4 ms·
Why should we believe this biased source? >Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dyin
by netizen-936824 5y ago
Why should we believe this biased source?
>Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.
So he sees the data for non elderly people, because those are the people who have his company's plans. So he doesn't have the data to compare against to say elderly people aren't dying at higher rates because they aren't his customers
- omosubi 5y agoWhy must it be a comparison? A 40% increase in deaths for any population is mind boggling
- netizen-936824 5y agoBecause the quoted source is literally making the comparison, which I am saying is incorrect because his data is biased. Please reread the piece I quoted to see the comparison >that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”
- zo1 5y agoYou're being oddly pedanti? He could mean any number of things with that mention of elderly people.
- netizen-936824 5y agoBecause he is making claims of fact based on his available data. I am saying the statement is incorrect
- zo1 5y agoHe also, in the article, mentions that he is looking at other companies in the market. "We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica". Anywho without more info about what access to data he is making his observations on, we're just speculating. Definitely can't say he is factually wrong with the vague and open bits of info from the article. It's just quotes that could mean almost anything.
- k2enemy 5y agoIt really isn't if you are starting from an extremely low baseline.
- omosubi 5y agoSo we should just ignore these numbers? Does this not warrant more information about what is causing these deaths?
- CoastalCoder 5y agoI suspect you misunderstood the parent's point. Not being mind-boggling doesn't imply we should ignore it.
- loeg 5y agoDepends on historical variance, no? The baseline was half a percent of hundreds of millions of people. It’s a lot of additional deaths.
- jliptzin 5y agoAlso this is a $100 billion company that is private and with only 2400 employees? Something doesn’t smell right.
- gbronner 5y agoLife insurance is mostly a passthrough from the living to the families of the dead Most people never use the product.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hnburnsy 5y agoProbably this is assets under management, not yearly sales or net income.
- carls 5y agoI think the $100bn number does not refer to the company revenue. According to the company, in 2016 revenue was close to $2bn [1]. It may instead refer to total assets under administration (which was $74bn in 2016, according to the same source). ------- [1] https://www.oneamerica.com/newsroom/news-releases/oneamerica-2016-financial-records https://www.oneamerica.com/newsroom/news-releases/oneamerica...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- _hnoq 5y agoRoblox has a market cap of 60 billion and less than 1500 employees(it was private until less than a year ago)
- xojoc 5y agoHow many new young customers do they have? Maybe more people than before think about getting a life insurance and for whatever reason the more "fragile" ones are getting one.
- whatever1 5y agoBig employers in the US offer group life insurance to their employees without the need to opt in. Of course they have opt in add ons to increase the coverage, but in any case if you are employed and you die (knock wood) the insurance company’s phone will ring.
- hnburnsy 5y agoThese are most likely group life policies where the employer pays the premiums for a base amount for all employees. Since there is no charge to the employee for the base coverage, most would accept the coverage.
- kevinmchugh 5y agoIf the employee base changed it could end up being unrepresentative of the broader population, but it's hard to imagine what that might be. Healthier people quit? Healthier people left Indiana? A competitor insurance company signed all the healthier groups?
- the_optimist 5y agoHe is not saying that elderly people aren’t dying. He’s saying elderly people are not in his sample set. In other words, you read this incorrectly. Also, you do not justify your claim of bias.
- netizen-936824 5y ago>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” "that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying" Am I missing something? Is this not a comparison?
- maxerickson 5y agoIt's a literary construction, emphasizing that the 40% increase is not an observation about elderly people. It's not intended to be taken alone as a statement about the elderly.
- netizen-936824 5y agoHe is making a statement on his data and saying that elderly aren't dying at the same rate. How is it possible to take that any way besides literally?
- notreallyserio 5y agoI dunno what the disconnect is but you may be the only one struggling with the meaning behind the words. I don't see him referring to the death rate of people outside 18-64 at all. You could say his information is biased because it is limited to folks that have insurance through his company, but he's up front about that.
- netizen-936824 5y ago>it’s not elderly people who are dying Quoted verbatim from the source article. This is a plain statement on the death rate of that specific age group.
- austinkhale 5y agoWhat claim do you believe is being made that utilizes this source in a biased way? It seems to me that in his remarks he was pretty clear about this data applying to the vertical of participants in employer plans, in a specific age group. I don’t think it’s any secret that the last two years have been poor for people’s mental & physical health. It stands to reason that we’re going to be feeling the consequences of the pandemic & pandemic mitigation efforts for quite some time.
- netizen-936824 5y ago>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” He's literally claiming that elderly are not dying at the same rates, based on his internal customer data
- whatever1 5y agoAre we reading the same sentence?
- netizen-936824 5y agoSo how do you interpret it? My interpretation is that this guy runs an insurance company who insures working age people through their employers. That is the source of the data, so he is missing data on elderly people Yet he makes a claim that the people he does not have data on are dying at a lower rate than the people he does have data on. This makes no sense, as you can't make a comparison when you simply don't have data on the group you're comparing against
- GaveDrohl 5y agoCan you share the quote from the article that you're referring to? Not saying it's not there, but I'm just not finding it.
- netizen-936824 5y ago