Comment by aspenmayer

Comment by aspenmayer 2 days 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 2 days 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.

Reply View 9 replies

aspenmayer 2 days 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.

Reply View | 8 replies
- tptacek 2 days ago
  
  Both of you are hashing something out that 'dang has already called out as off-topic across the thread.
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  aspenmayer 2 days 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.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
- thesmtsolver a day 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.
  No. I really wish you would have bravely responded to the points rather than accuse me. Do the guidelines encourage or discourage good faith arguments?
  That "numbered list" is called a proof or argument. My PhD was in mathematical logic (see my user name).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
  https://people.cs.pitt.edu/~milos/courses/cs441/lectures/Cla...
  An AI accusation on top of misrepresenting that the original point OP made was about population-level patterns.
  > This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place.
  I don't think it is productive for us to continue this conversation. It is really sad that minor formatting and rudimentary logic is all it takes for some people to suspect AI usage.
  Response to:
  > If you reread what I wrote, I didn’t say you were AI or not using it, merely bringing to your and the other readers’ attention that your formatting wasn’t the norm for many folks who post on this site, whereas it is the norm for many AI-generated outputs.
  Ah, the classic. "Did you beat your wife? I didn't make accusations! I am just questions!"
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  aspenmayer a day ago
  
  > An AI accusation on top of not grasping that the point OP made was about population-level patterns.
  If you reread what I wrote, I didn’t say you were AI or using it, or not, but merely bringing to your and the other readers’ attention that your formatting wasn’t the norm for many folks who post on this site, whereas it is the norm for many AI-generated outputs.
  That the conclusion you draw is one of being a victim of a false accusation, when none was laid at your feet? “A guilty conscience needs no accuser,” so they say.
  > I don't think it is productive for me to continue this conversation.
  On this point, I am full agreement. Apologies if I have upset you or wasted your time. I found your points well-reasoned but a diversion to what was supposedly already beside the point, so I will only say that two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do. All roads lead to Rome, and we got there together in the end.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies