rare disease and because there simply aren't that many people in the USA.
- bostonpete 13y agoIf there are 7,000 diseases, each affecting 200,000 people or less, the largest estimate would be 7,000 * 200,000 = 1.4 billion. Your math is funky.