| Current music: | "The Eraser" ~ Thom Yorke |
The Plot Thickens
Save money or save lives?
Some people would call that a false dilemma, except I'm not arguing anything and am, in fact, trying to rope you into reading it. It's a sales pitch more than an argument; you could argue it's an argument for you to read something, but then we're just parsing without reducing.
Anyway, can anyone figure out what a 0.2 percent increase in the mortality rate equals in terms of body count?
(Post a new comment)
 | 
 unholydestiny
2009-10-23 01:25
(link) |
Well, it really depends on what statistics you employ. For example, there is a global death rate and a united states death rate. I will assume you meant US, but for the sake of comparison and argument I will begin with the global death rate, though I will include all independent variables from the get-go:
Annual Global Death Rate: 8.23/1,000 people (CIA World Factbook/Wikipedia)
Total Global Population: ~6.792 billion people, or ~6,792,000,000 (US Census Bureau, 10/23/2009)
Annual U.S. Death Rate: 810.4/100,000 people (FASTSTATS)
Total US Population: ~308 million people (Wikipedia, again)
Total Annual US Deaths: ~2,426,264 (FASTSTATS)
From there we derive that there is an annual global deaths. (Simple math from here on out)
Total Annual Global Deaths: 55.9 million people, or 55,898,160 people
So, were we to increase either of these values by 0.2%, our number of increased deaths would be:
Global Mortality Increase: 111,796 people, more or less.
US Mortality Increase: 4852-4853 people.
... phew. That's about the size of a school, right? Imagine a population the size of Sanderson dying off every year, in addition to everything else. But when you put it on a bigger scale, like... say... a global one, the 0.2% comes to play in a much more significant way.(Reply to this) (Thread) |
(Post a new comment)
|
