• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    My takeaway: Be More Line Norway, with its higher susceptibility to seasonal affected disorder but low meds usage. It makes me think they’re doing something right.

  • tmpod@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Seeing Portugal in second depresses me, but it’s kinda expected :/

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is such annoying chart. It implies that that these countries on top have more depressed people, bit it correlates more accurately with how accessible the antidepressants are

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I don’t think it was designed to imply that. None of the language appears to steer the viewer to a specific conclusion, letting the viewer interpret it for themselves.

      That being said, I would agree that the data itself represents both access to mental health care and culture (specifically, if that culture has a stigma against it).

      I think some of the larger countries are not really useful in the dataset though. I’m curious how say, California and say, Alabama, would look in the dataset.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Considering that 100+ is red, most is orange, low is yellow, it looks like “look these are the bad countries with depressed people”.

        • Zikeji@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Holy crap I’m blind xD. I take it back, it does seem to portray the notion. Goes to show how subtle it is.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think it was designed to imply that.

        Are you suggesting that “Antidepressant Consumption” just accomplishes the goal of implying people are more depressed accidentally, then? It’s very effective, even if it tries to hide behind language.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah I think it the best would be comparisons in smaller areas, such US states or within Europe, where availability is similar within the area but culture might have bigger impact.

        I have no idea how you could measure the people who’re in need of those medicine within area though, which would be the most interesting comparison. Are people in Finland more depressed than, say, Estonians?

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Hm, so roughly corresponding to middle class purchasing power with Norway (and Finland a bit) being the outliers?

  • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Useless without actually showing what data was used to make this. Also, what does “number of antidepressants” mean exactly? Is the amount someone consumes, or the different brands they take?

  • str82L @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why is there an entire continent, Africa, without any data? And Asia is only just represented. Is it because they are very low users, or they just weren’t considered in the data set? Or something else?