[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Cutlass]

Yeah, I got the central Canadian provinces. But I still haven't got the northern Canadian territories. Few people, but I'm not aware of any resource boom there.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not so much a boom as in just a very high leveraging of the population that's there into resource extraction.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Doesn't Northern Canada have high-value mineral resources such as gold and diamond?

 

[Takhisis]

"Dark green areas are countries that have confirmed human cases of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and light green are countries that have bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases."
<snipped pic>

I'm curious whether this map says more about the incidence of the disease or the diagnostic capability of various countries.

Erm, the Falklands have mad cow disease?

 

[Tee Kay]

Erm, the Falklands have mad cow disease?

Apparently

 

[Tahuti]

Apparently

Quick, give it to Argentina!

 

[Takhisis]

They'd construe it as biological warfare. The US might invade and ship everyone to Guantanamo.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I know this is tongue-in-cheek and all but I'd bet deliberately spreading something like that to another country would be interpreted as biological warfare by the international community.

 

[Little Faith]

It would be odd for a disease to be that localized. Sweden and Denmark, but not Norway?

The disease vector for BSE (as well as all the other spongiform encephalopathies) is the ingestion of brain or other parts of the central nervous system of infected individuals. The risk is much higher if it comes from a closely related species.
The problem is that animal feed is often fortified with bonemeal that might very well come from an animal of the same species.
Back when the BSE panic broke out this practice was, of course, banned, but it might be that Norway have been more successful in maintaining the ban.

 

[madviking]

French male mortality:

 

[Monsterzuma]

awesome graph.

- world war bulges

- infant mortility fall

- not much life expectancy gain for non-infants :[

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Death rates increase with age.
Childbirth and typical young male behaviour (centered at 20) are both hazardous.
General decrease for all groups over the century, especially in children.
Sudden spikes in the ~18-45 category for wars fought on French soil.
High variability for centenarians (small sample?).

Are there any other trends I'm missing?

- not much life expectancy gain for non-infants :[

It's log death rate, not life expectancy.

 

[Mise]

In any case, the death rate clearly decreases quite substantially from ~1950s onwards. The past 3 decades sees a HUGE decrease. The latter suggests methodological issues to me, but the decrease from 1950 is still noticeable and significant. Not sure how you can say there's not much life expectancy gain for adults when the line shifts downwards so dramatically over such a short period of time.

 

[Masada]

Are there any other trends I'm missing?

Nope, that's smack on.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm feeling that the death rate and life expectancy are two separate functions, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why.

 

[El_Machinae]

They're totally interconnected, obviously, so separating them on this issue is not intuitive. If the scale were measuring vastly different things, it would probably be easier.

 

[Monsterzuma]

In any case, the death rate clearly decreases quite substantially from ~1950s onwards. The past 3 decades sees a HUGE decrease. The latter suggests methodological issues to me, but the decrease from 1950 is still noticeable and significant. Not sure how you can say there's not much life expectancy gain for adults when the line shifts downwards so dramatically over such a short period of time.

we can argue all day on the definition of "much" or "dramatically" (really?). suffice to say the life expectancy gain for people who are already in adulthood is nowhere near as much as the general LE figure suggests and this graph nicely demonstrates why.

 

[tokala]

suffice to say the life expectancy gain for people who are already in adulthood is nowhere near as much as the general LE figure suggests and this graph nicely demonstrates why.

Yep.
If you talk to people who haven't already done some thinking on the topic, there is almost invariably the misconception that "life expectancy X" is somehow synonymous with "people didn't get older than X".
Which isn't far off for modern society, but gets dramatically wrong if you have the huge child mortality of pre-modern societies, and maybe a significant accident hump (more like soldier/warrior hump) on top of that.

 

[peter grimes]

And it's important to remember that actuarily (is that a word??) your life expectancy at age x is not at all the same as your life expectancy at n(x). For example, early childhood disease may take 1/10th of the population. So an infant's LE will be low. But once the child gets past the minefield of early infection, the LE rises dramatically. A 10 year old's LE will be much higher than her same LE 9 years earlier.

So is it useful to think of Mortality rate as a sort of inverse of the Life Expectancy? I'm still befuddled.

 

[tokala]

And it's important to remember that actuarily (is that a word??) your life expectancy at age x is not at all the same as your life expectancy at n(x). For example, early childhood disease may take 1/10th of the population. So an infant's LE will be low. But once the child gets past the minefield of early infection, the LE rises dramatically. A 10 year old's LE will be much higher than her same LE 9 years earlier.

I don't think this is a particularly good example.
You would have a LE of about 90% of that without child mortality. So at 10, your (remaining) LE will be actually slightlly lower than at birth.
But take a child mortality like 30% or even more, and it will work.

So is it useful to think of Mortality rate as a sort of inverse of the Life Expectancy? I'm still befuddled.

It can't be a simple relation, you probably need to consider sums over the mortality rate function.