Reply With QuoteFalling death rates (per year, per decade) are entirely compatible with a 100% mortality as long as longevity is increasing.Originally Posted by DrS
It's true, the BBC says so. Fewer people are dying.
Isn't that what THIS article is claiming?
I've been thinking for some time now that there was an increasingly prevailing belief that death was not inevitable, hence tons of (usually conflicting) what's good and bad for you advice and paralyzing health and safety rules. Silly me. Death really can obviously be avoided after all!
Falling death rates (per year, per decade) are entirely compatible with a 100% mortality as long as longevity is increasing.
I don't see any issue with the article.
People living longer, less deaths from disease, cancer, heart problems will show a lower death rate for the year...
It doesn't imply less people will die from old age. lol
It should say that premature death rates are falling. The death rate is 100% - as it's always been.
.
Surely that is an entirely different issue? First, what constitutes a premature death? If an average life span is, say, 85, then all deaths at 84 and under are premature. Or is there another definition?
(It reminds me of the statement made by some politician that half our children are underachieving, and this is unacceptable.)
I think Pebble is correct - if lifespan is increasing, then death rates fall even when everybody dies eventually. Probably.
I disagree. Over 99% of the people who are alive today will be alive tomorrow. Where is your evidence that we will ever die?
No, I'm not being serious.
I realised after I'd written it that the death rate of all people who have ever lived isn't quite 100% as some of us are still alive - but I didn't think anyone would pick up on it.
Of course, assuming that those of us who are alive today will die at some time in the future is inductive logic and therefore not scientifically justifiable.
Therefore, I just could live forever!
.
There is a growing body of evidence that some people live longer than others because of their genetic makeup, and progress is being made in identifying which gene markers are associated with living beyond 100. Disease resistance seems to be the key, as you'd expect. No doubt at some time in the foreseeable future, genetic analysis will be able to determine the likely life expectancy of each individual (subject to accident, illness, abuse with drugs, alcohol and food etc). It will then be possible to identify premature deaths and associate them with specific environmental factors.
No doubt also - at some more distant point - it will be possible to fiddle with genetic makeup before birth in order to ensure a long natural life...
My point was that statistics or claims about them need to be qualified in some way for them to make proper sense.
When you think about it, in the next decade or two the death rate will soar, but the reason will be the same: fewer people are dying prematurely. The rate will soar when all those who didn't die young start dying later on.
.
Yes, and it is clear that the 'journalist' reporting on these matters does not have any training in statistics which would enable him/her to give them the proper sense.
Surely, if the average lifespan is increasing, the death rate cannot increase as well? I'm wondering whether there isn't an identifiable connection between death rate and 2nd derivative of average lifespan.
Surely, if the average lifespan is increasing, the death rate cannot increase as well? I'm wondering whether there isn't an identifiable connection between death rate and 2nd derivative of average lifespan.
In a steady state (births = deaths, average lifespan unchanging) situation it is straightforward, the deathrate in % terms is 100/average survival in years per year. Since the average age is the mid point of survival half of deaths occur above that age and half below in any year.
The problem arises in calculating the impact of a changing average length of life and allowing for the impact of changing population structure because of births exceeding or falliing short of the death rate and finally if any skewing effects alter the normal binomial distribution of deaths rates (e.g. war can disproportionalely affect certain age groups). I'll leave the maths of that to Matt.
The interesting point about changing population structure, is that if births exceed deaths, then the average age of the population falls, so even with the same average survival, the death rate per head of population falls. However, I believe the death rates as published are normally corrected for age and gender effects.
Hmmm. If you had a population of 1,000,000 people who all died at the age of 90, except one who died at 199, then 999,999 people would have died prematurely, being younger than average.
This reminds me of the following statistics: 2,000,000 men in Wales, 200 of whom have one leg. This means the total number of male legs in Wales = 4,000,000 minus 200, so average number of legs in Wales = 1.999 This means that 99.99% of men in Wales have a higher than average number of legs.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks