3 ms·
I would be much more interested in a breakdown by age group with a representation of how large a percent of the total that represents. It seems to me that as w
by aero142 14y ago
I would be much more interested in a breakdown by age group with a representation of how large a percent of the total that represents. It seems to me that as we age, we have to die of something. I would be a lot more interested in why we die young.
Edit: Here is something close http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCD-Age-Grp-US-2009-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCD-Age-Grp-US-2009-...
- excuse-me 14y agoThe big change in death rate is due to stopping infectious diseases among infants. The causes of death among older people is trickier because of changes in medical reporting procedures. Somebody who 50years ago would have died of "old age" now has to have a reported cause of death. Since the ultimate cause of death is stopping breathing/heart stopping - you get a lot of cases of 90+year olds who die of pneumonia / heart failure. This tends to get reported in the press as "massive rise in heart disease"
- aero142 14y agoYes. This is exactly why I wasn't happy with the original. If people live to be 90 and die of heart disease, that is a huge victory. In the chart I linked, it shows that cancer and heart disease start being the number 1 and 2 killers at 45-64, which seems like that is an important group to address. However, if more people start making it to 95 and dying of "heart disease", we are probably better off researching safer cars than cancer.
- MaysonL 14y agoThe big change in death rate is due to stopping infectious diseases among infants. And also deaths in and following childbirth.