Sorry in advance for the political topic, but it’s directly related to the info in the OP.
Is the bar for causes of death roughly similar across social classes? As in: are rich/poor people more/less likely to die from certain causes than others? I’m asking because I’m wondering if news coverage isn’t a bit closer to “reasons why rich people die” than to “reasons why your typical person dies” there (in USA). Just a hypothesis, mind you.
Not an american but i would think that not many rich people actually get murdered, unfortunately. Private security and someone wealthy is generally more valuable alive than dead if you are looking for ransom or such.
That reminds me, there’s this anti-capitalist, anti-war children’s film by Satyajit Ray called Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne. In it, there’s a song that says that the king is sad and afraid since he has so much money. He tries to cope by punishing others, but it never makes him happy. The only solution offered was to let go of all his riches, and that finally made him happy.
It was for children, so I understand why sadness was used instead of fear. But they do need to be afraid.
As an aside, I think that movie had a decent impact in the communist revolution that happened in my state in the 70-80s. Ray has made some of the greatest movies in the history of cinema, but his children’s films still hold a dear place in the hearts of many generations of Bengalis.
If we had the means to remove all their wealth and stop them from ever amassing any again sure there’s no need for the death penalty at that point. But we’re not there, we’re in the frontlines of a class war where it’s us vs them.
If you’re really rich (I doubt it) you could give up your excess wealth and live a comfortable life with what you have remaining.
Poor people get sick faster, generally speaking and in the West. It’s the same diseases, though.
In the third world, tropical diseases, diseases of poor sanitation and infant mortality are disproportionately huge killers. On the other hand, if you’re talking about a rainforest tribe, they might be in top shape until they’re ancient, because once they survive childhood they’re basically living the lifestyle humans were designed for.
Considering that the top reasons for death in the US are related to, more or less, how well you treat your body - as in exercise, diet - there will absolutely be data on poorer people being affected more. If you don’t have enough money for a good diet or sports, naturally your body’s health will suffer as a result.
Alzheimer and cancer, depending on the cancer, maybe not so much.
This is a big assumption and from what I have researched up to 60% of heart disease is caused by genetics. Environmental pollution and genes play a huge role in both heart attacks and stroke. With dramatic example like:
“In England and Wales, the mortality rate for coronary heart disease (CHD) between 1981 and 2000 have decreased by 62% in men and 45% in women, and more than half of this decline was attributed to a reduction in environmental risk factors.”
“This is most strikingly demonstrated by data from China, which show that the age-adjusted CVD mortality rates in Beijing increased by 50% for men and 27% for women because of environmental changes between 1984 and 1999”
I am sure diet and exercise is helpful in preventing heart disease, but it is clear trying to push all responsibility of this disease onto lifestyle choice is highly inaccurate.
You bring up poor being poor as a risk factor. While this may not be true, what is true is poor people’s mortality is much higher. See below.
"For example, high-income Asia Pacific and central Latin America have similar age-standardised prevalence of ischemic heart disease (about 2600 cases per 100,000), but the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease in central Latin America is four times that in high-income Asia Pacific (109 vs 26 per 100,000, respectively). "
So same prevalence, but a huge difference in mortality.
Thanks for the figures. 60% is crazy tho. Sure, genetics are bound to be involved in some way, but I would have assumed that especially anything related to your heart’s function is bound to be linked to your “lifestyle choices” and not as much to your gene pool
That appeared to be the highest amount in literature I found. So it is definitely the high end.
I learned that the environment played a large role in cancer awhile ago, but the heart disease challenge my perception as well. While it does not appear to be the dominate factor, it is definitely a significant one.
Those would be very interesting graphs to see. There is definitely a massive difference between the graph for rich and poor. One window into that is the difference in longevity between the rich and poor. The rich have a ~90 year lifespan.
Sorry in advance for the political topic, but it’s directly related to the info in the OP.
Is the bar for causes of death roughly similar across social classes? As in: are rich/poor people more/less likely to die from certain causes than others? I’m asking because I’m wondering if news coverage isn’t a bit closer to “reasons why rich people die” than to “reasons why your typical person dies” there (in USA). Just a hypothesis, mind you.
I don’t think you are shifting things to politics, this is a community about data and you are just still talking about statistics.
Not an american but i would think that not many rich people actually get murdered, unfortunately. Private security and someone wealthy is generally more valuable alive than dead if you are looking for ransom or such.
That reminds me, there’s this anti-capitalist, anti-war children’s film by Satyajit Ray called Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne. In it, there’s a song that says that the king is sad and afraid since he has so much money. He tries to cope by punishing others, but it never makes him happy. The only solution offered was to let go of all his riches, and that finally made him happy.
It was for children, so I understand why sadness was used instead of fear. But they do need to be afraid.
As an aside, I think that movie had a decent impact in the communist revolution that happened in my state in the 70-80s. Ray has made some of the greatest movies in the history of cinema, but his children’s films still hold a dear place in the hearts of many generations of Bengalis.
violence on rich, white is often in the news blasted more than someone who is a minority
Would you say that out loud around other people?
Often and loudly.
Fuck yes. Kill the rich.
What piece of shit wouldn’t?
Why murder people when you can just take their ahit and leave then destitute?
I’m rich, what you gonna do to me, peasant?
Because we’re at war?
If we had the means to remove all their wealth and stop them from ever amassing any again sure there’s no need for the death penalty at that point. But we’re not there, we’re in the frontlines of a class war where it’s us vs them.
If you’re really rich (I doubt it) you could give up your excess wealth and live a comfortable life with what you have remaining.
You’re a terminally online, no wonder you’re so bitter. With that much free time you must have no job and live solely on government handouts.
Thanks for the downvotes!
Sure thing troll.
1000 comments a month is pretty dire. Touch grass, peon.
deleted by creator
Poor people get sick faster, generally speaking and in the West. It’s the same diseases, though.
In the third world, tropical diseases, diseases of poor sanitation and infant mortality are disproportionately huge killers. On the other hand, if you’re talking about a rainforest tribe, they might be in top shape until they’re ancient, because once they survive childhood they’re basically living the lifestyle humans were designed for.
Considering that the top reasons for death in the US are related to, more or less, how well you treat your body - as in exercise, diet - there will absolutely be data on poorer people being affected more. If you don’t have enough money for a good diet or sports, naturally your body’s health will suffer as a result.
Alzheimer and cancer, depending on the cancer, maybe not so much.
This is a big assumption and from what I have researched up to 60% of heart disease is caused by genetics. Environmental pollution and genes play a huge role in both heart attacks and stroke. With dramatic example like:
“In England and Wales, the mortality rate for coronary heart disease (CHD) between 1981 and 2000 have decreased by 62% in men and 45% in women, and more than half of this decline was attributed to a reduction in environmental risk factors.”
“This is most strikingly demonstrated by data from China, which show that the age-adjusted CVD mortality rates in Beijing increased by 50% for men and 27% for women because of environmental changes between 1984 and 1999”
I am sure diet and exercise is helpful in preventing heart disease, but it is clear trying to push all responsibility of this disease onto lifestyle choice is highly inaccurate.
You bring up poor being poor as a risk factor. While this may not be true, what is true is poor people’s mortality is much higher. See below.
"For example, high-income Asia Pacific and central Latin America have similar age-standardised prevalence of ischemic heart disease (about 2600 cases per 100,000), but the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease in central Latin America is four times that in high-income Asia Pacific (109 vs 26 per 100,000, respectively). "
So same prevalence, but a huge difference in mortality.
Thanks for the figures. 60% is crazy tho. Sure, genetics are bound to be involved in some way, but I would have assumed that especially anything related to your heart’s function is bound to be linked to your “lifestyle choices” and not as much to your gene pool
That appeared to be the highest amount in literature I found. So it is definitely the high end.
I learned that the environment played a large role in cancer awhile ago, but the heart disease challenge my perception as well. While it does not appear to be the dominate factor, it is definitely a significant one.
i agree different cancers have different statistics, but the most common cancer would be skin cancer, BCC , 2nd would be SCC and then melanoma.
Going off the US again, then, skin cancer would probably be more of a thing if you don’t have the money to go see a doctor and get treatment for it
Those would be very interesting graphs to see. There is definitely a massive difference between the graph for rich and poor. One window into that is the difference in longevity between the rich and poor. The rich have a ~90 year lifespan.