Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

1714alpha t1_j96qay6 wrote

Color scheme seems like it should be flipped.

185

columntolumn t1_j96tlxh wrote

Replying to 1714alpha (#1,872,649)

Also I don’t understand the use of a diverging color scale. I’ve only use diverging scales in chloropleths if there is a logical middle point (eg 0 if my scale includes neg and positive numbers). I guess in this case it makes it easier to distinguish the value of each county.

91

JeanEBH t1_j96up7y wrote

Population density should also factor in. This map is misleading.

−13

Elmodogg t1_j96uu26 wrote

Ok, so these are all people over 65 (although disabled people are eligible for Medicare, too), but there's a big difference between a 65 year old and an 85 year old in terms of likelihood of chronic medical problems.

I wonder if the Medicare populations in the blue areas are older in general than the Medicare populations in the other areas? The older you get, the more likely you may be to head south for warmer weather.

46

jkink28 t1_j96w308 wrote

I would've expected Wisconsin to be on the high end with all the binge drinking.

And of course the cheese shouldn't help matters either.

19

TedwardCz t1_j96wu1s wrote

I'm curious how this map would look if it was all people with 4+ chronic medical conditions. I mean, I just counted more than 4 for myself, and I'm only 36.

17

EnviroTron t1_j96y7an wrote

Isn't this just showing us population density?

0

TatosTatoes t1_j96yx1r wrote

Should’ve kept blue for lower numbers and red for higher numbers…. Could easily highlight the political irony of this chart!

2

Bugsarecool2 t1_j96z93v wrote

The West needs their own system. I could be saving a lot more on my taxes.

6

mick_ward t1_j970eec wrote

The Appalachians seem to be good for what ails you.

11

Deluxe78 t1_j970srt wrote

Trees rarely get heart disease or lung cancer

8

Shea_Scarlet t1_j97159x wrote

Why is it that US statistics maps always look exactly like the election map lol

1

Training-Purpose802 t1_j971b7a wrote

I wonder if differing atitudes toward self-reliance lead to underutilizing health services. A western rancher can't get diagnosed with 4 chronic diseases if he's only gone to the doctor that one time when his arm fell off.

107

BigTex88 t1_j971jke wrote

Can we just get rid of the south? They cost the rest of us money and provide basically nothing. Plus they’d be more than happy to leave.

5

ImoJenny t1_j973mvp wrote

This probably has more to do with diagnosis than anything...

6

NZSheeps t1_j973srf wrote

I wonder how much Ohio will change in the next 12 months

4

JadedFennel999 t1_j97454y wrote

I would use the warm colors for higher risk areas vs cool colors. That seems a bit backwards but an interesting result

2

UnluckyChain1417 t1_j975cyw wrote

Poor and agriculture areas.. exposure to more artificial chemicals and immigrants that don’t trust the government/medical system.

And the most populated areas.

3

Me_Melissa t1_j975ivp wrote

Replying to SignificantDigits491 (#1,873,778)

I think it creates an arbitrary line that intuitively feels like, "this is where there's problems, this is where things are good." At that point, whether intentionally or not, the color scale is editorializing the data presentation.

32

Stigma-1 t1_j976xqr wrote

i mean most older people move south, so makes sense.

0

QueenOfPurple t1_j977635 wrote

Places like cancer alley aren’t doing people any favors.

1

SmokyTree t1_j978gik wrote

Interesting there is a lot more blue in the states with lowest education, highest obesity rates, smoking alcoholism etc.

1

vr0202 t1_j979lwd wrote

The color scale could well have been blue for low to red for high, which would have brought out the consequences of how people vote.

−1

kkngs t1_j97a3fw wrote

Replying to Me_Melissa (#1,873,940)

You are correct. It’s not an appropriate use of diverging color scheme. It’s more appropriate if you were looking at something like “change in percent of four condition Medicare recipients between 2010 and 2020”. Then one color would show trending up and the other trending down.

10

KoeiNL t1_j97bo0d wrote

Replying to theottozone (#1,873,947)

Your colouring should reflect the story you want to tell. What you are basically saying is that you are ok with a visualisation where red means good and green means bad as long as there is a scale/legend.

2

drc500free t1_j97bs2u wrote

Fascinating because this doesn't exactly break down with any specific map trend I've seen. They often break down on political axes and the New York/Connecticut/New Jersey area looks very different from the south.

It looks like a combination of obesity and urbanization.

1

Bocote t1_j97c5u5 wrote

I've been staring at this for a bit, but still have no clue what to take away.

1

inkybreadbox t1_j97dmwl wrote

The higher percentages in California’s Central Valley are a little concerning, since we have issues with drug and pesticide exposure in those areas already.

1

Elmodogg t1_j9887z8 wrote

Replying to deeptull (#1,873,170)

I don't think average life expectancy of the general population would have anything to do with this. This is just looking at the Medicare population, and who has more chronic conditions.

The average life expectancy in a particular area is impacted by how many people die before they even reach Medicare age, right?

See:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/middle-aged-white-americans-left-behind-and-dying-early/433863/

1

sei556 t1_j98syum wrote

Replying to theottozone (#1,875,455)

Thats just bad/lazy design that can easily end up being manipulative. With any form of design, you always have to assume that whoever looks at it later on is the laziest person on earth. Because thats the average.

Your argument is like saying intuitive design for smartphones is useless because people can just read the manual.

2