I know that you probably get tired of hearing me whine about innumeracy in the media, but every time I think I'm out they pull me back in. Here is the Guardian today:
Global cases of early onset cancer increased from 1.82 million in 1990 to 3.26 million in 2019, while cancer deaths of adults in their 40s, 30s or younger grew by 27%. More than a million under-50s a year are now dying of cancer, the research reveals.
Sigh. The population of the world has grown by about 50% since 1990, and that puts a wee bit different spin on this. Here's what things look like in the original paper the headline was pulled from. It's the cancer rate for the young (ages 15-49) per 100,000 population:
The incidence rate of all cancers in the young went up a bit in the early '90s but since then has been flat among men and nearly flat among women. During the same period, the death rate from all cancers has plummeted by 20% among women and 25% among men.
I almost don't blame the Guardian for ignoring rates since the researchers themselves used raw numbers almost exclusively in their paper. You have to trudge through to page 7 before they briefly mention cancer rates, and even then they don't provide any numbers. If it weren't for those charts, I don't think rates would show up anywhere in the paper. That's bad scholarship.
POSTSCRIPT: You might also be interested in cancer incidence and death rates among the young by country. Here it is:
The death rate in the US is pretty low, but the incidence rate is astronomic. That might be due to actual higher cancer rates or to more widespread screening among the young.
And what's up with the Solomon Islands?
What's up with the Solomon Islands? Don't know for sure, but the cronic chewing of betel nut may be part of the problem.
I'd peg the very high rates of overweight and obesity among Pacific islanders.
I've worked in the Solomons for almost 20 years.
They are not obese. To the extent that stereotype applies at all it refers to Polynesians, who admire bigness in people in all dimensions. Solomons people are Melanesian, roughly as distinct from Polynesians as, say, Swedes are from Pakistanis, maybe more. They are not obese.
Knowing little about cancer there, I have two guesses:
- No statistics. No nothing. The Solomon economy is down there with the poorer African nations. It's entirely gray, 80% of people are rural subsidence and never have any money. There is no law or government except tribal outside the capital. The idea that meaningful statistics on anything could be collected is not credible.
- Zero medical care. Most people never see a doctor or dentist their entire lives. For instance, you will never see a person with eyeglasses there. Etc.
So I'd put a big question mark by those Solomons dots on Kevin's charts..
But it is a beautiful in all seemed place to be. Rich in culture and food (sea and land), no one is hungry, they have in many ways wonderful lives. But they have no medical care so it is not paradise.
"beautiful in all _senses_" Sorry.
Yes, everyone chews betelnut all the time. It roots their teeth and gums, but I've never heard of oral cancer there (maybe I wouldn't, even spending lots of time in a set of villages?)
Betelnut is, by the way, a mild and pleasant high. Very conducive to sitting around conversing with your friends. I recommend it, in moderation, like any other high.
That might be due to actual higher cancer rates or to more widespread screening among the young.
I'd be very surprised if a lot of that isn't screening.
I doubt if screening explains the cancer rate. In general, countries with universal health care are going to screen their entire populations whereas the US only regularly screens those with good health insurance.
The US, despite the myriad problems with its healthcare system, actually manages to maintain of the world's best records with respect to cancer screening:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20and%20Sweden%20had,69%20were%20screened%20in%20France.
Which to me feels intuitively a big part of the reason for the higher cancer rate. Indeed our child death rate from cancer isn't nearly so high, which would be the pattern we might expect for a country that detects a lot of cancer (and overall has a robust capacity to treat this disease)
Innumeracy, sure, but in terms of analysis... what about cancer rates for other age groups?
In other words, have cancer rates for those in other age groups dropped more?
Solomon Islands has a high rate of tobacco use (36%). Compare it to Haiti (8%) which has a similar income, and is also an island.
This is true. Mostly local - often homegrown - tobacco, which to my untrained eye looks like tarry leaves rolled up.
But 36% is not high enough to make them such an outlier as shown on Kevin's chart.
And you can't chainsmoke the local tobacco like you can with cigarettes. I read somewhere that the real trigger for mass Western lung cancer was not the tobacco itself but it being rolled into convenient, cheap, 5-minute cigarettes.
And Solomon (what they call it there) is similar culturally and ethnically to the nearby Papua New Guinea. But PNG has way lower death and incidence rates on the charts.
That makes me think this is a matter of poor statistics, because PNG is a much more organized country in health care and everything else. I believe half-decent statistics could be collected there.
(And despite Solomon appearing wealthier than PNG on the charts, it is not. Not sure what measure is being used but PNG is a 3rd world country. Solomon is a whole step lower.)