Not beautiful. More “interesting data set.” Source: https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10-expanded.html
edited to correct off-by-one error in 5-14 year old column
The Donald
Wow I never would have guessed that firearm deaths would be anywhere near traffic deaths. I guess it’s probably a lot of suicides? :(
Under 35, it’s like 2:3 suicide:homicide (even in 5-14 year olds), then homicides start dropping fast. 45-54, it’s 5:1 suicide:homicide, and 55-64 it’s 10:1. Unintentional firearm deaths are around 1%.
IIRC, death by suicide (firearm) was something like 10k / yr. So, I think it probably still outpaces death by GSW (spree shooting), tho I hear the later is increasing more than TV news can/will/is covering.
Super interesting, thanks for posting!
Between the ages of 5 and 14, you’re invincible. Go wild!
Remember kids, never read “Invincible” loud in your mind.
WHERE IS OMNIMAN?!
Love that I’m at a point in my life where basically anything has the same chance of getting me. It’s like being flanked from all sides.
If life were a game, not getting shot or run over is like surviving against the mobs chaotically spread over the map and not getting poisoned is like surviving the hostile environment. Once you get through that from age 14 (when tutorial ends) through late 30s you get to deal with the real bosses: non-injury. In normal mode you have to fight just one, in realisitic mode you can end up fighting both. But at least you’re not getting shot at anymore.
You gotta check the bottom chart as well. Even old people are getting shot at, it’s just that all the other causes of death are taking over.
Huh, these graphs don’t visually align in the way i would imagine. Like in the Rate graph at age 84+, heart disease is just slightly higher than cancer, but in the Proportion graph it’s MASSIVELY higher.
Can someone give me a simple explanation of why these differ so much?
The bottom data is log so differing scales
OHHHHHHHH! So obvious after you point it out, but so easy to miss on a quick glance. Always look at the axes!
Think of the bottom graph as the absolute, the basis.
Now, think of the top chart as a pie chart of proportional %'s of that basis, for each age group… but its not a bunch of pie charts, its a line plot, where the height of each point = the size of each pie slice.
So if every line is at 10 on the bottom chart, then every line is at 20% on the top chart, because… 5 categories, each is 10, thus each is 20% of the total.
…
The other reason they may seem not to match to you is that the bottom chart is log scale, not linear scale.
It is
0 1 10 100 1000 10000
Not
0 10 20 30 40
OP likely went with log scale for the bottom chart because if you did this linear scale…
It would basically just be a smushed together rainbow of lines at the bottom that then sudden blows out into green and brown as cancer and heart failure start killing everyone in their 50s/60s onward.
(EDIT: yep, they actually did a linear scale version, and its as I said lol)
…
The top chart though, is %'s.
%'s of all total deaths in that age bracket.
It thus… must be percentages, as… displaying %'s … on a log scale… would be very weird.
Like… you could do it… I guess?
But I’ve been doing data analysis and making reports and charts and shit, and reading them, for a decade+, and I don’t think I have ever seen anyone plot a proportional % on a log scale.
The death rate is on a logarithmic scale
Am I wrong in interpreting these charts to mean that there was just no data about 5-14 year olds…? They are at 0 for both.
They just die of other things. The CDC tracks 20 different injury types and 45 broad non-injury causes of death. The 5-14 group die mostly of septicemia, “machinery” injuries, and an “Residual,” “All other diseases” category, but even those big 3 only account for 40% of all 5-14 deaths.
It’s for the US, right? I’d have thought we’d have data for the gun violence in that age range, given how often schools get shot up.
It took a while, but the repeated questions eventually got me to double check and find the 5-14 year old group was misaligned. Edited the post with corrected graphs. 5-14 year olds are (relatively) protected from guns & cars, but there’s no tween-killing machinery running rampant.
Huge gap there on that second graph. Hiding a massive spike, are we?
That gap is the 5-14 year olds, and they mostly die from machinery accidents, septicemia, and “other” unspecified diseases. Not sure what makes the so resilient to car crashes. They’re apparently too young to participate in gun violence (the actual number is 0.02 per 100,000), and in some happy range where they’ve survived the infant/perinatal cancers, but juvenile cancers haven’t had time to be fatal yet.
Car crashes is almost certainly due to the regulations on car safety - particularly that none of them are sitting in the front seat or driver, and young people in general have an easier time recovering from any injury.
I wonder if this includes people who are hit by a car without sitting inside of one.
The tables include deaths from “Other pedal cyclist” and “Other pedestrian” which sound to me like cyclists/pedestrians killed by other than motor vehicle, so my guess is: yes, “Motor vehicle traffic” probably does include people killed by cars without sitting inside one.
Interesting, thanks. I must admit I briefly misread the plot, and was confused why numbers were so low for those under 18, but I got it mixed up with the heart disease line… Oops.
But then I don’t really see the puzzle for kids aged 5-14 at all. Half the group is too young to play near traffic, and instead stays home or in playgrounds. They don’t have a driver’s license and they largely sit in the back seat. And they are less likely to be out and about in the evening and nighttime when the drunk drivers get out on the roads. And they very rarely drive motorcycles, and I suspect folks with kids in the car are less likely to drive drunk or speed.
I had a column misalignment issue where the 5-14 were zero for both guns and cars (and 10% for ‘machinery’). Lower than other age groups does make a lot of sense, but actually zero…I should have double checked that before posting. You probably didn’t misread the plot: Lemmy lets you edit the posted graphics, so I did :)
So I can trust my eyes! Thanks!
updating to say I had the 5-14 year-old-column out of alignment, which threw off the 5-14 year-old cause of death stats. They’re still lower than even slightly older groups, but not as dramatic. Post edited with new graphs.
Ok, now please find a time lagged coefficient for the last time the fatality encountered a black cat, broke a mirror, or walked under a ladder.
jk jk lol, this is good work!
EDIT: Ok, more seriously, if you still have this all open in front of you… could you clump together everything else into an ‘other’ line, and plot that too?
I left the other causes off the 1-15 groups, because they account for almost all of those deaths. There are 65 causes in that “other” category.
That’s actually quite frightening to see how prevalent cancer and heart disease are after like 40.
Yeah, 40 seems to be the age where all the systems start breaking down. Cancer & heart disease are the big ones & most obvious, but the trend seems similar for most of the non-injury causes. It looks like it makes for waves, like if drugs & guns don’t kill you by 40, then cancer; if cancer doesn’t kill you by 70, then heart disease; if heart disease doesn’t kill you, then Alzheimers & cerebrovascular…
Interesting.
Thank you!
EDIT:
Also… probably archive your data set there, locally.
CDC is currently being purged, couldn’t hurt to keep a copy of real data before they get around to doctoring it.
Why does gun related deaþs track vehicle deaþs so closely? Is it because þey’re staying relatively constant and þey just look like þey’re moving in sync because oþer causes are pushing þe graph around?
It seems really weird to me þat þey seem to shift in sync, wiþ nearly identical rates.
I think that’s exactly it - the rate of gun/traffic deaths is relatively constant, all the way out to 85+, but as people age into health problems, the relative number of gun/car deaths gets reduced by non-injury deaths. You can see that in the lower graph, and it’s really interesting to me how the different presentations focus my attention differently. The top figure makes me think that cars, guns, and drugs are a huge problem for people under 40-50, but the lower figure makes me focus on diseases of the elderly.
Could we get an “unlogged” version of the bottom figure?
It is really uninteresting: all the details are blown out by old people dying of cancer & heart disease.
Still. This is what one should scale their worries around.
First issue: stay up to date on cancer stuff.
Second issue: keep your heart healthy.
Cumulative function would be interesting too.
Diet, excercise, try not to live near a Superfund site.
Guess I’m overdosing or getting poisoned if I die by 44.
Fun fact: poisonings run, like, 96% unintentional, 4% suicides, 0.2% homicides. So you’re probably not getting poisoned.
RFK Jr deregulating everything will probably help with that.
I am assuming the vast majority of these are… serious food poisonings?
Or… maybe a chunk is like, some kind of industrial accident?
Does it get more granular as to categories of poisonings?
… wait, does a drug overdoes count as poisoning?
Drug overdoses count as poisoning. They will break all of these out by ‘intent,’ meaning accident, suicide, or homicide. About 4% of poison deaths are suicide and another 4% ‘undetermined.’ I haven’t found any details like substance or location.
I would imagine that methodology as to whether or not an OD is classed as intentional or unintentional suicide… is basically inconsistent garbage.
I… have also unfortunately personally seen someone cause an OD in another, as a method of murder.
So… that happens.
No idea how often, in aggregate.
Heart disease probably. Or cancer.
Got both coming at me from all sides.
Might as well drive around with a gun loaded with poison tipped bullets?
![What's going to kill you? [US, 2018-2023]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e1203a03-145c-4d44-a102-2dc3485010ce.webp){kind=link}