So this is it...we're going to die

[andrewducker]

I was reading the Hacker News discussion of yesterday's link on death and doctors' views on it, and came across this comment which highlighted how small the gains in lifespan over the last hundred years are

Comments

[drdoug]

The motherlode for this information for the UK is the very-excellent Office of National Statistics

[danieldwilliam]

So, the key thing in the OP is that in 1900 once you had reached 65 you were probably good for about the same number of years as you are now if you reach 65

but

your chances of seeing 65 in 1900 were very much lower.

[steer]

While commonly believed this is not true. Since 1970 changes in life expectancy in industrialised nations have been pretty largely driven by extensions in life for older people.

When we reach 65 we now go on for longer and it is this rather than anything pre 65 which is now driving increases in life expectency.

J.R. Wilmoth / Experimental Gerontology 35 (2000) 1111±1129

[danieldwilliam]

It's not true that in 1900 your chances of living to 65 were significantly lower than they are in 2011?

[steer]

It is not true that you're good for approximately the same number of years from 65. Andrew's belief is based on taking the absolute number he should be looking at the percentage increase since then. The remaining life expected at 65 has increased by 50% in that period.

[danieldwilliam]

i.e. 19-12=7

7 / 12 = 58%

?

and that this effect is currently (in the West) the only significant factor in extending average life expectancy

i.e. almost everyone got to 65 in the 1970's and now they are living longer than 65 in increasing numbers?

[steer]

Exactly my point yes... I would not say it is the only significant factor but it is the most significant one. I'm looking at a mortality curve for 1995 births the estimate is that less than 1 in 20 die before the age of 50 (and very few of those in the first year of life). Around about 85% make it to 65. Small (in absolute terms) increases in longevity for the over 65s now have a greater effect on mean longevity than a large reduction in death rates before 50.

[danieldwilliam]

Right - I think I get this now. Thanks for the explaination.

Sounds like we've done the easy work of getting most people up towards to the best we can do and we're now left with the harder job of nibbling away at the maximum.

Not the worst problem to have I suppose. In fact, almost by defination a first world problem.

[steer]

we're now left with the harder job of nibbling away at the maximum.

Exactly... and as I comment elsewhere, that "nibbling" might not be such slow nibbling as some people think. Mean and maximum lifespans appear to be showing consistent linear increases where data can be reliably found.

[danieldwilliam]

Two thoughts occur to me - neither I fear particularly novel.

If the nibbling is actually closer to biting then I and my two year old son (more so) should prepare ourselves for a significantly longer life - not just pensions but careers, paying for housing costs and assumptions about the amount of change we might see in our lives. I’m expecting gerontology to get a huge boost when the Chinese and Indians get up to speed and have a larger aging population of their own and start spending their money on the study of aging.

Secondly, for populations that are currently still not very devoloped and having problems with child mortality etc they are going to get all of these medical and public health advances in a oner and from an average life expectancy in the 40’s with 50% child mortality to life expectancy in the 90’s with child mortality in the low 0.1% (hopefully sooner rather than later).

[steer]

If the nibbling is actually closer to biting then I and my two year old son (more so) should prepare ourselves for a significantly longer life - not just pensions but careers, paying for housing costs and assumptions about the amount of change we might see in our lives.Now this relates to a big lie we've been sold time and again -- that pension companies have no idea about what life expectancy will be. In fact, there is a vast amount of information about this and most of the ``data" about life expectancy that people discuss (life expectancy at birth right now for example) is ``projected". So, when we say something like, "life expectancy at birth in Kensington and Chelsea right now is 89.8 years" then that is actually a prediction, it's not based on the average ages at which people died but based on ``mortality" at each age

[danieldwilliam]

I did my accountancy traineeship with one of the world's largest Life Assurance and Pensions companies.

Some of these concepts are ringing bells with me.

[steer]

Ah, I'm probably slightly preaching to the choir then. Your company would probably just work from a standard set of tables for estimated life expectancy which includes a model of how that grows over time.

[danieldwilliam]

Something like that.

I confess at the time I was there I was paying more attention to chatting up the actuarial trainees than listening to the discussions on actuarial methods from the old boys.

[andrewducker]

Thank you for that!

[brixtonbrood]

All that stuff is vitally important to remember whenever people talk about pensions being unaffordable and the need to extend the retirement age. Those discussions are often "illuminated" by entirely irrelevant data about huge increases in life-expectancy at birth, which were mostly driven by reductions in infant mortality.