You realize that you essentially doing that below by equating diagnoses in the forties with deaths in the 45-55 age group:
Huh? I'm comparing the forty-something-at-diagnosis set with the same set five years later, at which point they are either survivors or dead. Same women five years later.
Thats correct. And you're saying those represent essentially the same percent of total diagnoses and total deaths. Thats equivalent to saying the survival rate for that group is about the same as for women overall.
If the survival rate were significantly lower for that group, they'd represent a larger portion of total deaths than they do total diagnoses.
---------------------------------------------------------
the drop to 44% will still be substantial
Yes, substantial for the cohort. Either way, though, the impact of substantial drop in a smallish cohort doesn't make a lot of impact on the overall.
Sure it does. I calculated the impact of going from 89.1% to 44% on the overall survival rate as being -6.8% if mammograms for women in their forties were eliminated entirely. Going from 81% or 85% to 44% will still represent a significant impact on the overall survival rate.
------------------------------------------------------
It makes a lot of difference for the individual women and the cohort but not for the overall stats.
It's a wash when compared to 11%. We're talking orders of magnitude here.
6.8% or 3.4% vs 11% isn't a wash. Maintaining that it is just makes you look like you have an ego investment in the "wash" characterization.
---------------------------------------------------
Throughout this exchange there has been almost nothing in the data that speaks to mammograms. We have only the one in 2000 number that's particular to the impact of mammograms. You have ignored that throughout.
Yes, I have other numbers that speak more relevantly to the issue of diagnoses and deaths. The 1 in 2000 number is I believe includes the 7/8 of women who are never diagnosed with breast cancer.
-----------------------------------------------------
In none of the overall numbers are diagnoses or deaths differentiated based on whether the diagnosis was based on a mammogram.
Its pretty much mammogram or self-exam, which we know isn't near as good as mammogram.
---------------------------------------------------
That was one of my complaints about the assertion in the original article. It was one of the reasons she had no basis for her assertion.
The two 15% numbers are just there to demonstrate that most women diagnosed at that age die. If about 15% get diagnosed and five years later about 15% die, then how many survivors are there?
Okay, you just revealed you don't understand the numbers you've been using - as I suspected. One percent is of total diagnoses. The other is of total deaths. The numbers of diagnoses are much larger than numbers of deaths since the overall survival rate is 89.1%
Repeat, the two 15%'s aren't 15% of the same number.
--------------------------------------------------------
You don't even have to take your shoes off to count them. And that includes women who got mammograms. Being diagnosed young with breast cancer is pretty much a death sentence.
No, its not. You have misunderstood the two 15%'s - thinking they're 15% of the same thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If they catch it really early with a mammogram you have a chance. But even with a mammogram it's only a one in 2000 chance.
Now you've mis-interpreted the 1 in 2000 number.
------------------------------------------------------------
They throw these eighty and ninety percent overall survival rates around to give women hope. You don't tell a woman just diagnosed that she has only one chance in 2000. It's just too depressing and counterproductive. But for young women there really isn't much hope.
I realize now you think mammograms for women in their 40;s are next to worthless because you've vastly misinterpreted the stats you've read, thinking 1999 of 2000 women who get cancer in their 40's dies. If you test 2000 women in their forties, the vast majority of them won't get breast cancer in their 40's at all. Only 12% of the 2000 women will ever be diagnosed with cancer at any point in their lives. Of those who are diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lives only a few will be diagnosed in their 40's.
-----------------------------------------------------
This whole business of trashing mammograms is an example of the "death panel" concept in action. You get a group "outside of normal political channels" to say this or that procedure isn't worth doing as it only saves a few lives and those lives in total aren't worth the cost spent. Then government agencies will use that "finding" to cut back on health care .... as the state of CA is doing for medicaid patients already. |
