Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

blog.edwardmarks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#61

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #44
Retric wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assuming at the lower end of the scale are accurately diagnosed. However, for a simple idea of how bad the US healthcare system really is look at this: http://www.cddep.org/tools/methicillin_resistant_staphylococ...

In 2007 there were 8,324 deaths linked to MRSA in the UK. In 2005, there were between 4,429-8,850 (6,639 w/ 95% CI) deaths linked to MRSA in the US. There are more than 5 times as many people in the United States than in the UK. I obviously do not have the specific stats at my fingertips to refute the anecdote you've supplied, but if there were a way for us to bet on which of our arguments the correct statistic is go…

Where do you get those numbers? MRSA is thought to have caused 1,652 deaths in 2006 in UK up from 51 in 1993.[104] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphyloc...

Still, for those numbers to be useful the rate of infection, detection, treatment, death, AND linking deaths to MRSA must be considered before you can compare those healthcare systems as well as a near constant rare of infection.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#62

Post by philwelch »

tptacek wrote: post #42
barrkel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But even by what you write, it's not convincing, though, is it? Behind some major countries on a number of common cancers, but in the lead on others. I mean, it's clear that the US is not lagging. But it's not a convincing lead either. And you need to look at the variances. From looking at the per 100K deaths, many of the US leads are in the region of 10%, but the variances between different European countries is muc…

Correlate the cancers in which the US is ahead of 2 out of 3 of France, Germany, and the UK, to the cancers that kill the most people (incidence and mortality). Pull out lung cancer, for which there is a clear causal explanation. Now compare that result to life expectancy rankings. That's the point I'm making.

Do Europeans really smoke less than Americans? I was under the impression that the US was unusually anti-smoking.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#63

Post by akgerber »

tesseractive wrote: post #18
tptacek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to maintain a dense public transportation system when the system's goals are (for instance) to move 80MM people around in an area the size of Colorado. Colorado, by comparison, has a population of 5MM. But yes, I was making the latter point. Does life expectancy tell us something about the differences between life in the United States and Finland? Yes... but what if all it's telling us is "the United Stat…

I wouldn't expect, say, Wyoming to have a well developed public transportation system, or even Colorado as a whole. But once you get past a fairly small number of major cities, our public transportation systems for metropolitan areas are still underdeveloped. Colorado's front range, for example, would almost certainly benefit from having a well-developed commuter rail system, with heavy passenger rail connecting the…

Fortunately, it isn't wholly hopeless in this country.

The Front Range is indeed making a large investment in commuter rail, though not yet all the way to Colorado Springs & Fort Collins: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/systemmap.php

The Los Angeles area is likewise making significant investments in its rail system.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#64

Post by derleth »

SageRaven wrote: post #51
vijayr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wikipedia link is interesting - almost in every single country, male suicides are much higher than female suicides, in some cases 4 to 5 times more.

I'd hazard a guess it's due to two things, each not necessarily independent. First, males in many countries are prone to societal "honor" and may kill themselves in times of great shame (poor Indian farmers loosing everything to shady Monsanto salesmen and then drinking pesticide). And second, women are often mothers, and while a suicidal man tends to not "think of the children" women (being mothers and all) do consi…

> Given the shit the world generally dumps on women,

that they actually get sympathy for, instead of being told to 'suck it up' and 'be a man' when they attempt to find help.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#65

Post by tptacek »

Retric wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2007 there were 8,324 deaths linked to MRSA in the UK. In 2005, there were between 4,429-8,850 (6,639 w/ 95% CI) deaths linked to MRSA in the US. There are more than 5 times as many people in the United States than in the UK. I obviously do not have the specific stats at my fingertips to refute the anecdote you've supplied, but if there were a way for us to bet on which of our arguments the correct statistic is go…

Where do you get those numbers? MRSA is thought to have caused 1,652 deaths in 2006 in UK up from 51 in 1993.[104] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphyloc... Still, for those numbers to be useful the rate of infection, detection, treatment, death, AND linking deaths to MRSA must be considered before you can compare those healthcare systems as well as a near constant rare of infection.

Sorry, I got Clostridium confused with MRSA. But 1,652 normalized for population is still higher than the US MRSA fatality number!

I'm not sure what the second sentence means. If you're saying we don't know how to properly attribute deaths to MRSA, what does any MRSA statistic say about health care?

You have a long row to hoe with the overall argument you're making. It is, for instance, not hard to link deaths to heart disease, and heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. The US has fewer heart disease deaths per 100,000 people than Austria, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, the UK, Finland, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Hungary, and Slovakia, and is closer to Germany and Denmark, the #14 and #15 followers to the US's #12, than it is to Austria's #11.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#66

Post by vijayr »

SageRaven wrote: post #51
vijayr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wikipedia link is interesting - almost in every single country, male suicides are much higher than female suicides, in some cases 4 to 5 times more.

I'd hazard a guess it's due to two things, each not necessarily independent. First, males in many countries are prone to societal "honor" and may kill themselves in times of great shame (poor Indian farmers loosing everything to shady Monsanto salesmen and then drinking pesticide). And second, women are often mothers, and while a suicidal man tends to not "think of the children" women (being mothers and all) do consi…

that they actually get sympathy for, instead of being told to 'suck it up' and 'be a man' when they attempt to find help.

This makes sense. I suppose women ask for help more, and sooner than men (and probably get it too). Does anyone know, what is the percentage of men vs women, who actually go to psychiatrists? That might give some idea

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#67

Post by Alex3917 »

tptacek wrote: post #4

This is a great post. Because I'm a nerd, I'm compelled to make an orthogonal point: Life expectancy is not entirely medical and is not a particularly good way to compare countries. Consider that among the top causes of death in the US are "accidents" (predominantly motor vehicles) and suicide, both of which are anomalously high in the US. Consider also that if you go to the top US cause of death (heart disease, clea…

"Life expectancy is not entirely medical"

If by not entirely medical you mean overwhelmingly not medical, then yes. Of the 30 years that life expectancy increased in the 20th century, 25 of those years were do to non-medical factors according to the CDC.

Furthermore, if you actually look at the top 'medical' causes of death, they can overwhelmingly be prevented by non-medical means. To quote from Overdose In America, "Simply eating fish once a week reduces the risk of stroke by 22 percent. Controlling high blood pressure reduces the risk of stroke by 35 to 45 percent. And even moderate exercise for less than two hours a week reduces the risk of stroke in an elderly population by about 60 percent."

Furthermore, just 1.2% of Americans meet all 7 cardiovascular health metrics from 2005 to 2010, compared to 2% from 1988 to 1994. These metrics are not smoking, being physically active, having blood pressure under control, maintaining healthy blood glucose levels, maintaining healthy blood cholesterol levels, mainting a healthy body weight, and following a healthy and balanced diet.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#68

Post by jamesaguilar »

kiba wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how we get to the word "dwarfed" in that analysis, since despite ranking below Europe on life expectancy, the US does significantly better on heart disease and cancer mortality. Point being: something's going on here that confounds life expectancy comparisons.

I didn't disagree with your analysis. I was only pointing out that accidents(ranked 5th) are indeed one of the top cause of death in the US, which I didn't make it clear in my last comment.

I believe we also count infant mortality in life expectancy. Not sure.

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#69

Post by stephengillie »

hack_edu wrote: post #59
SageRaven wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hazard a guess it's due to two things, each not necessarily independent. First, males in many countries are prone to societal "honor" and may kill themselves in times of great shame (poor Indian farmers loosing everything to shady Monsanto salesmen and then drinking pesticide). And second, women are often mothers, and while a suicidal man tends to not "think of the children" women (being mothers and all) do consi…

Plain and simple, across and countries and all historical periods, males act more dangerously. They put themselves in physically dangerous situations more often than women, and die in mid-life at a much higher rate. Male children are more likely to live until adolescence, but after their 20s their portion of the population falls back in line with that of females.

This sounds a lot like the idea former N.O.W. boardmember Warren Farrell wrote in Why Men Earn More:

that bias-based unequal pay for women is largely a myth, and that women are most often paid less than men not because they are discriminated against, but because they have made lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472...

Re: "Life Expectancy" Doesn't Measure How Long You're Expected To Live

#70

Post by JumpCrisscross »

The "rectangularisation of the life curve", i.e. a cohort facing low mortality (thanks to better social practices and healthcare) until a ripe old age when it starts dramatically dying off, implies a maximum human lifespan that we have not significantly manipulated in the history of human biology.
Post reply on HN