8 ms·

Their aside is also false though. Look at my comment below the OP.

aspenmayer 11mo ago
> Their aside is also false though. You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment. OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes. If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.
- thesmtsolver 11mo ago
  > OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Yes, and you can make a straightforward logical deduction from survival rates to delaying diagnosis which I left out, but detail it below: 1. From Data: Assume equal or worse cancer rates in the US and similar levels of cures across US and Europe (cancer rates are indeed worse in the US and Europe does have good cancer treatment on par with US) 2. OP claimed: People delay diagnosis in the US 2a. From data/science: Delayed diagnosis => Higher death rate 3. Deduction from 1 and 2, and 2a.: Higher death rate in the US 4. Data: Lower death rate in the US 5. Contradiction: 3 and 4 6. Reductio: We have a contradiction. We have to negate one of our assumptions or more. We can't throw away data, so we can only throw away OP's claim (2). I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.
  - aspenmayer 11mo ago
    Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines. > I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that. We aren’t talking about population-level statistics in this thread, but rather a specific named individual meeting their personal healthcare costs, so your point is off-topic, not OP’s.
    - tptacek 11mo ago
      Both of you are hashing something out that 'dang has already called out as off-topic across the thread.
      - aspenmayer 11mo ago
        Dang has told me more than once to let the mods do the moderating and to not hash it out amongst ourselves, as it steps on their toes and makes any enforcement by mods seem selective. Email and/or flag, and move along. I don’t work here, and neither do you, so let’s both agree to disagree on it being on-topic or not, as it’s not my place to speak for dang or the other mods, and it’s not yours either, for that matter.
        gnabgib 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        aspenmayer 11mo ago
        They should say so in their bio, and they should not speak for each other, and so on. It’s messy and unprofessional as it is, and big if true. I don’t appreciate you jumping into the thread to dogpile either, but you do you.
        tptacek 11mo ago
        I'm not a moderator.
        aspenmayer 11mo ago
        I appreciate you saying so; dang also replied to my email to that effect. Hopefully the other folks get the memo, though I understand that you can’t reply to them directly, as their comment is [flagged] and [dead]. For my own sake, I apologize to everyone, and to you directly, tptacek, for the way this thread took a weird turn; it was illuminating in its own way.

> Their aside is also false though. You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment. OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes. If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.

thesmtsolver 11mo ago
> OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Yes, and you can make a straightforward logical deduction from survival rates to delaying diagnosis which I left out, but detail it below: 1. From Data: Assume equal or worse cancer rates in the US and similar levels of cures across US and Europe (cancer rates are indeed worse in the US and Europe does have good cancer treatment on par with US) 2. OP claimed: People delay diagnosis in the US 2a. From data/science: Delayed diagnosis => Higher death rate 3. Deduction from 1 and 2, and 2a.: Higher death rate in the US 4. Data: Lower death rate in the US 5. Contradiction: 3 and 4 6. Reductio: We have a contradiction. We have to negate one of our assumptions or more. We can't throw away data, so we can only throw away OP's claim (2). I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.
- aspenmayer 11mo ago
  Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines. > I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that. We aren’t talking about population-level statistics in this thread, but rather a specific named individual meeting their personal healthcare costs, so your point is off-topic, not OP’s.
  - tptacek 11mo ago
    Both of you are hashing something out that 'dang has already called out as off-topic across the thread.
    - aspenmayer 11mo ago
      Dang has told me more than once to let the mods do the moderating and to not hash it out amongst ourselves, as it steps on their toes and makes any enforcement by mods seem selective. Email and/or flag, and move along. I don’t work here, and neither do you, so let’s both agree to disagree on it being on-topic or not, as it’s not my place to speak for dang or the other mods, and it’s not yours either, for that matter.
      - gnabgib 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        aspenmayer 11mo ago
        They should say so in their bio, and they should not speak for each other, and so on. It’s messy and unprofessional as it is, and big if true. I don’t appreciate you jumping into the thread to dogpile either, but you do you.
        tptacek 11mo ago
        I'm not a moderator.
        aspenmayer 11mo ago
        I appreciate you saying so; dang also replied to my email to that effect. Hopefully the other folks get the memo, though I understand that you can’t reply to them directly, as their comment is [flagged] and [dead]. For my own sake, I apologize to everyone, and to you directly, tptacek, for the way this thread took a weird turn; it was illuminating in its own way.