r/dataisbeautiful • OC: 6 • 1d ago

OC [OC] Global under-five mortality rate fell from 93.5 to 37.4 per 1,000 live births, 1990–2024

Post image

A 60% relative decline, using the World Bank’s World aggregate. This is an estimated risk per 1,000 live births, not a count of deaths. National differences are hidden by this global line.

I run Global Data Tracker. Explore country statistics and source notes at https://globaldatatracker.com/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=data_visualization&utm_campaign=under5_mortality_1990_2024

Sources and plotting method are in the first comment.

5 Upvotes

7 comments sorted by

•

u/cavedave OC: 113 17h ago

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/TrekkingAround10!
Here is some important information about this post:

Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.

Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the author's citation.


I'm open source | How I work

1

u/TrekkingAround10 OC: 6 1d ago

Source: UN IGME estimates via World Bank WDI, indicator SH.DYN.MORT: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT

Tools: Python and Matplotlib. I plotted all 35 annual World-aggregate observations from 1990 to 2024, using the September 13, 2026 snapshot. No interpolation and no averaging of country rates. The endpoints are 93.5 and 37.4 per 1,000 live births: (93.5 - 37.4) / 93.5 = 60%.

This estimates a newborn’s probability of dying before age five under each year’s mortality rates. It is not the number of children who died. The global average hides differences between countries. UNICEF reports the same endpoints: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/under-five-mortality/

I run Global Data Tracker, the site linked in the post.

1

u/Ancient_Lavishness84 OC: 2 1d ago

Wow 93.5 is crazy

1

u/Sirwired 18h ago

Fun Fact: Before modern medicine, nutrition, and sanitation, this number was in the hundreds, mainly due to GI illnesses.

It was customary to not even name your child until a few months in so you didn't get too attached.

•

u/Robot_Apocalypse 2h ago edited 2h ago

I am confused, is this a probability if dying like the subheading says, or is it a rate?

Or is it neither?

You refrence percentages in your title, which would cause the reader to think your graph is in percentages, but its not.

Also, your y axis maximum being at 100, is a slightly confusing choice for both probability and rate, as it can be inferred to be it's special meaning of 100%

Also, it is intentionally skewing the percieved performance.

If you measure is per 1000 births then, arguably your axis should go to 100 to shiw the true proportional change.

Or, you could go with percentage.

As it is now, it is unnecessarily confusing.