5 ms·

If I read that right, the mortality rate in the general population in 2020 (1027 per 100k); was higher than that found in the homeless community in 2011 (814 pe

If I read that right, the mortality rate in the general population in 2020 (1027 per 100k); was higher than that found in the homeless community in 2011 (814 per 100k). Who says the world is not becoming more dangerous (and not just among the homeless)?

mewpmewp2 3y ago
Doesn't 1000 per 100k imply roughly average of 100 age span? Which seems really good to me.
- black_13 3y ago
  [dead]
- advael 3y ago
  No, but I really gotta know how you drew that conclusion
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    Because if you had stable amount of population if people lived to be 100 years old then each year 1000 out of 100k would die.
    - advael 3y ago
      In this case, I think the assumption that doesn't bear out is "stable amount of population". The relationship between death rate and expected lifespan is likely calculable, but only if you also have either age data or at least approximate change in birthrate data, preferably going back to living memory. We might have that available somewhere, but I don't think your estimate came from having it. Like let's say there's a terrible war, and half of all people die. Can we conclude that most people are dying around 2? This example is extreme, but shows that we at least need some averages over time to start making a case for life expectancy being predicted well by the data
      - mewpmewp2 3y ago
        Yes, but also part of my point, that the above author based on these numbers implied that World is getting more dangerous, but firstly as you mentioned these numbers are meaningless if we don't know the exact demographics of the 100k and secondly for a stable 100k these would be really good numbers.
        advael 3y ago
        Makes sense from that perspective. Thanks for taking the time to clarify
- DefineOutside 3y ago
  No because the population skews younger.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    But even then you can hardly determine that it is a bad or unexpected number, as you would get that number if each year same amount of people were born and died and everyone lived to 100.
lebean 3y ago
That's weird! Did something happen during 2020???
- forgotmypw17 3y ago
  In 2020, the two main sources of life-sustaining resources for people without housing -- public spaces and other people -- were almost entirely cut off.
  - pikamau5 3y ago
    imagine being a homeless person looking at the news everyone saying "just stay at home!"
  - exe34 3y ago
    What do you need other people for? As long as the economy is still running basic services, you can just look inwards for happiness!
cheriot 3y ago
It's a really unfortunate year for comparison. There was that one advantage to being outside... For those not reading the article, > The death rate across all 22 localities increased from 814 per 100,000 homeless residents in 2011, to 2,752 per 100,000 homeless residents in 2020. > Among the general population, the nationwide mortality rate was much lower: 1,027 deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
roenxi 3y ago
It might "just" be the homeless population is ageing. We really need a model prediction of how we expected the homeless population death rate to change over time. I doubt it is in a steady state. "The number of Californians 55 and older who sought homelessness services soared 84% between 2017 and 2021" (from the article), so something demographic is changing. It'd be interesting to know what happened to their retirement savings.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  > It'd be interesting to know what happened to their retirement savings. What happened to what retirement savings?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  45% percent of households with members ages 55 to 64 have no savings at all. The median retirement account balance is about $100,000; most middle-class people need $600,000. There are 39 million workers 55 and older in the U.S. Workers 75 and older are the fastest-growing age segment of the workforce. https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20231028173718/https://www.nirsonline.org/2020/01/new-report-40-of-older-americans-rely-solely-on-social-security-for-retirement-income/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231028173718/https://www.nirso... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39448800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39448800 Housing is also wildly unaffordable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39550922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39550922 (citations)
- kelnos 3y ago
  A disturbing number of people in the US don't have much retirement savings to speak of. Or any retirement savings at all.
- rickydroll 3y ago
  > It'd be interesting to know what happened to their retirement savings. Multi-year medical problems leading to bankruptcy and divorce.
kelnos 3y ago
I'm a little confused why you chose those two not-particlarly-comparable data points. More notable -- and horrifying -- is the large rise in the homeless mortality rate between 2011 and 202.
- didgetmaster 3y ago
  It was in the article. I am more interested in knowing why the author of the article chose those two particular years. Was 2011 the lowest number out of the last 25? Was 2020 the highest? If they were chosen to cherry-pick the data in order to better support a predetermined conclusion, then the whole study is suspect. Too many people do that on a wide variety of topics and then wonder why readers are so skeptical.

mewpmewp2 3y ago

Doesn't 1000 per 100k imply roughly average of 100 age span? Which seems really good to me.

black_13 3y ago
[dead]
advael 3y ago
No, but I really gotta know how you drew that conclusion
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  Because if you had stable amount of population if people lived to be 100 years old then each year 1000 out of 100k would die.
  - advael 3y ago
    In this case, I think the assumption that doesn't bear out is "stable amount of population". The relationship between death rate and expected lifespan is likely calculable, but only if you also have either age data or at least approximate change in birthrate data, preferably going back to living memory. We might have that available somewhere, but I don't think your estimate came from having it. Like let's say there's a terrible war, and half of all people die. Can we conclude that most people are dying around 2? This example is extreme, but shows that we at least need some averages over time to start making a case for life expectancy being predicted well by the data
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      Yes, but also part of my point, that the above author based on these numbers implied that World is getting more dangerous, but firstly as you mentioned these numbers are meaningless if we don't know the exact demographics of the 100k and secondly for a stable 100k these would be really good numbers.
      - advael 3y ago
        Makes sense from that perspective. Thanks for taking the time to clarify
DefineOutside 3y ago
No because the population skews younger.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  But even then you can hardly determine that it is a bad or unexpected number, as you would get that number if each year same amount of people were born and died and everyone lived to 100.

lebean 3y ago

That's weird! Did something happen during 2020???

forgotmypw17 3y ago
In 2020, the two main sources of life-sustaining resources for people without housing -- public spaces and other people -- were almost entirely cut off.
- pikamau5 3y ago
  imagine being a homeless person looking at the news everyone saying "just stay at home!"
- exe34 3y ago
  What do you need other people for? As long as the economy is still running basic services, you can just look inwards for happiness!

cheriot 3y ago

It's a really unfortunate year for comparison. There was that one advantage to being outside... For those not reading the article, > The death rate across all 22 localities increased from 814 per 100,000 homeless residents in 2011, to 2,752 per 100,000 homeless residents in 2020. > Among the general population, the nationwide mortality rate was much lower: 1,027 deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

roenxi 3y ago

It might "just" be the homeless population is ageing. We really need a model prediction of how we expected the homeless population death rate to change over time. I doubt it is in a steady state. "The number of Californians 55 and older who sought homelessness services soared 84% between 2017 and 2021" (from the article), so something demographic is changing. It'd be interesting to know what happened to their retirement savings.

brailsafe 3y ago
> It'd be interesting to know what happened to their retirement savings. What happened to what retirement savings?
toomuchtodo 3y ago
45% percent of households with members ages 55 to 64 have no savings at all. The median retirement account balance is about $100,000; most middle-class people need $600,000. There are 39 million workers 55 and older in the U.S. Workers 75 and older are the fastest-growing age segment of the workforce. https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20231028173718/https://www.nirsonline.org/2020/01/new-report-40-of-older-americans-rely-solely-on-social-security-for-retirement-income/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231028173718/https://www.nirso... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39448800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39448800 Housing is also wildly unaffordable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39550922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39550922 (citations)
kelnos 3y ago
A disturbing number of people in the US don't have much retirement savings to speak of. Or any retirement savings at all.
rickydroll 3y ago
> It'd be interesting to know what happened to their retirement savings. Multi-year medical problems leading to bankruptcy and divorce.

kelnos 3y ago

I'm a little confused why you chose those two not-particlarly-comparable data points. More notable -- and horrifying -- is the large rise in the homeless mortality rate between 2011 and 202.

didgetmaster 3y ago
It was in the article. I am more interested in knowing why the author of the article chose those two particular years. Was 2011 the lowest number out of the last 25? Was 2020 the highest? If they were chosen to cherry-pick the data in order to better support a predetermined conclusion, then the whole study is suspect. Too many people do that on a wide variety of topics and then wonder why readers are so skeptical.