I can't access USAfacts right now but the census shouldn't matter for this if it's just crude deaths since those are reported through a different system and are a precise count. I can't think of any reason why there would be a 10 year spike in the data, it's definitely an error of some kind.

Why would it extrapolate 25% lower values on all other years? If the 10th years are the actual data points, the computed trend line through only census years shouldn't be so radically different from the drawn markers.

In any case, the differences are small in this instance over the long run

The differences in those years are _huge_.

>If the 10th years are the actual data points, the computed trend line through only census years shouldn't be so radically different from the drawn markers.

Except if the trend line is based on the other data source, and the peaks on the census data.

It just says deaths in the screenshot though, not death rate so it shouldn't be dependent on anything else.

>The differences in those years are _huge_.

They look similar to me. One has less granular data than the other. What exactly are you implying?

>They look similar to me.

Do a quick calculation for me, please.

What percent of 2 million is 500 thousand? Because the errors are 500 thousand on 2-2.5 million. That's a huge amount of error.