Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Notice the table progresses. If you are 60 in 2002, 20.3. If 60 yo in 2003, 20.6. Compare 1993 at 60 = 18.9 to 2003 at 70yo = 13.5. That person lost only 5 years in 10. That's primarily because he's one of the survivors. The longer you live the more error will in the estimate of 1993, mainly because the bell curve is losing the data of those that die first. I tell old people, if they're alive they have at least 10 yrs to live (unless they're 90). Regards. [ ] Life Expectancy> > > Hi folks:> > When the term life expectancy is used, it generally is intended to > mean expected age at death of a newborn infant: "When you read a > headline saying for instance that American life expectancy has > increased but is below Japan's, it is always using what might be > called "life expectancy at birth", or more precisely the expected age > at death for a newborn infant".> > Source: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/lifespan.htm> > The above is a useful piece explaining a few of the details about the > calculation of life expectancy. But even the definition above is > somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the life expectancy of a child born > today? If so then that may have only marginal relevance to the > lifespan of those of us who were not born today. Or even yesterday. > ("I was NOT born yesterday"!)> > So here is another source which gives life expectancies at ages from > zero to 80, going back to the year 1850.> > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html> > From this table I can see that I have already reached my life > expectancy at birth as of the year I was born. However, since I am > still here then I could probably expect to live to age 74 based on > the life expectancy given in that table for someone my current age > for the year of my birth.> > But should I be looking at the row corresponding to my year of birth > to determine my life expectancy from here on? Or should I look at > the data for 2003, the latest shown, and use the number in the column > corresponding to my age in 2003? In that case the life expectancy > table suggests an age at death of between 80 and 81.> > Does anyone know which row I should be looking at?> > [Of course the average person, from whom the data in the table were > collected, are not on CRON, and have a BMI approaching 30. I am > still not at what I would consider to be a full-CRON weight. But the > average weight/BMI for people my age is more than 30% higher than my > weight. So I am getting there. Gradually!] > > Rodney.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Notice the table progresses. If you are 60 in 2002, 20.3. If 60 yo in 2003, 20.6. Compare 1993 at 60 = 18.9 to 2003 at 70yo = 13.5. That person lost only 5 years in 10. That's primarily because he's one of the survivors. The longer you live the more error will in the estimate of 1993, mainly because the bell curve is losing the data of those that die first. I tell old people, if they're alive they have at least 10 yrs to live (unless they're 90). Regards. [ ] Life Expectancy> > > Hi folks:> > When the term life expectancy is used, it generally is intended to > mean expected age at death of a newborn infant: "When you read a > headline saying for instance that American life expectancy has > increased but is below Japan's, it is always using what might be > called "life expectancy at birth", or more precisely the expected age > at death for a newborn infant".> > Source: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/lifespan.htm> > The above is a useful piece explaining a few of the details about the > calculation of life expectancy. But even the definition above is > somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the life expectancy of a child born > today? If so then that may have only marginal relevance to the > lifespan of those of us who were not born today. Or even yesterday. > ("I was NOT born yesterday"!)> > So here is another source which gives life expectancies at ages from > zero to 80, going back to the year 1850.> > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html> > From this table I can see that I have already reached my life > expectancy at birth as of the year I was born. However, since I am > still here then I could probably expect to live to age 74 based on > the life expectancy given in that table for someone my current age > for the year of my birth.> > But should I be looking at the row corresponding to my year of birth > to determine my life expectancy from here on? Or should I look at > the data for 2003, the latest shown, and use the number in the column > corresponding to my age in 2003? In that case the life expectancy > table suggests an age at death of between 80 and 81.> > Does anyone know which row I should be looking at?> > [Of course the average person, from whom the data in the table were > collected, are not on CRON, and have a BMI approaching 30. I am > still not at what I would consider to be a full-CRON weight. But the > average weight/BMI for people my age is more than 30% higher than my > weight. So I am getting there. Gradually!] > > Rodney.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.