You must log in or register to comment.
Would be interesting to see 1800 controlled for child mortality.
This is less interesting than standard deviation, percentage living to 50/60/70/80, or life expectancy for men/women and at 1/5/18 years old though, as the issue here is it’s hard to tell what is from things like dying in childbirth for both the child & mother and dying as a young child, vs being able to live longer, as we know people have lived well into their 80s and 90s since records began (ie Ancient Greece/Egypt/Sumeria) but this data implies that everyone used to die at 30, when in reality there were likely 2 peaks at 0-5 and 60-80
this data implies that everyone used to die at 30
No, it doesn’t. Unless you don’t know what life expectancy means.
Life expectancy is how long you can expect to live from birth. It being 30 implies that you can expect to live 30 years, however in fact you’d most likely live <5 or >50 years
How is Australia doing so good? Half the things there are trying to kill you!
How is the US doing so good? Half the population there is trying to shoot you!
How is the UK doing so good? Half the cooks there are trying to poison you!
/j
Why is Canada doing better than the US?
Single-payer healthcare not tied to employment?
In 2015, single payer healthcare
Today, infant and maternal mortality
The change from 1800 to 1950 is mostly caused by soap, and the change from 1950 to 2015 by penicilline and the Haber process.
Not even. The biggest change is due to crazy high infant mortality rates no longer drastically reducing the average
Yes, and what caused the reduction in infant mortality?
Soap. Or rather the revolutionary idea that it would be good if doctors and midwives used it.
Which was largely due to the introduction of soap and hygiene practices during childbirth.
Do not forget vaccines.
- Monaco 90 years
- Loma Linda 88 years
