Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance of re

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Post Reply
Steven M. McCann
Devotee
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm

Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance of re

Post by Steven M. McCann »

I think it would be safe to assume quite a few will live a good deal past it.
Who knows? maybe middle age won't start until you're 60,
the retirement age could be put back to 85 (the Tories are already working on it!)
40 year olds might be considered youngsters.
Steven M. McCann
Devotee
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm

Re: Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance o

Post by Steven M. McCann »

Should have said "reaching 100".
Matthew Tassier
Acolyte
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:37 am

Re: Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance o

Post by Matthew Tassier »

Even assuming you meant to add "in the UK" too, it still feels like lazy/populist/detached statistical work to me. Yes, ONS, I'm looking at you.

In reality a Brit turning 97 this year has a 1 in 3 chance of reaching 100.

Also 40 year olds are youngsters.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13271
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance o

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Yeah, it's just made up. What are they basing it on?
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance o

Post by David Williams »

Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, it's just made up. What are they basing it on?
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetable ... o-100.html
Perhaps you could save me the trouble of reading it by having a look at the statistical bulletin at the bottom and pointing out the flaws.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13271
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Apparently, babies born this year have a 1 in 3 chance o

Post by Gavin Chipper »

David Williams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, it's just made up. What are they basing it on?
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetable ... o-100.html
Perhaps you could save me the trouble of reading it by having a look at the statistical bulletin at the bottom and pointing out the flaws.
I had a look through this. While it may be a bit strong to say it's "just made up", all future predictions of life expectancy are based on some massive guesstimation and basically extending a few graphs in the direction they look like they're going in. First of all, you can't simply extend life expectancy indefinitely (other then by stopping ageing - see below). By having more healthy lives etc., people still have a limit to how long they will live. No-one really knows if the average person has the genes to live to 100 by just eating more fruit and vegetables, avoiding stress and exercising.

But then obviously you have improvements in medical science. But this needs to be more than simply treating illnesses better. People's bodies will still pack up. So then we're talking about stopping/reversing the ageing process. This technology is likely to happen at some point, and you can't work out when it will happen by simply extrapolating from a life expectancy graph. I'd say it's very likely that this will happen within the next 100 years, so someone born today reaching 100 may also reach 1000.
Post Reply