There's many ways you can rephrase it and still be correct, mind you.
You might be hang up on the additional narrative attached to the word “minority”. Consider using “underpriviledged ethnic group", as a. not even today all ethnic groups are equal and b. it is entirely possible some other ethnic group to raise to demographic majority status, and still exhibit the socioeconomic characteristics of a poor population.
>You might be hang up on the additional narrative attached to the word “minority”.
You can't separate words from their "additional narratives" and expect all people to understand what you're attempting to convey. The context and connotation around words is absolutely necessary for communication, and to eschew it leads to poorer communication.
If you're no longer country's minority, you cannot be majority-minority.
It's important to match the demographics of the population with the demographics of trial users. It's important to prevent as many deaths as we can.
It's important to account for differences between groups when you're developing healthcare.
But please, don't mangle mathematical terms.
You have just demonstrated what is called "attribution of intention" (as in you attributed an intention to the other person), which is a good indicator of a conversation going south.
(More general bias is "attribution bias")
HN guideline:
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.