[FRIAM] Friday AM

Tue Jan 3 20:27:06 EST 2023

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)		 	angel at cs.unm.edu <mailto:angel at cs.unm.edu>
505-453-4944 (cell) 				http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel <http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel>

> On Jan 3, 2023, at 5:33 PM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at 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 <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at 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> <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 <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at 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 <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230103/3bd2e702/attachment.html>