Current Events > It's interesting. When talking about cancer, people cite 'survival rates'.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Cancer and other diseases, you hear "Oh that has a 60% survival rate." "This type of cancer has a 50% survival rate." It's spun more positively.

But then talking about coronavirus, everyone refers to the "mortality rate". Citing it has a "2% mortality rate" instead of a 98% survival rate."



---

why is it interesting?

Fam_Fam posted...

why is it interesting?

Cuz it demonstrates two completely different frames of mind.

Both are super quick ways to give a broad prognosis for diseases. But one focuses on hope and being positive (i.e. the odds you'll survive) while one focuses completely on the negative (i.e. the odds you will die).

Do you think people would be panicking as much if news outlets reported a 98% survival rate instead of a 2% mortality rate?

---

cancer has been around for decades, and if not treated soon enough is usually a guaranteed death sentence (which is the case for me, unfortunately). so it's more "the devil you know" in some aspects.

plus, cancer isn't transmissible. so it's not like you're gonna catch bone cancer from, hypothetically speaking, your brother who is diagnosed with it.

---

It is slightly interesting, but I guess they're two fundamentally different beasts, with the latter being infectious and being able to spread quickly. You also only have the latter for like 2 weeks, while you can have cancer for years, and it can come back.

Basically, cancer is typically about the long game, while Coronavirus is a more immediate concern.

Cancers not contagious you dingus

---

Yeah when we talk about mortality rate it's usually focused on populations. Survival rate feels more like someone talking to an individual.

---

refmon posted...

Cancers not contagious you dingus

California would like to inform you topics on ce have been known to cause cancer.

---