• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 14th, 2024

help-circle
  • You keep calling it a “die off” because you’re being visually tricked by the misleading population pyramid. Use the actuarial tables instead.

    Among 65 year old men, the probability of surviving to 75 is 76%. The probability of surviving to 85 is 39%. The probability of surviving to 95 is 5.9%.

    For women, the odds are 84%, 52%, and 12% of getting to 75/85/95, respectively.

    Yes, these are higher death rates than at younger ages. But nowhere near what the shape of the population pyramid suggests, where the 85 age cohort is about 1/4 as large as the 65, which misleadingly suggests a probability of 25% of living 20 more years, when the real number is closer to 45%.


  • That’s the baby boom moving up the chart.

    Yes, exactly my point. The boomer generation itself made the population pyramid look different at every stage of its life, which is why the 1980 chart looks so different from the 2023 chart. When you introduce a cohort that has its own slope from birth statistics, the shape of the drop off at 60 is confounded by the preexisting shape of the slope before they entered old age.

    So the appropriate method of isolating the variable that shows what you call a “die off” would be to just pull up the actuarial tables that show what percentage of 60, 61, 62 year olds, etc., die that year. Not to compare how many of those there are as a percent of overall population.


  • exasperation@lemm.eetoComic Strips@lemmy.worldNo one told you when to run...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    You don’t think that 1980 chart has a very different shape? The current chart is almost flat from 20-60, while the 1980 chart is actually pyramid shaped, with the steepness is only slightly sharper past 60. And matches the steepness of the range from 25-50. Nobody talks about a 25-year-old die off.

    You’re better off charting the actuarial tables to convey the data you’re trying to talk about (death rates), rather than relying on a stat that is influenced by birth rates and death rates in an opaque way.


  • That population pyramid is a bit misleading because the baby boom coincides with the ages with the steepest declines. In part, there were significantly fewer people born in 1939 compared to 1959, so you’d expect way more 65 year olds than 85 year olds in 2024.

    Yes, the death rate is higher among older people, but the life expectancy of a 60 year old man is still another 20 years.





  • exasperation@lemm.eetoComic Strips@lemmy.worldSheep eating
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    13 days ago

    This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf. Eventually the boy cries wolf too many times, townspeople stop listening to the boy, and stop responding to the cries.

    The way we tell it, though, is that the boy is falsely crying wolf each time. And the townspeople eventually learn their lesson and stop responding.

    One hypothetical that I always think about is what if the boy is correct each time, and there really is a wolf every time? Well, I think the townspeople would eventually grow numb to the cries and stop responding anyway, and kinda leave the boy to fend for himself because they’re sick of helping him. We’d see the same result even if the boy did nothing wrong.












  • pulled right from the fuckin court documents

    The “court documents” are filings by the parties. You’re summarizing litigation documents filed by Twitter, in a motion to dismiss, which is a phase of litigation before either side comes forward with any evidence.

    The court hasn’t ruled on anything, so you’re just repeating statements that one side has claimed. I’m pointing out that the other side is claiming the opposite.

    The suing company isn’t going off anything but fucking assumptions.

    They’re not required to come forward with evidence (and litigation procedure doesn’t even give them much of an opportunity to come forward with evidence at this stage). What they have come forward with is literally sealed by the court, so unless you’re leaking confidential court documents you don’t have any idea of what they’re claiming. Take a look at the docket.

    If you’re going to be aggressive in this comment section, at least learn the very basics of the thing you’re being aggressive about. It’s clear you don’t know the basics of this type of litigation, so it might help if you show some intellectual humility, take a step back, and let the knowledgeable people actually weigh in, to be able to evaluate the publicly filed documents in an informed way. Whatever it is you’re doing instead, looks pretty bad.