2 ms·
Child mortality rates were over 40% in 1800, so yeah, even a child had to be lucky to get cancer in the past.
by ImaCake 2y ago
Child mortality rates were over 40% in 1800, so yeah, even a child had to be lucky to get cancer in the past.
- dredmorbius 2y agoI suspect the numbers were quite high far more recently than that. From a Reddit post, noting the inflection point occurs at 1900 rather than 1800: <https://www.reddit.com/r/rootsofprogress/comments/esgqsv/infant_mortality_rates_in_england_wales_18401970/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rootsofprogress/comments/esgqsv/inf...> Chart is sourced from: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2173395?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2173395?seq=1> The other thought that I've had is that we're exerting far less selective pressure on huamn infants now than a century or so ago, at least in modernised countries. By which I mean both rich and middle-income countries, as well as quite a few poorer ones which do have basic sanitation, hygiene, and healthcare availability. It's the first increment which matters far more than the last.