It's unclear if mortality includes infant mortality, which is often factored out in such discussions (I assume it likely is here, but don't know). The caption should be ignored - what's being plotted is mortality per 100,000 ppl.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Also, many people have pointed out, it's not really possible to conclude (b), due to changing demographics. It'd be interesting to know.
Show this thread -
Source is Robert Gordon's book "The Rise and Fall of American Growth": https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-American-Growth-Princeton/dp/153661825X … The analysis is inspired by: http://pro-decizii-informate.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/John-and-Sonja-Mckinlay-Questionable-contribution-of-medical-measures-to-the-decline-of-mortality-1977.pdf …
Show this thread -
Nice concrete discussion of the changing demographics issue at http://xhxhxhx.tumblr.com/post/150566951252/slatestarscratchpad-prophecyformula … via
@citronhoneyteapic.twitter.com/bkaJITOImV
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Consistent with several other pieces of data (including two randomized interventions!) that all generally point toward modern medicine being about break-even on help vs harm.
-
When I start telling people my opinions about things like this they back away and unfollow me. :-}
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t think you can conclude b) unless demographics remain constant - population distribution aging and dropping birth rates mask improving medicine
-
Yup, you may well be right. I'm not sure if the data includes or excludes infant mortality (which is often excluded from this kind of chart).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
spike is 1918 influenza I guess, it is indeed an incredible chart
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.