Download PDFPDF

North-South disparities in English mortality1965–2015: longitudinal population study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Absolute Risk Difference is what matters

    This paper makes a number of claims about health in the North relative to the South of England using comparisons of relatively low death rates. When the denominator in such calculations is a very low rate of death, the size of the difference can appear large. However, if we compare the absolute risk of dying, it is relatively close in the North and South and if we were to divide the rate of survival in the South by the rate of survival in the North each year, we would have a very small comparative statistic.

    Abstracts and conclusions can easily be taken out of context and authors of papers like this one should be careful to present appropriate information. For example, the conclusion "...1.2 million northern excess deaths under age 75 over five decades.." implies very high potential death rates, a million! But this figure is presented with no population and reflects experience over 50 years. If we divide by 50, we get 24,000 deaths a year. A further weakness is that no measure of population is provided to put this total number of deaths in context. Using a plausible estimate of 20 million, for example, implies excess deaths at a rate of about 1.2 per 1,000 people. I wonder how many residents of the North are planning to migrate South today to reduce their risk of an early death by just over 1 in 1,000. Yes we should be concerned about all differences in health across regions and social groups but by inflating them with misleading divisions of one small num...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.