4 ms·

Reasonable question. There appears to be a shift in the relative incidence rates based on age since 2000 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fulla

Reasonable question. There appears to be a shift in the relative incidence rates based on age since 2000 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2754716 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle...). Skin cancer rates were always weighted towards older (average age at detection is ~65), but at the same time skin cancers are one of the more common cancers found in young people. Since 2000 where appears to be a decrease in incidence of younger ages, and an increase of those at older ages. EDIT: Just to add on, I don't know if this age shift effect accounts for everything, but I think it's interesting and relevant.

jandrese 4y ago
Are you suggesting that the skin cancer rates are a lagging indicator and the explosion in cases is the result of the lax attitudes of a few decades ago as described in the article? One thing the article didn't mention is that even just 30 years ago sunscreens were nowhere near as effective as they are today. SPF 15 was extremely common and 30 was kinda rare and usually left you looking like you were whitewashed. Today it's nothing at all to find SPF 50 on the shelf. And if you use them properly they actually work, unlike some of the formulations of old. You can be out in the direct sun all afternoon and still come in still mostly pale.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > Are you suggesting that the skin cancer rates are a lagging indicator and the explosion in cases is the result of the lax attitudes of a few decades ago as described in the article? That seems logical, skin cancer is not a next-day result of overexposure, sunburn is.