3 ms·
Remember, the new cases curve is roughly the slope of the total cases curve. I read your data as more-or-less supportive of the author's claim.
by dhimes 12y ago
Remember, the new cases curve is roughly the slope of the total cases curve. I read your data as more-or-less supportive of the author's claim.
- puzzlingcaptcha 12y agoIf you want to consider that the statement "We’re treating hundreds of thousands more people each year for these diseases than we ever have" refers to total cases then well, that's always going to be true. Besides, I am more interested in the statistics of mortality.
- dhimes 12y ago> well, that's always going to be true. unless they die > I am more interested in the statistics of mortality "Death rates have not changed significantly over 2002-2012"
- puzzlingcaptcha 12y agoRoutine screening for breast cancer started in the 80's. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/breast.html
- dhimes 12y agoSorry, I really want to understand your point but I am unable. You disagree with the thesis that more intensive screening and identification of these health issues (since the '90s) have increased the number of people diagnosed with the disease, but has not significantly impacted the mortality rates. This seems to be aligned to the stats you quoted. What am I missing?
- puzzlingcaptcha 12y agoI don't disagree with the increase in the total number of diagnosed cases, there is nothing to disagree with. I disagree with calling a reduction in the number of deaths since the 90's by half (prostate) and by a third (breast) "a tiny reduction, if any".
- dhimes 12y agoOK, but understand that you are also disagreeing with the site you linked itself. Look at the 'data trend' link. Not trying to be inciteful- kind of a personal issue with me atm, perhaps with you, too.