6 ms·

> population over the age of 65 has grown around 33% in the last 10 years Which strikingly echoes GP's "birth rate went from 19/1000 to 27/1000 between 1935 an

> population over the age of 65 has grown around 33% in the last 10 years Which strikingly echoes GP's "birth rate went from 19/1000 to 27/1000 between 1935 and 1946". But 10 years too late ? I'm confused maybe.

ddeck 6y ago
The data was intended to back up the GP's point, pointing out the growth in the underlying population of those diagnosed very closely mirrors the growth in number diagnosed.
- alcover 6y ago
  I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000
  - nanis 6y ago
    > I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000 Good point. I believe I was thinking about 75. 65 crept in because I was also going to mention that at the beginning of the US Social Security program (1935), the assumption was no one lived much beyond 65. Here is a table that might cast light on the diagnosis of Parkinson's by age: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/1251178 https://academic.oup.com/view-large/1251178 Note population pyramids for 2000[1], 2010[2], and 2020[3]. [1]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2000/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [2]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2010/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [3]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2020/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
    - alcover 6y ago
      Thank you. Your population links are fascinating. Going [1]->[2]->[3] shows that the real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960.
      - nanis 6y ago
        > real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960. There is a boom in birth rates which remains sustained high for about 10 years. However, the conditions of early childhood environment keep improving along with a reduction the hazard of early death. The 1945 cohort does end up being hit by the Vietnam war whereas people born in the 60s do not face any of that. Population numbers reflect who survived.

ddeck 6y ago

The data was intended to back up the GP's point, pointing out the growth in the underlying population of those diagnosed very closely mirrors the growth in number diagnosed.

alcover 6y ago
I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000
- nanis 6y ago
  > I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000 Good point. I believe I was thinking about 75. 65 crept in because I was also going to mention that at the beginning of the US Social Security program (1935), the assumption was no one lived much beyond 65. Here is a table that might cast light on the diagnosis of Parkinson's by age: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/1251178 https://academic.oup.com/view-large/1251178 Note population pyramids for 2000[1], 2010[2], and 2020[3]. [1]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2000/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [2]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2010/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [3]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2020/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
  - alcover 6y ago
    Thank you. Your population links are fascinating. Going [1]->[2]->[3] shows that the real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960.
    - nanis 6y ago
      > real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960. There is a boom in birth rates which remains sustained high for about 10 years. However, the conditions of early childhood environment keep improving along with a reduction the hazard of early death. The 1945 cohort does end up being hit by the Vietnam war whereas people born in the 60s do not face any of that. Population numbers reflect who survived.