RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:can we talk about potential numbers on the Logs in the Fire You honestly still don't understand?
I didn't say they would lose less, I said they would lose very little more since the cancer testing brought in such a small amount of revenue. A 25% decrease of an already small number doesn't make much of a difference.
If they lost $2.7m with "50% capacity" (100% = $50k rev), that means that their losses WITH NO TESTING AT ALL would have been 2.7m + (0.5 * 50k) = $2.725m. But since they received 25k (50% of 50k) in revenue, their losses were $2.7m.
If they then have an additional decrease of capacity, so they only have 25%, that would mean that their revenue from the testing during that quarter would be (0.25 * 50k). So if you then assume that they would have had the same losses WITH NO TESTING AT ALL as in the previous quarter, their losses would be: $2.725 - (0.25 * 50k) = $2.7125
Please tell me you understand now.