3 ms·

Yes, your original post was indeed correct by hedging a bit, speaking of "adult life expectancy" vs. "infant/child mortality". People read that and it register

Yes, your original post was indeed correct by hedging a bit, speaking of "adult life expectancy" vs. "infant/child mortality". People read that and it registers as infants dying within days after birth. But life expectancy for 10-year-olds has doubled: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy. I doubt that your comment makes people think of dead teenagers, even though your post doesn't contradict that interpretation. Even for the 40-year-olds, life expectancy increasing from 68 to 82 years means a >50% increase in "time remaining" which isn't something to sneeze (cough?) at, although I have to reluctantly acknowledge that I remembered it being even larger than that.

Retric 5y ago
I think you’re confusing me with someone else, this is my second post in this thread. Anyway, the data doesn’t support doubling life expectancy for 10 year olds unless you go really far back. Look at the England a whales data in your link, in 1841 10 year olds could expect to see 57.6, or another 47.6 years. In 2013 that bumped to 82.2 or another 72.2 years. By 20, they could likely hit 60 or another 40 years worth of life, and by 40 they where up into ~67.4. However again the difference is largely one of lack of war and famine rather than medicine. The chart is bouncing around because of events that killed large numbers of people, but it smooths out as you approach today. PS: Their Spanish Flu suggestion is off, it was actually WWI and the flu that’s responsible for much of that drop as seen by 40 year olds being largely unaffected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#/media/File:W_curve.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#/media/File:W_curv...