[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
To me it says that the US is becoming more politically polarized, over the past two decades.
 
Well, I wonder why's that. I doubt it's about the fact we can almost instantly communicate, or that the non-Internet media is slowly getting more and more desperate.
 
I don't know why it is. It certainly seems to be a long-term trend, though. (Assuming the methodology and data are valid and correct.)

It could be a reflection of the increasing levels of inequality, and also poverty, in the US. But that's just me speculating.
 
Also keep in mind that the Conservative South used to be Democratic, so that even the playing field with some of each ideology in each party. Nowadays there are very few Democratic holds in the South (If any), so the parties themselves are better at distinguishing themselves.

I think it was 2012 that NC was thoroughly dominated by Republican politics (since Reconstruction), but NC has been conservative since forever ago.
 
Cancers, endocrine, and skin diseases overrepresented in research compared to their global burden. Not enough for infectious diseases, the most burdensome of them all.
Spoiler :
 
Cancers, endocrine, and skin diseases overrepresented in research compared to their global burden. Not enough for infectious diseases, the most burdensome of them all.
Spoiler :

As usual, it's a result of the research and money going to the diseases suffered by those with the money. Same reason that erectile dysfunction gets more attention than malaria.
 
You cannot practically fight outbreaks in extremely poor areas so minimizing the effects of infectious diseases is nearly impossible without modernizing (good luck with that).

Based on that graph though mental disorders should be given way more priority, 2nd highest among everything there and does heavily affect counties that have that capacity to do something about it.
 
Please tell me you are joking or that is apocryphal.

Hmm. Yeah, I'm probably wrong about that one, actually. It was an opinion I got from observing the ceaseless barrage of ED pill ads on the radio, TV, and magazines. I've seen some news sites claim that $2 billion get spent annually on hair restoration per year vs. $547 million per year for malaria. Not sure if it's true.

But it does at least seem likely that medical research would follow the money, and since first-world people have more money to throw at their first-world problems than third-world people have to throw at third-world problems, I thought that maybe those minor issues get more funding. Maybe they do, I dunno.
 
How much got spent developing Viagra?

What are "intentional injuries"? Gun shot wounds, for instance?
 
I presume it would be war- and crime-related incidents. I'll check the paper closer when I get home.
 
The pace of change.

ydyryby3.jpg
 
Would be nice to see the derivative of that, how close does it get to 1?
 
But it does at least seem likely that medical research would follow the money.

It will always follow the money. We cannot work for free, at least, not for very long.
There are three major funding sources.
the gov't
the charities
Pharma.

The gov't actually does a pretty good job spreading around the money. They're under a mandate to play a defensive game if there is some type of socialized healthcare system, but that makes sense.

Charities are based on popularity for a variety of reasons. Basically, you need to get people worried in between their first kids and before they have grandkids. It's why schizophrenia is so unfunded, you miss the windows, because you were too old when it strikes and too useless for anyone to really think "oh! that could happen to my kids!". Along these lines, leukemia is viewed as a childhood disease and gets pretty good funding. Breast and prostate cancer get funded reasonably well. Colorectal Cancer? Not so much. Ewy, just like those depressed people.

Once people have loved ones with any disease, they tend to start fundraising. Fundraising generates the most dollars per manhour invested. Just asking people for money (to give) goes a long way.

Pharma only gets involved if they predict they can make money. Fair enough, but they look at disease incidence/prevalence and how much money the patients can afford. And, they tend to wait until a ton of legwork has already been done.
 
Looks like (sin(x))/x to me. But I'm only guessing.

No. That's wrong, isn't it?

I'll have to look it up.
 
Too much eel pie?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom