30% is much better assuming that being 90 is a reasonable goal. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Jan 3, 2023, 6:27 PM Edward Angel <an...@cs.unm.edu> wrote: > You can feel better: 0.7 ** 10 ~= 0.028. That's 40% better, although, it’s > hard to believe that the 0.3 per year is constant for 10 years. Or even > correct. > > The charts from real data seem to show the probability of an 80 year old > making it to 90 is 30%. > > Ed > _______________________ > > Ed Angel > > Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory > (ARTS Lab) > Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico > > 1017 Sierra Pinon > Santa Fe, NM 87501 > 505-984-0136 (home) an...@cs.unm.edu > 505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel > > On Jan 3, 2023, at 5:33 PM, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >For people it’s somewhere in the 70-80 ... > > As I approach 80 I'm not happy about this. I read or heard that a person > over 80 has about a 0.3 probability of dying each year. I calculated, > possibly using incorrect assumptions, that that means that the conditional > probability of living to 90 given that you've lived to 80 is 0.02. > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023, 5:14 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Interesting paper. I'll have to read it more closely. But it doesn't >> strike me that they address *premature* mortality, whatever that is. I >> can't help but get a Theseus' Ship vibe. Even if the canalizing risks >> (welding, sky diving, cholesterol, dehydration, etc.) are all hammered >> down, I'd expect the noise to overwhelm the signal as the focus tightens. >> Anyway, I'll try to read this over the next few days. Thanks. >> >> >> On 1/3/23 12:31, David Eric Smith wrote: >> > Long a favorite topic of mine. >> > >> > Let me send you a link; almost-surely not the best, but done with ~1min >> of google searching images: >> > >> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233384 >> < >> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233384 >> > >> > See the 5th figure for actual data, rather than models. >> > >> > But my understanding is that Gompertz mortality statistics are >> unbelievably universal across metazoans. The parameters can be shifted by >> lots of factors, but the functional form (which takes only a couple of >> parameters) is absurdly more robust than one would expect given all that >> varies. >> > >> > Anyway, to the extent that there is Gompertz mortality, there is a >> natural associated age for age-associated-death. For people it’s somewhere >> in the 70-80 range, and I think there can be as much as a 10-year >> difference across different world gene pools (Japanese being at the upper >> end, and maybe some other group in Central Asia east of the Caucasus; I >> forget). >> > >> > A thing I remember being told by a guy who does this kind of work, >> there seem to be two modes between development-linked diseases (think, >> childhood leukemias), and age-associated diseases. We have made remarkable >> progress on many of the former, and very little on many of the latter. >> Also (and I got this from researchers at Einstein college in Yeshiva some >> years ago, or from a stack of their papers), if one avoids rather specific >> risk factors, like welding or smoking for lung cancers, or dioxin exposures >> for male breast cancers or the like, the leading predictor for most of the >> old-age diseases is just your age. So it has (to me) the look of what >> Holmse’s Wonderful One-Hoss Shay would be if redone with Poisson >> statistics, to become a minimum-information process. The nail that stuck >> up got hammered down (extra resources for any disease that becomes visible >> to selection) that now all the nails are at about the same height, and >> there is some kind of ambivalence frontier. >> > >> > My own anecdotal experience suggests that my previous paragraphs can’t >> possibly be right, since there clearly are common and rare diseases of the >> old. But I didn’t make this stuff up, and got it from some serious >> literature. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Eric >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Jan 3, 2023, at 1:01 PM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto: >> geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> ">144 mmol/l with 21% elevated risk of premature mortality". My last >> test a week ago showed 144! Whew! I guess I have a normal risk for >> premature mortality. 8^D >> >> >> >> The concept of "premature death" is flat out ridiculous. But our >> inability to well-define it raises some interesting questions. >> >> >> >> • deprivation (by the dead, by the rest of us) - is the death of >> Ramanujan at 32 *more* premature than the death of some rando at 32? >> >> • life expectancy seems like yet another instance of people not >> understanding statistics >> >> • quality of life - is the death of a 20 year old born into and likely >> to live in poverty *as* premature as the death of a 20 year old born with a >> silver spoon? >> >> • natural selection - is it premature for a 35 year old who's bred, >> say, 10 children to die? >> >> · or is it premature for them to die before their children have >> children? I.e. is being a grandparent a necessary element of a breeder's >> life? >> >> • consequentialism - had Hitler dyed at age 35, would that have been >> premature? >> >> >> >> I know this seems like a tangent upon tangents. But it's not. It's >> nonsense to relate serum Na to premature mortality because premature >> mortality is nonsense. Prevalence of chronic disease seems, to me, a little >> more well-formed ... but not by much. Biological age just seems like >> pseudoscience to me, the flip side of Vampirism. I'd welcome an education, >> though. >> >> >> >> -- >> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
