3 ms·
Ugh, the fact that many of these charts show raw # of deaths versus deaths/100k really masks how much things have improved. In 1968, the population was 64% of
by webwright 12y ago
Ugh, the fact that many of these charts show raw # of deaths versus deaths/100k really masks how much things have improved. In 1968, the population was 64% of our current population... So a flat line is actually a pretty massive improvement.
- zerohm 12y agoYeah, agreed. The graphs looked great, but it was difficult to cull important comparisons.
- brown9-2 12y agoThanks for mentioning this, I was confused about statements like "death from heart disease has become less prevalent" while the chart showed a horizontal line.
- shutupalready 12y agoThank you, so THAT'S why in the 10th slide it says, "cancer and heart disease have become much less deadly over the years", but the data in the graph says the opposite? I.e., the graph in slide #10 says: Cancer in 1990 killed 40422, but in 2010, 50962. Heart disease in 1990 killed 36545, but in 2010, 45783. That seems like cancer and heart disease have become worse, not less deadly over the years. That slide is baffling unless you realize that the population must have increased significantly between 1990 and 2010.
- dekhn 12y agoIn short: more people die of cancer and heart disease now that communicable diseases are more under control in first world countries. The AIDS death epidemic was the rare exception. Graphs like this are misleading and it's often difficult to collect all the raw data to do the datacube aggregations across multiple dimensions to visualize the data and understand these sorts of details.
- MaysonL 12y agoAlso, the population was older in 2010, and older people are much more likely to die of cancer and heart disease.