I'm sorry but you are the one who doesn't get it. Your data does not show the most important point which is the difference in deaths in people between 5 and 40 years old. In this age range, we are already past the child mortality issue you mention and we are before the other causes of death that are prevalent later. Also, we for this analysis you have to focus on the major differences across countries, not similarities. It doesn't matter that something is causing most deaths, as long as there is another factor, such as drug overdoses, which explains the differences.
You claim this is the most important point, I am saying it is important, but not the most important point. The charts show the difference already, show that this difference is largely related to medical / health reasons (as I said above, cardiovascular alone accounts for more of the difference than all those reasons combined), and don't support your conclusion.
We are talking past each other. You are claiming that cardiovascular diseases and other factors are more important to the US having a lower life expectancy than all these other countries. But not in the age range that is the main thrust of the thread we are in, 5 to 40 years old. The first graph you posted is a bunch of counterfactuals on the aggregate life expectancy, suggesting that the overall impact of these early deaths are almost as significant as cardiovascular diseases, which is astonishing.
I think you are confused about this because you also brought up child mortality. Yes, child mortality is also much higher in the US than other developed countries. But we knew that. The article is focusing on less discussed yet very impactful factors which disproportionally impact young people in the US.
Even the person who started this HN context has agreed I made a good point about these premature deaths not being primarily (their words) from the age range / causes in question, so I am not sure why we need to continue.
You are trying to make the conversation about something it is not, and have changed their point to my point (from primary to important but not primary) to then say I am being unreasonable because I don't understand their point, which is in fact mine. There is no reason I should accept to be shut into your box. Read the twitter thread, and this comment thread again, and it is clear you are the one trying to force the conversation to be about one very specific thing while refusing that it is legitimate to place it into a larger context - the overall causes of lower US life expectancy.
The only reason I care is I don't want a bunch of people running around with the false idea in their head that we just need to deal with the important social issues of our younger generations, and we have solved the bulk of the problem. They are certainly important, even critical issues, but that is not true.
