4 ms·

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 numb

• alcover 5y ago
  I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000
  • nanis 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.