[Greek0]

I don't understand how the author arrives at the conclusion that "[air quality] is often the most effective health intervention, period".

How do you take that away from the plots? If you're in the US my prime take-away would be to keep your BMI in check.

The first graph shows ~2 deaths per 1000 people per year. Surely more than 2 persons/1000/year die in those countries. What are the causes for the other ~10-15 deaths/1000/year?

Given the information in the article, I don't see anything to support the central thesis about air quality. The reasoning for it is so thin that I have no idea whether it's true or not.

[lmm]

> I don't understand how the author arrives at the conclusion that "[air quality] is often the most effective health intervention, period".

> How do you take that away from the plots? If you're in the US my prime take-away would be to keep your BMI in check.

They mean in terms of cost/benefit. Reducing BMI is notoriously difficult.

[meatmanek]

Most of the world lives outside the US, so "often" would seem to apply to the potential improvement in DALYs.

BMI reductions are also notoriously difficult, while many of the mitigations listed in the article are low effort and relatively low cost. You could plausibly include this in your comparison of effectiveness.