"3 in 4 people attend cervical screening"

[MoltenLasagne]

Some good news from Yorkshire Cancer Research that apparently not only are 100% of women attending cervical screening, but 50% of men must be too.

Incredible performance, job done. 👏

Well because women are people.

Still doesn't make it true, in the same way it's also not "broadly correct" that "3 out of 4 animals attend cervical screening", or "50% of people are over 5'9"".

A percentage of people will be women, the rest will be men and children.
So if 75 percent are getting smears (and I imagine 100 % of women aren't) , that's a lot of extra men and children.

Oh good point, what about children?! These people are so dumb.

more than all the women must be attending

I know we've all expanded since lockdown, perhaps we've all grown ourselves by around 33%?

😂

So because women are people too then it is necessarily true that 150% of people are over 6 foot?

this kind of turning facts into garbage is enraging.

not to mention I believe there are some circumstances where women without a cervix need checking - if they’ve had it removed due to a bad smear or cancer, and something else too.

Remember when the cultural narrative celebrated women and being a woman?

5 years ago:

Not the main point here, but I think they'd also be better to include (or revert to) the term 'smear test'. Short words are more likely to be read and remembered than a multi-syllable term.

[I once had to check whether a health report sentence saying
'Consideration should also be given as to whether the correlation between lower intellectual capacity and overt ingestion of exterior-environment surface contaminants in juveniles might in effect be a reverse correlation as regards cause and effect'
really meant
'Do thick kids eat more mud?'
My boss didn't let it into the final report -- but did grant that that was exactly what they'd meant.]

Do thick kids eat more mud?

Those older women who are known to be hard-to-reach? This. Is. Not. Going. To. Help.
(Handy 2019 research paper on why said women don’t attend cervical screenings.)

As a bonus, Knowledge of cervical cancer and attendance at cervical cancer screening: a survey of Black women in London.
As the BLACHIR Report explains in detail, health inequality is a painfully real thing - & for some reason the NHS & charities that supposedly focus on women’s health are ok with making it worse not better.

Would be so nice if we could focus on lifesaving healthcare for 51% of the population wouldn’t it? You know, actually, literally, non-hyperbolically lifesaving.

Rule number 1 of marketing: Define your market, get it wrong and you will not reach them!

3 in 4 people, eh? Must be rather a waste of time for some of them.

1 in 10 are affected by endometriosis in Wales apparently. This is very worrying as everywhere else it's 1 in 10 women.

"We want to ensure you get the treatment you deserve." Only people who already know what endometriosis is deserve treatment, clearly. (If I remember rightly, this was posted on IWD this year, which was particularly annoying.)

Just to clarify that my posts were about Sainsbury's announcement that 50% of people experience menopause. Yes, 50% of people are women, but they don't use the word women. Personally, from a public health perspective, I would be saying that all women will go through menopause. Not 50% of "people". It is clearer. But we have to pretend that men can also be women. So language has to be mangled.
Sorry for adding confusion to your thread, OP.

Jaysus @foodfiend - they couldn’t even manage, in their panic, the inaccurate-disingenuous “people” so left it at around 1 in 10 are affected by it, which naturally begs the question “1 in 10 what?” Female grey-cheeked mangabeys or rhesus monkeys, perhaps? Admittedly they’re offering NHS treatment so probably not; but the failure to specify they mean persons of the female sex means they might as well be counting in said primates (& the other species who are known to get endo, poor things) frankly.

It’s an absolute embarrassment & a shameful failure in terms of what’s needed from public health messaging. A tiny TINY number of female people are unhappy being referred to as women. The answer is an asterisk leading to a footnote “and trans men”. People who identify as non-binary need to be provided with help to understand that for healthcare purposes, there is no “third option”. At the moment there are people horrified & outraged at being referred to as male/female a man/woman (as applicable) because they consider their non-binary identity moves them completely outside said classifications. That simply cannot, beyond using they/them pronouns, work within healthcare. Cancer doesn’t care how you identify; & it matters which variety of “non binary” you are because the one requires cervical screening & the other doesn’t - but they are at risk of developing testicular cancer & prostate cancer, which their opposite numbers cannot. (But breast cancer for EVERYONE, obviously. Breast cancer is inclusive like that.)