| ▲ | alistairSH 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reducing deaths is great, but shouldn’t they also mention the reduction in treatment (which is usually surgical or chemo, both of which are massively expensive, traumatic, and life altering in negative ways). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zeristor an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The people that died there's the numbers for that, but the people that didn't need treatment in the first place. Not just a reduction in trauma but freeing up Drs to treat other cancers too. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | apparent 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They could do that, but given how low the base rate is, the reduction in number of procedures (and the resulting negative impacts on the women) would be incredibly low. It seems the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||