Worldwide Deaths, by Cause & Age, 1990 v. 2016
Here’s a fascinating graph from an article in the Lancet:
Click to embiggen. (The figure should show deaths all the way to >95 years)
The graph is a bit complicated at first, but it will convey some interesting information if you stare at it. What jumps out at me is how many more people were dying under age 25 in 1990 than in 2016. The number of deaths in 2016 v. 1990 increased dramatically for those above 25, particularly among the older cohorts. Simply put, a lot of people are living a lot longer.
Look at the vertical axis again. It’s not a per capita measure, but an absolute number of measure of deaths… e.g. a population measure and the population has grow worldwide since 1990 to 2016.
Simply put you don’t know what you’re talking about again.
Here is the entire post beyond mentioning where the graph was from and suggesting that it be embiggened for easy viewing:
Where’s the discussion of per capita or share of the population or proportion? Now let’s unpack the “discussion” portion of the festivities, which amounted to three sentences. Here’s the first:
This is entirely correct. For every age cohort until 20-24, deaths were greater in 1990 than in 2016. Is there anything there about per capita?
Then there’s the next sentence:
Now look at the graph. Unlike for the under 25 cohorts, the over 25 cohorts deaths are greater in 2016 than in 1990. No mention of per capita here either.
Anything incorrect here? Anything about per capita?
I’m just curious. What is the benefit you derive from this strawman by proxy routine you keep trying to play with me?
For Whom The Bell Tolls
When you make statements of opinion that’s just fine by me.
When you make statements of opinion cloaked in or as if they are statements of fact which can’t be supported by what you posts or leave out other critical information (selective basis for propaganda) in what you post then it’s’ misleading at least and lying at most,.
So since I don’t condone lies or intentional misleading, or event unintentional errors I post to correct or at least shed more light on the subject or provide perspective which gives a different impression that the misleading or lying leaves.
Since you post frequently on a public forum and stage and frequently (or perhaps always.. I don’t keep counts) with misleading information and highly selective “data” which you intend to support your opinion stated as if it’s fact or even “near fact”, then I take offense on the same public stage on which you post.
If you post your opinion, stated as opinion rather than as if it’s fact, and if I disagree with that opinion I make my opinion known to count as one who disagrees, and i support my reasons for disagreement with your opinion.as well.
We can only have public effect by voting and by speech. I strongly believe we should make our opinions known and especially in a group or public forum when a speaker’s opinion differs from our own. When doing so, however, I believe it is incumbent and necessary to explain or support the reason for an opposing opinion.
As it just happens, Mr. Kimel, your posts are an egregious example of both of my above reasons. a) Lying or intentionally misleading selective information, or b) an opinion I disagree with.
And I must say that I’ve found in my experience that the frequency of these reasons of my countering others is always because the others are conservatives or are supporting conservative principles or propaganda, so you are, from what you post, actually a conservative. In fact I have a close relative who is an avowed strong conservative and we’ve had frequent friendly debates and discussions over time.
So I am quite familiar with and recognize the dramatic similarities in your opinions and methods of persuading by selective information and statements as if they are fact but aren’t..
on your posted conclusions:
“Simply put, a lot of people are living a lot longer.”
It’s true that a lot of people in advanced nations and Brics are now living longer than they did.
It’s also the case that the population has grown a lot in nearly all nations on the globe.
The data you provided is numbers of deaths.
If the population grows then numbers of deaths increase, all other things equal.
But all other things aren’t equal. Chief among them is that those under 25, and especially under 5, have benefited from dramatically improved distribution of health care and medicines at far lower prices., so we would expect the younger population to have fewer deaths despite growing population.
For those who are aged or aging health care has improved somewhat and certainly extended lives and I don’t debate that and didn’t make any statement to the contrary, express or implied.
But the data you showed cannot be concluded to support or show that the reason for more deaths at > 25 (or any age for that matter) is due to longer lives UNLESS the population size has remained constant or grown at a slower rate than the proportional increase in the number of deaths.
And for each age group there’s no evidence shown to support that the population has remained constant or that it’s grown at a proportionally lower rate than the growth rate in number of deaths.
Therefore a conclusion that starts with “simply put” and for which there is zero evidence provided for the conclusion you drew as fact, when it isn’t even close to fact, indicates either:
1. You misinterpreted the chart metrics by oversight or carelessness — always a possibility.
2. You are unaware that the global population has increased by a lot — which can only be due to pure ignorance or by intentionally ignoring it as having any relevance.
3. You believe improved healthcare or other factors for people over 25 has increased their lifespan or survival rates by a greater proportion than the population has increased.
Item 1 is negated by the fact that you stated “numbers of people”
Item 2 has two possibilities: Ignorance or intent to ignore. I assume you aren’t ignorant of the fact that the global population has grown a lot since you are a) literate, b) highly educated, c) read a lot of stuff. Therefore you intentionally ignored population growth.
Item 3 (your belief)i is supported by the conclusion in item 2). .. you’re not ignorant that population has grown.
So you made a statement of fact, as if it’s a simply easily recognizable fact, (e.g. your preface, “simply put”) when it has no bearing in fact at all by what you posted or stated.
You could have concluded to be accurate and without lying or misleading: .
“it’s possible that the > 25 year old increase in death rates is simply due to population growth, or it may be due solely to improved survival rates extending deaths to a later age of those > 25 for healthcare or other reasons, or it may be due to some combination of both. To know how much is due to what reasons, we would have to know the increase in global population size, but I leave that up to the reader to obtain.”.
Or you could have stated an opinion, such as:
“It’s my opinion that the increase in number of deaths of those > 25 is due to increased longevity rather than increase in population size alone.”
Of course had you made such opinion the comments would have asked why you think population size wasn’t the reason for increased deaths over 25 and then you’d have had to some homework to defend your opinion… or perhaps somebody else would have provided the proportion in population growth and shown that your opinion needed to be corrected by the facts, or that the fact supported your opinion, leaving you exposed to a possible loss of credibility.
if you want to do the scaling required to find out how much of the growth in deaths from 1990 to 2016 is due to population growth and how much is longevity
You can start with this graphic of global population. That isn’t sufficient since you need the age demographic breakdown of population growth by age groups. … but it’s a start if you want to post facts rather than opinion stated as if its fact.
OK. I’m trying to unpack your comments.
The 11:47 AM comment seems to state I am a lying liar. My favorite methods of lying are by omission and stating my opinions as fact. And, I am a conservative.
Then we get to the 12:40 PM comment.
You lead off by making it clear that you disagree with this:
Then you go through a few paragraphs of buffoonery cleverly disguised as illogic which involves the idea I am ignoring a very likely scenario which involves the median age being greater in 1990 than in 2015 while, simultaneously, the following facts are given:
1. the population is larger in 2015 than in 1990
2. more people died young in 1990 than in 2015
3. more people died old in 2015 than in 1990
The reason I avoided covering that unlikely but mathematically feasible possibility is that I was well aware of the sine qua non of that argument being false. Since you accuse me of lying by omission, here’s what I didn’t feel it necessary to state: according to the UN, the median age around the world went from 24 in 1990 to 29.6 in 2015. (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=PopDiv&f=variableID%3A41)
I said population size change was ignorned… not age change .. what the f…? .. you now insert age change as a basis for your statement … you still have no idea whether or to what degree most of the greater deaths are due to simply population growth or not
You are using the technique known as “misdirection”. I’m done with this topic and your bs..