Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="paweprints98" data-source="post: 3222271" data-attributes="member: 101826">But you were saying that the society of the time was more advanced. You know, back when it wasn&#039;t democratic. Do try to keep up.&nbsp;&nbsp;Okay, so once upon a time your healthy life expectancy was pretty similar to your actual life expectancy. If you were unhealthy enough to be considered infirm, you were probably dead.&nbsp;Nowadays life expectancy for males in the UK is 77. Healthy life expectancy is 69. That means that for each male individual in the UK, you are expected to be in seriously poor health (we&#039;re not talking just a cold here) for eight years of your life, somewhat over 10% of your existince. Given that about 25% of that same life (up to the age of 19 lets say since it makes the maths easier) is spent in care of someone else, you are therefore only independent and healthy for 65% of your lifespan. The rest of it you spend being looked after by others - a net drain on the system.&nbsp;Females have it worse with a life expectancy of 81, and a healthy life expectancy of 72, meaning that 9 years is spent effectively infirm.&nbsp;The problem is that measuring the length of someone&#039;s life is easier than measuring the quality of it. If you say you&#039;ve added ten years to the average lifespan, it sounds like a good thing. All you need to do is not mention that half of those years will be spent out of your mind being spoonfed by a nurse.&nbsp;http://longevity.about.com/od/longevity101/a/hales.htm&nbsp;&nbsp;I&#039;m aware of this - but we&#039;ve got to the point where reducing infant mortality no longer increases life expectancy (again, referring to the UK as I&#039;m most familiar with the maths here). In 1910 we dropped below the 1% infant mortality mark, after that increases in life expectancy are disproportionately related to decreases in infant mortality.&nbsp;&nbsp;Technically they&#039;re non-existent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="paweprints98, post: 3222271, member: 101826"] But you were saying that the society of the time was more advanced. You know, back when it wasn't democratic. Do try to keep up. Okay, so once upon a time your healthy life expectancy was pretty similar to your actual life expectancy. If you were unhealthy enough to be considered infirm, you were probably dead. Nowadays life expectancy for males in the UK is 77. Healthy life expectancy is 69. That means that for each male individual in the UK, you are expected to be in seriously poor health (we're not talking just a cold here) for eight years of your life, somewhat over 10% of your existince. Given that about 25% of that same life (up to the age of 19 lets say since it makes the maths easier) is spent in care of someone else, you are therefore only independent and healthy for 65% of your lifespan. The rest of it you spend being looked after by others - a net drain on the system. Females have it worse with a life expectancy of 81, and a healthy life expectancy of 72, meaning that 9 years is spent effectively infirm. The problem is that measuring the length of someone's life is easier than measuring the quality of it. If you say you've added ten years to the average lifespan, it sounds like a good thing. All you need to do is not mention that half of those years will be spent out of your mind being spoonfed by a nurse. http://longevity.about.com/od/longevity101/a/hales.htm I'm aware of this - but we've got to the point where reducing infant mortality no longer increases life expectancy (again, referring to the UK as I'm most familiar with the maths here). In 1910 we dropped below the 1% infant mortality mark, after that increases in life expectancy are disproportionately related to decreases in infant mortality. Technically they're non-existent. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…