161–170 of 600 posts
> Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.” Do we have an actuarial crisis on our hands? We’ve seen the same thing in finance, disaster preparedness and other unrelated industries. We have “once in 200 years” events happening it seems far more often than once in 200 years. And how does it…
I wonder if the 1 in 200 year example wasn't communicated very well; it could be the actuaries view a long-lasting 10% increase to be the 1 in 200 year event; it does sound low for a single year stress.
> Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.” Do we have an actuarial crisis on our hands? We’ve seen the same thing in finance, disaster preparedness and other unrelated industries. We have “once in 200 years” events happening it seems far more often than once in 200 years. And how does it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m surprised it is as high as you claim! You’re saying that for that age group, in a given year, the chances are 1 in 200 of dying? That seems like pretty bad odds on something that is literally life and death.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html has the actuarial table by age, which is indeed a base rate above 0.002 from age 46 onward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but I doubt that sites not available in the EU are legally obligated to annoy non-EU visitors with cookie consent banners? Of course, it's easier to annoy everyone, but if you can block EU visitors based on their IP you can also show the cookie consent banner only for these IPs?
Because the banners are targeted at EU citizens, not people geographically within the EU. You're required to show the banners to e.g. EU citizens living in the US. ETA: under GDPR, blocking the EU geographically (e.g. via GeoIP), in combination with requiring user registrations to specify that they’re not EU citizens, would be considered a “good-faith effort” to avoid collecting the data of EU citizens.
I'm actually surprised it is not higher. For 40-64 year old in the US, the annual chance of death is about half a percent (before covid) so a 40% increase is still a very low mortality rate. https://hdpulse.nimhd.nih.gov/data/deathrates/index.php?stat...
I’m surprised it is as high as you claim! You’re saying that for that age group, in a given year, the chances are 1 in 200 of dying? That seems like pretty bad odds on something that is literally life and death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that is bad math around 1/80. If the average person had a 1/80 chance to die each year, the average life expectancy would be 40 years. Think about this another way. You have a gun with 80 chambers and 1 bullet. How many times on average can you point it at your head and pull the trigger before it goes off? Would you still argue 80 times? On average it is the last chamber?
That's not how it works. For a geometric distribution with p=1/80 the mean or expected value is indeed 80. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_distribution Your gun example has a uniform distribution between 1 and 80 with an expected value of roughly 40 if you don't spin the chamber each time between pulling the trigger. If you spin it each time, then it's again the geometric distribution and the expected value i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m surprised it is as high as you claim! You’re saying that for that age group, in a given year, the chances are 1 in 200 of dying? That seems like pretty bad odds on something that is literally life and death.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html has the actuarial table by age, which is indeed a base rate above 0.002 from age 46 onward.
> Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.” Do we have an actuarial crisis on our hands? We’ve seen the same thing in finance, disaster preparedness and other unrelated industries. We have “once in 200 years” events happening it seems far more often than once in 200 years. And how does it…
>We have “once in 200 years” events happening it seems far more often than once in 200 years. I just don't take it seriously anymore. Track 200 factors, 200 businesses, or 200 industries and you will see 1 event per year. Track all of the above and you will see 40,000 such events in a year. More to the point, their actuarial model was probably wrong, not reality. Somewhere buried in their model were assumptions exclu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many new young customers do they have? Maybe more people than before think about getting a life insurance and for whatever reason the more "fragile" ones are getting one.
These are most likely group life policies where the employer pays the premiums for a base amount for all employees. Since there is no charge to the employee for the base coverage, most would accept the coverage.