3 ms·

You cannot take life expectancy at birth as a model for how healthy adults are. That statistic is massively distorted by infant mortality (which is an astoundin

by mdemare 16y ago

You cannot take life expectancy at birth as a model for how healthy adults are. That statistic is massively distorted by infant mortality (which is an astounding 13.3% for Afghanistan).

electromagnetic 16y ago
Actually yes you can and yes you should. Infants die in third-world countries because of lack of healthcare, but often because of weak immune system and other effects of poor health that children survive from in western countries. If you compare dogs bought from reputable breeders and puppy mills, you can't exclude all the puppies that die in the first year from a puppy mill and get a fair comparison. You can't exclude puppies died from both suppliers and get a fair comparison. The only fair way to compare is between total numbers. Life expectancy is a product of health and health care. The unhealthy live longer in places like the UK and US than the healthy in many places of the world. When the west has people with AIDS outliving people in the middle-east and africa with no recognizable condition, then those places cannot and should not ever be used in reference to a healthy place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian#Verified_supercentenarians_over_115_years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian#Verified_super... Do you see an Afghan? No you see people from the allegedly 'unhealthy' western countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian#Numbers_of_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian#Numbers_of_centenar... Again do you see any Afghans? Do you even see any middle-east or African countries with accountable estimates? No.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that a high rate of child mortality is not an issue in and of itself. But if you're going to claim that life expectancy in Afghanistan is very low vs. the West, therefore the Western diet is healthier than Afghanistan's, and in the process ignore child mortality as a factor then you're entirely disingenuous. As an example: if you take 2 groups of 10 people, 9 of which die at 70 of natural causes in group A while 1 dies at age 1 and 5 of which die at 90 of natural causes in group B while 5 die at age 1, the "life expectancy" of group A is 63.1 and group B is 45.5. But the average lifespan of adults is 70 in group A and 90 in group B. The health of adults is significantly higher in group B. The health of children is significantly higher in group A. When many children die, the often touted "life expectancy" number plummets. And subsequently gets used in comparisons of health/activity/environment/etc of adults when in fact that "life expectancy" number is completely misleading when applied to adults. Additionally, if one adult in group A lives to be 105, that outlier doesn't indicate a trending statistic.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Thank you for a lesson in basic averages. You're still completely clueless. You're attempting to measure health based on diet between two groups. One group regularly receives medical and dental care. One group does not. I don't care what bat-shit psycho crap you want, because if you find some hillfolk in the US who haven't seen a doctor in their lives, they're going to have a life expectancy in their mid 50's because most of them are likely to die from abscessed teeth or broken legs or a frigging cold. You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. You can't pick and choose who to factor in and out for health and get a useful result, it's idiotic. Total mortality figures is a better statistic than selected mortality statistic, because infant mortality is a golden example of the total capability of a countries health care. Basically, if you can't afford to wash your hands in alcohol before delivering a baby to make it hygienic, then you're fucked. I don't care if my diet isn't causing me longevity, I have a doctor. He's called a Cardiac Surgeon and he performs heart surgeries. This is why I live in the west and did not die as a 7 year old of sepsis from a broken leg.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. No, I'm not. Mainly because I'd have needed to use the words "dog" and "wolf" to literally be talking about them. Literally, Joe Biden. But also because I'm not even figuratively speaking of them. But since you created the analogy: The "wolves" that don't die young live far longer than the "dogs" that don't die young due to the "wolves" better diet and in spite of the "dogs" having access to vets and living in houses. When you're comparing the health of adults you can't use information pertaining to the health of children. The factor is itself defined in the equation.

by mdemare 16y ago

You cannot take life expectancy at birth as a model for how healthy adults are. That statistic is massively distorted by infant mortality (which is an astounding 13.3% for Afghanistan).

electromagnetic 16y ago

Actually yes you can and yes you should. Infants die in third-world countries because of lack of healthcare, but often because of weak immune system and other effects of poor health that children survive from in western countries. If you compare dogs bought from reputable breeders and puppy mills, you can't exclude all the puppies that die in the first year from a puppy mill and get a fair comparison. You can't exclude puppies died from both suppliers and get a fair comparison. The only fair way to compare is between total numbers. Life expectancy is a product of health and health care. The unhealthy live longer in places like the UK and US than the healthy in many places of the world. When the west has people with AIDS outliving people in the middle-east and africa with no recognizable condition, then those places cannot and should not ever be used in reference to a healthy place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian#Verified_supercentenarians_over_115_years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian#Verified_super... Do you see an Afghan? No you see people from the allegedly 'unhealthy' western countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian#Numbers_of_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian#Numbers_of_centenar... Again do you see any Afghans? Do you even see any middle-east or African countries with accountable estimates? No.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that a high rate of child mortality is not an issue in and of itself. But if you're going to claim that life expectancy in Afghanistan is very low vs. the West, therefore the Western diet is healthier than Afghanistan's, and in the process ignore child mortality as a factor then you're entirely disingenuous. As an example: if you take 2 groups of 10 people, 9 of which die at 70 of natural causes in group A while 1 dies at age 1 and 5 of which die at 90 of natural causes in group B while 5 die at age 1, the "life expectancy" of group A is 63.1 and group B is 45.5. But the average lifespan of adults is 70 in group A and 90 in group B. The health of adults is significantly higher in group B. The health of children is significantly higher in group A. When many children die, the often touted "life expectancy" number plummets. And subsequently gets used in comparisons of health/activity/environment/etc of adults when in fact that "life expectancy" number is completely misleading when applied to adults. Additionally, if one adult in group A lives to be 105, that outlier doesn't indicate a trending statistic.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Thank you for a lesson in basic averages. You're still completely clueless. You're attempting to measure health based on diet between two groups. One group regularly receives medical and dental care. One group does not. I don't care what bat-shit psycho crap you want, because if you find some hillfolk in the US who haven't seen a doctor in their lives, they're going to have a life expectancy in their mid 50's because most of them are likely to die from abscessed teeth or broken legs or a frigging cold. You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. You can't pick and choose who to factor in and out for health and get a useful result, it's idiotic. Total mortality figures is a better statistic than selected mortality statistic, because infant mortality is a golden example of the total capability of a countries health care. Basically, if you can't afford to wash your hands in alcohol before delivering a baby to make it hygienic, then you're fucked. I don't care if my diet isn't causing me longevity, I have a doctor. He's called a Cardiac Surgeon and he performs heart surgeries. This is why I live in the west and did not die as a 7 year old of sepsis from a broken leg.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. No, I'm not. Mainly because I'd have needed to use the words "dog" and "wolf" to literally be talking about them. Literally, Joe Biden. But also because I'm not even figuratively speaking of them. But since you created the analogy: The "wolves" that don't die young live far longer than the "dogs" that don't die young due to the "wolves" better diet and in spite of the "dogs" having access to vets and living in houses. When you're comparing the health of adults you can't use information pertaining to the health of children. The factor is itself defined in the equation.