36 thoughts on “TB Sheet

  1. Harry Molloy

    Will refer to this when I hear people say we’re worse off than we ever were, or that modern medicine is rubbish and we’ve lost all the old remedies.

    1. Medium Sized C


      Or the wealth of other publicly available health data that is freely accessible.

    1. John

      Immigration would also be interesting.
      I think it would show that in general the workforce is more portable.

  2. Paul Davis

    It can be argued from the infographic that the age of death has not changed although this is contradicted in the middle column.

    Not great from a statistics office…

    1. classter

      ‘It can be argued from the infographic that the age of death has not changed’

      How could that be argued, Paul? Genuine question.

      1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

        I’m sure Ireland has stats on blue shirt purchases in 1916?

  3. newsjustin

    The “Death Rate” has me a bit confused.

    Surely the same number of people (proportionally) would be dying each year, just at an earlier age (in 1911)??

    1. Mr. Camomile T

      Not necessarily. The proportion of births to deaths was probably fairly similar to today’s figures, but there was probably a much higher birth rate in 1911 too.

        1. Mr. Camomile T

          High Birth Rate + High Death Rate = No Population Growth (1911)
          High Birth Rate + Low Death Rate = Population Growth (Between 1911-2011)
          Low Birth Rate + Low Death Rate = No Growth (Present)
          Lower Birth Rate + Low Death Rate = Population Decline (Future for developed countries)

        2. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

          It’s not how many deaths there are over everyone’s lifetime, it’s deaths per proportion of population.

          1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            The death rate over a lifetime is 100% yes – over a year it isn’t

    2. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

      And it’s not a number, it’s a rate – number over time. So you had more people dying in 1916 in a year than you have dying in 2014.

  4. Cromuel

    I really doubt those emigration figures. From the National Archives’ census site:


    Emigration and migration: In 1911 there were more than 80 cross-channel sailings per week to Britain from Dublin port. Many of the sailings carried emigrants leaving a country and a city unable to offer a basic living. Some were Dubliners, but many were from the Irish countryside and were merely passing through the city, since there was no work available to them. The emigration of Dubliners traditionally continued at a pace far behind that of the rest of the country. In the decade 1891 to 1901 430,393 people emigrated from Ireland; only 9,487 of these were from Dublin.

  5. Ultach

    Some awful extremist partitionism going on in this.
    Population in 1911, presumably of 32 counties? 2011 figures for 6 northeastern counties excluded.
    Any particular reason to backdate partition by over 10 years in the Emigration 1911 graphic?

    1. classter

      Tbf the CSO would cause a minor kerfuffle if they included figures for the six counties.

      But I hear ya.

      1. Ultach

        Exactly. But they go beyond the usual Dublin administrative cowardice, which treats partition as normal and acceptable for fear of ruffling unionist feathers and causing a kerfuffle. I don’t think there would be much of a kerfuffle, however, if they were to cooperate with NISRA in a joint project to provide a more accurate comparison of statistics on the island now and a century ago. By using a partitioned map to represent Ireland in 1911 they lend credence to the loonier ignorant fringes of extremist Britisher unionism who think there were two countries on this island from time immemorial.

    2. Zaccone

      Why would they include figures for a foreign country? Might as well include Scotland’s figures while we’re at it.

Comments are closed.