Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DrTonyTiger t1_iud9tvj wrote

A great example of the danger of extrapolating beyond your data. All the fit lines need to stop a the highest X value or less. That would remove the rearkmable line for Africa, which shoots up beyond Egypt into fictional wealthy polluted countries.

65

Adam302 t1_iudaukj wrote

There's a good chance I am a bit thick, but I have no idea how to understand this.

16

vacri t1_iudbjyb wrote

Replying to Adam302 (#342,959)

The richer the country, the better the air quality, except in Africa where a bad line-of-fit makes it look like it's deadly to be wealthy there.

19

85251820 t1_iudc21r wrote

Interesting. Would be nice to see Canada and USA

4

VALMaX1 t1_iudc7ca wrote

I mean I can't find India here. India has many pollluted cities.

0

benthib t1_iuddmhz wrote

OP do you offer a three day course to teach how to read this???

15

shark_snak t1_iudkh5w wrote

Are you implying causation? That death rate is because of air pollution? How can you possibly point cause of death solely as air pollution, and not some other cause, ex smoking. Or is this just deaths by country plotted against air pollution by country?

1

bradklyn t1_iudl56z wrote

Switzerland is in North America, never knew…

4

dorejj t1_iudljib wrote

Jesus talk about cluttered data

1

sault18 t1_iudn19y wrote

Need to label the USA, China and Russia. I know what bubbles these correspond to, but you absolutely need to label these major countries even if you have to remove other labels to keep the graph from getting too busy.

Kuwait data looks really faulty. They're not doing anything radically different than other Gulf States in reducing pollution deaths. More likely, they're underreporting deaths or they're more effective at shipping foreign workers out of the country once they get sick. Probably both.

Egypt is an outlier because of all the tourism income while also having atrocious air quality.

14

enakcm t1_iudpd1d wrote

Replying to Adam302 (#342,959)

How to understand this: there is no or only a very weak correlation between how rich a country is and how many people die from pollution.

In other words: awareness is more important than wealth to prevent pollution deaths.

4

2312family t1_iudpvu0 wrote

How is this beautiful. The sub is data is beautiful

4

pk10534 t1_iudtdik wrote

I think the data could be interesting were it easier to read. Not sure why Timor and Turkmenistan were deemed necessary to label but the US, China, Russia, Indonesia, etc weren’t…? That’s like what, 25-30% of the global population amongst 4 or so countries and none of them are labeled lol?

3

Ombrynn t1_iudxrxp wrote

It's not beautiful tho. Labels are misleading (for example Switzerland is the micro red dot but feels like the giant unlabeled blue one)

The fitting is way off. there is no clear correlation between GDP and pollution.

Everything is cluttered and hard to read. The size of dots are not explained...

9

ProLibertateCH t1_iuffhxo wrote

Excellent, this really illustrates how Capitalism SAVES LIVES!

Wealthier, classical liberal, capitalist countries are far less polluted than socialist / dictatorial ones.

Take Switzerland - GDP is based to almost 30% on industrial production, yet pollution is minimal.

This destroys the entire WEF narrative: impoverishing people will worsen whatever ecological problems there may be.

2

sleeper_must_awaken t1_iuflsfa wrote

This chart is atrocious:

  • Big countries not labeled (China, US)
  • GDP per capita, so why not deaths per capita per year?
  • No correction for demographics (age)
  • The linear regression is incorrect. It is impossible for a continent to have negative deaths). There are no standard error lines around the curve (like so)
  • The chart is too verbose to tell a good story. Remove half of the information, and it improves.
  • It should be the "reported death rate", because we don't know the true death rate.
  • Is this deaths per year? (probably, but implied).

An informational chart would plot:

  • GDP per capita (which is a terrible metric, but hey... you probably read the wikipedia page before publishing a graph, so you know what you're doing)
  • vs. Deaths per capita due to outdoor pollution in a specific age-group (60-70 or sth). This is an unreliable metric, because different countries account for deaths differently. If someone smoked in a polluted area and dies of lung cancer, what would you attribute the death to?
  • Remove the linear regression lines.
  • Remove the bottom 20 percentile of smaller countries.
  • Label only the top 20 percentile of countries or don't label at all.
  • Remove the average lines.
  • Perhaps also remove the size <> population of the scatter plot.
  • Make 5 panels for each continent with a shared GDP axis (like so) if you want to disentangle the information.

But, most importantly, what should be the title of the story you want to tell with this chart?

7

bubba-yo t1_iug5avq wrote

Deaths? US has ~10 deaths. Is that total deaths, deaths per thousand, per hundred thousand. I can't assume per capita. 10 deaths per capita is pretty fucking bad.

2

Creative_Elk_4712 t1_iugvjcu wrote

Considering that Italy has a huge urban population, is really densely inhabitated and has the Padan Plain high pressure smog cloak…this doesn’t even make sense to me, we are good

1

Creative_Elk_4712 t1_iugvpqi wrote

Replying to Adam302 (#342,959)

As gdp increases, in every continent (there are showed the continent curves for the expected deaths by given gdp value) the trend is that country’s citizens are less affected in a serious way by air pollution (here showed by air pollution deaths). You have the position crossed with dotted lines for the average country in the world

1

Retnuh3k t1_iuhh4f7 wrote

Forgot the greatest country on the planet.. it’s okay..I’d be jealous too

1