3 ms·

Do you have a link for that? The first result I got is this life table for US 2003 on Wikipedia (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Excerpt_fro

• lordnacho 7y ago
  Of magnitude, yes. This is not the one I found yesterday but figures are similar. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
  • conistonwater 7y ago
    That's not reasonable. 1% risk of death vs (1+4.6)% risk of death (a) is closer to 1 order of magnitude higher (log_10(5.6)=0.75), and (b) 1%/year and 5.6%/year are nowhere near the same the way most normal people think about the risk of dying. A 1 order of magnitude lower risk (0.1%) is basically negligible, like a regular flu. On the other hand, a 1 order of magnitude increase, i.e., around 10% risk of dying would already rate among the deadliest epidemics in history, and far above things like the Spanish flu, so comparing orders of magnitude is just not the right way to think about this number.
    • lordnacho 7y ago
      You might have a point there. But I think a lot depends on the error of the disease estimates, and it seems clear that they could well overlap with the range of natural death rates. Dependent on how you slice and dice it. For sure old people are at at least a year's risk.