[furyofantares]

Most interventions are for something that's not going to kill you right away, so I would guess that seeking intervention for a medical problem I'm having would increase my odds of dying right now (due to a mistake, or exposure to other wick people) while increasing my long term odds. I would not expect an increase in mortality when non-emergency doctors go on strike.

And I hope to someday live in a world where medical error is the #1 cause of death. I hope we also focus on quality of life and not just quantity -- but if medicine seeks to continue extending life then the success case is that error is essentially the only cause of death. Those articles, and especially their headlines, are sensational and misleading.

[jungletime]

There is also another possibility. If you kill of the weak, the remaining strong will show better health outcomes. And if you are a drug company, you can tout that as proof of the success of the treatment.

And I suspect that is exactly what is happening with some of these medical treatments. They take out the weakest patients (with for example chemo therapy) and the remaining stronger ones will do better. But really its a statistical effect.

Same way you can improve test scores in a class, by getting rid of students with low IQ and work ethic. All of sudden, the average test taking ability will go up.

[tdeck]

Survivor effects like you're describing are controlled for in clinical trials for chemo and other drugs by comparing outcomes for the entire control and treatment groups.