Case 1: A person is subjected to severe coercion to utter words contrary to faith while remaining inwardly firm in belief. This is an illustration of concession with the underlying prohibition remaining. The distinction between speech and belief, and the merit of steadfastness, matter.
Case 2: A person is close to death from hunger and has no adequate lawful food available. Consuming a life-saving limited amount of otherwise prohibited food concerns concession through permissibility. Refusing that means and choosing death does not carry the same judgment as in the first case.
The two situations cannot be evaluated correctly if their decisive legal difference is ignored.