A new treatment is discovered that improves survival probability of a disease from 85 percent to 95 percent. Discuss the different ways a researcher might look at these results versus the way that the marketing department might discuss them. What is the difference in the way you would view a new treatment that improves survival probability by the same absolute magnitude from 5 percent to 15 percent

A treatment that improves the chances of survival from 85% to 95% is a great improvement if we consider it either ways because most treatment are within this ranges coupled with how complex the human body can be and it's variance with how it responds to drugs on each individuals system.

Explanation:

A treatment that improves the chances of survival from 85% to 95% is a great improvement if we consider it either ways because most treatment are within this ranges coupled with how complex the human body can be and it's variance with how it responds to drugs on each individuals system.

The researchers would carry out more research to ensure the drugs is safe for the human system and it would be tested on a few person's as samples before advising it to be taken by the majority.

The marketers seeing it's almost safe to take would begin campaigning to get the audience to know about these drug and how improved it is from previous ones.

A treatment that has improved from 5% to 15% is a good increase and might be what would cure totally the majority and severe cases for which it was produced.

the maintenance of fluid balance during exercise. author information: fluid supplementation is necessary for exercise in which fluid losses must be offset by intake to avoid the negative effects of hypohydration on health and performance.