Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

matthewisabel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

#81

Post by cantrevealname »

yen223 wrote: post #75
pg wrote: post #2

One interesting thing I learned from this is how highly correlated mortality from heart disease and cancer are. They're quite different types of disease, but perhaps what they have in common is that they're diseases of civilization in the sense of being caused by de facto "toxins" (I don't mean this literally) of industrialized life like processed foods, lack of exercise, cigarettes, etc. Is there local data about po…

My totally unscientific pet theory is that if you somehow managed to survive long enough, eventually you will succumb to cancer or heart disease. So places with high cancer/heart disease rates might simply be places with the best healthcare system!

That's a good observation but right at the top of the chart it says, "DATA AGE-ADJUSTED AND PER 100,000 PERSONS (2010)". If it's adjusted for age, then I think your theory wouldn't apply.

Re: Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

#83

Post by ars »

crystaln wrote: post #69
gilgoomesh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think suicide is prevented by HIV – the two maps seem to be nearly complete opposites.

HIV correlates with sexual activity, which seems likely to have a negative correlation with suicide. People who are getting laid are happier.

I wouldn't say that. People who are in steady relationships are happier, and those have less HIV risk.

People who bounce for person to person might be having fun, but long term and not usually happier.

Re: Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

#86

Post by kybernetikos »

Houshalter wrote: post #82

It's interesting, but I want to know, as a young individual what is likely to kill me? I want to know where I should put my efforts towards not dying.

So it's actually even worse than that - you need to know not only what will stand a good chance of killing you, but what is sensitive to intervention too. You need a causal link that you can break, not just correlation and that's so hard to research that there's much less known about it.

For example, studies tell us that sitting more than three hours per day correlates with a reduced life expectancy: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/09/study-excessi... but that doesn't tell you that if you take someone who is sitting that much and make them stop it'll make any difference at all.

Re: Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

#87

Post by Houshalter »

kybernetikos wrote: post #86
Houshalter wrote: post #82

It's interesting, but I want to know, as a young individual what is likely to kill me? I want to know where I should put my efforts towards not dying.

So it's actually even worse than that - you need to know not only what will stand a good chance of killing you, but what is sensitive to intervention too. You need a causal link that you can break, not just correlation and that's so hard to research that there's much less known about it. For example, studies tell us that sitting more than three hours per day correlates with a reduced life expectancy: http://www.usnew…

Right but it's evidence towards the hypothesis "standing for three hours will increase your life span". It seems less likely that people who live longer are inherently more likely to stand.

But yes I see your point. A lot of pop science "doing X will help you live longer" strikes me as complete bullshit.

Re: Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

#88

Post by kybernetikos »

Houshalter wrote: post #87
kybernetikos wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's actually even worse than that - you need to know not only what will stand a good chance of killing you, but what is sensitive to intervention too. You need a causal link that you can break, not just correlation and that's so hard to research that there's much less known about it. For example, studies tell us that sitting more than three hours per day correlates with a reduced life expectancy: http://www.usnew…

Right but it's evidence towards the hypothesis "standing for three hours will increase your life span". It seems less likely that people who live longer are inherently more likely to stand. But yes I see your point. A lot of pop science "doing X will help you live longer" strikes me as complete bullshit.

You're quite right of course (although actually, it seems very plausible to me that fit people are more likely to stand more / choose jobs where they will stand more) My comment was mainly out of the frustration I have because so many interventions are very difficult to do and so I want good confidence that they will actually make a difference, but most research just gives you at best strong correlations.

Still, I've got a standing desk now...

Re: Show HN: Mortality Rates in the US Visualized

#90

Post by thaumasiotes »

ekianjo wrote: post #35
dubfan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to firearms may play some part, but the rates of death due to firearm injury is high in the South which has relatively low suicide rates. Perhaps religious/cultural attitudes play a part? That wouldn't account for Utah though.

Interestingly Alaska has the highest death rate by Firearms. Anyone can propose a rationale for that?

in addition to your other replies, I think it's worth pointing out that in Canada the native populations have an elevated suicide rate. It wouldn't be at all surprising for that to be true in Alaska too.
Post reply on HN