4 ms·

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit.

by jemmyw 4y ago

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit... has life expectancies for age ranges from 1841 and shows a huge difference for a 5 year old. If conditions get worse with age then the average going from 55 to 82 (from age 5) could hide a lot of data about these disorders.

Amezarak 4y ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. You see this basically throughout history except in very bad times like famine or major plagues, or were there is persistent dietary issues as we introduced in the late 19thc, or early on in the switch to farming. Rural areas also tend to do better than urban.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  Thanks for the link that is informative.
- taeric 4y ago
  This feels wrong, though. Measles alone meant you likely lost kids in that age range. Antiseptics, as well, were huge in saving people from from otherwise deadly nicks.
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    Otherwise healthy people rarely die from nicks. Me and my kids regularly get cuts or miscellaneous wounds and I’ve never needed antibiotics or to do anything besides wash them with water. Measles is fairly low mortality in absolute terms. Even within living memory, getting the measles and the mumps was a normal childhood experience. The overall mortality is 1 or 2 per thousand and the disease is most dangerous in under 5s and over 20s. So before widespread vaccination, everyone was exposed before their 20s and we excluded under 5s from the count.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Do you regularly walk through non paved paths? Work in soil? Both common things in the past. Both common ways to have a non safe nick. Edit: I realize 5 is the cutoff for this study because measles and the like. It is deadly to youth in pretty stark contrast to older.
      - Amezarak 4y ago
        Yes, I live in a rural area and work outside a lot. I also get scratched to bleeding by animals fairly frequently. My kids are magnets for all kind of mysterious injuries. It is simply not common to get serious infections from everyday wounds for otherwise healthy people. Indeed, for most of human history, cities had higher mortality than the countryside due to disease. "Random cuts" are not nearly as dangerous as "lots of people." “Deadly” can be true for measles in young children but again, it’s important to be clear that the actual mortality is very low. It certainly contributed (with many other diseases) to lowering life expectancy for infants, but it was not even close to a death sentence; the vast majority survived. As I said, it was basically a rite of passage even for our grandparent’s generation.
        selimthegrim 4y ago
        Anthrax, coccidioidomycosis, schistosomiasis, hantavirus… you live in a charmed area no doubt
        Amezarak 4y ago
        It has nothing to do with being charmed. These infections are generally rare to start with, and are not automatically life threatening. There's a reason humans survived to modern day.
        riffraff 4y ago
        > There's a reason humans survived to modern day. well we made a bunch of kids to offset deaths. I mean, sure, getting chicken pox was relatively common when I was a kid, and few people died of it. But a low percentage of all the population is still a large number of people.
  - dham 4y ago
    > Measles alone meant you likely lost kids in that age range. I get what you're saying, but Measles is definitely the wrong thing to put here. Most people over the age of 35 aren't going to get what you're saying.
    - taeric 3y ago
      To be fair, most of us also don't know the pain of an infected wound. Has sadly gone down the same route as so many folks thinking they have had the flu.

by jemmyw 4y ago

Amezarak 4y ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. You see this basically throughout history except in very bad times like famine or major plagues, or were there is persistent dietary issues as we introduced in the late 19thc, or early on in the switch to farming. Rural areas also tend to do better than urban.

jemmyw 4y ago
Thanks for the link that is informative.
taeric 4y ago
This feels wrong, though. Measles alone meant you likely lost kids in that age range. Antiseptics, as well, were huge in saving people from from otherwise deadly nicks.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  Otherwise healthy people rarely die from nicks. Me and my kids regularly get cuts or miscellaneous wounds and I’ve never needed antibiotics or to do anything besides wash them with water. Measles is fairly low mortality in absolute terms. Even within living memory, getting the measles and the mumps was a normal childhood experience. The overall mortality is 1 or 2 per thousand and the disease is most dangerous in under 5s and over 20s. So before widespread vaccination, everyone was exposed before their 20s and we excluded under 5s from the count.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Do you regularly walk through non paved paths? Work in soil? Both common things in the past. Both common ways to have a non safe nick. Edit: I realize 5 is the cutoff for this study because measles and the like. It is deadly to youth in pretty stark contrast to older.
    - Amezarak 4y ago
      Yes, I live in a rural area and work outside a lot. I also get scratched to bleeding by animals fairly frequently. My kids are magnets for all kind of mysterious injuries. It is simply not common to get serious infections from everyday wounds for otherwise healthy people. Indeed, for most of human history, cities had higher mortality than the countryside due to disease. "Random cuts" are not nearly as dangerous as "lots of people." “Deadly” can be true for measles in young children but again, it’s important to be clear that the actual mortality is very low. It certainly contributed (with many other diseases) to lowering life expectancy for infants, but it was not even close to a death sentence; the vast majority survived. As I said, it was basically a rite of passage even for our grandparent’s generation.
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        Anthrax, coccidioidomycosis, schistosomiasis, hantavirus… you live in a charmed area no doubt
        Amezarak 4y ago
        It has nothing to do with being charmed. These infections are generally rare to start with, and are not automatically life threatening. There's a reason humans survived to modern day.
        riffraff 4y ago
        > There's a reason humans survived to modern day. well we made a bunch of kids to offset deaths. I mean, sure, getting chicken pox was relatively common when I was a kid, and few people died of it. But a low percentage of all the population is still a large number of people.
- dham 4y ago
  > Measles alone meant you likely lost kids in that age range. I get what you're saying, but Measles is definitely the wrong thing to put here. Most people over the age of 35 aren't going to get what you're saying.
  - taeric 3y ago
    To be fair, most of us also don't know the pain of an infected wound. Has sadly gone down the same route as so many folks thinking they have had the flu.