Most active commenters
  • s1artibartfast(4)

←back to thread

Life expectancy rise in rich countries slows down: took 30 years to prove

(www.nature.com)
201 points andsoitis | 13 comments | 15 Oct 24 13:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.687s | source | bottom
Show context
aucisson_masque ◴[15 Oct 24 22:04 UTC] No.41853580[source]▶
> Can we overcome ageing?

75% American are overweight..

Just let it sink a second, they speak about how many baby born after 2000 will reach 100 years old, how we are reaching the absolute limit of human survival.

75% overweight... Everyone know fat people don't live long. I bet all the studies done in the 90's that predicted we would easily be able to reach 100 years old didn't take that into account.

replies(8): >>41853665 #>>41853666 #>>41853689 #>>41854356 #>>41855406 #>>41856184 #>>41866200 #>>41869259 #
1. EasyMark ◴[16 Oct 24 00:07 UTC] No.41854356[source]▶
That’s a bizarre hill to die on, I see all kinds of larger people survive into their 90s when I was living near and volunteering at a nursing home as a teenager
replies(4): >>41854658 #>>41854786 #>>41854860 #>>41861554 #
2. WillPostForFood ◴[16 Oct 24 00:59 UTC] No.41854658[source]▶
I see all kinds of larger people survive into their 90s

So dangerous to extrapolate from anecdotal observation like this. If I see old people smoking, doesn't mean smoking is safe. It just means it doesn't kill at 100% effectiveness.

replies(1): >>41855031 #
3. dyauspitr ◴[16 Oct 24 01:33 UTC] No.41854786[source]▶
I see “plenty” of life long smokers making it to their 80s and 90s too, that doesn’t mean it didn’t take out 90% of them along the way.
replies(1): >>41860460 #
4. renewiltord ◴[16 Oct 24 01:49 UTC] No.41854860[source]▶
That’s the funny thing: at homes and nursing homes all around America you will find WW2 veterans. One could conclude that WW2 wasn’t dangerous from that, I suppose.
replies(1): >>41873038 #
5. koolba ◴[16 Oct 24 02:24 UTC] No.41855031[source]▶
> It just means it doesn't kill at 100% effectiveness.

If you wait long enough, everything has a 100% effectiveness.

replies(1): >>41855159 #
6. rKarpinski ◴[16 Oct 24 02:55 UTC] No.41855159{3}[source]▶
if you wait long enough, obesity actually becomes a protective factor for serious issues; like Falling & Sarcopenia.
7. s1artibartfast ◴[16 Oct 24 15:46 UTC] No.41860460[source]▶
Good example of how people overestimate the impact of these things. Closer to 10% of smokers get lung cancer.
replies(1): >>41862768 #
8. kaibee ◴[16 Oct 24 17:28 UTC] No.41861554[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
9. dyauspitr ◴[16 Oct 24 19:18 UTC] No.41862768{3}[source]▶
But COPD, Emphysema and cardio vascular issues also affect smokers, it’s not just lung cancer.
replies(1): >>41864855 #
10. s1artibartfast ◴[16 Oct 24 23:15 UTC] No.41864855{4}[source]▶
Sure.but I don't think it escalates to a 90% death rate
replies(1): >>41870732 #
11. baueric ◴[17 Oct 24 15:44 UTC] No.41870732{5}[source]▶
It's actually a 100% death rate as all smokers sure. Jokes aside, your statement doesn't have meaning. Many deaths are not attributable to a single cause. However, it's been studies endlessly and is well accepted that smoking increases all-cause mortality.
replies(1): >>41873022 #
12. s1artibartfast ◴[17 Oct 24 19:38 UTC] No.41873022{6}[source]▶
Im not arguing against that at all. I was making a point about the magnitude of that impact.

People tend to over-estimate the impact of both smoking and obesity.

13. s1artibartfast ◴[17 Oct 24 19:40 UTC] No.41873038[source]▶
You could conclude that WW2 wasnt 100% fatal. Actual death rates was about 1 in 40, ie 2.5%

Depending on your priors, This may be a lot or not