Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (64296)	4/3/2018 1:46:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364383

You point out the main problem with using life expectancy as a proxy for the medical care quality and availability. A secondary, smaller, problem is that differences in the measurement of infant mortality (which is also used in such comparisons), impact calculations of life expectancy. Don't count the baby as a live birth and then a death, well you just avoided averaging in an instance of minutes to days in to the life expectancy calculations. Sure most births, and certainly most deaths, don't fall in to the area where these is different treatment. But a relatively small number can effect the calculation when your adding a very low figure. If you have 50 people all dying on the 78th birthday, and then one dies at 76, it doesn't impact the average much (78 to 77.96). But if you have 50 die at 78 and then add one in at 1/100th of a year and you've just dropped the average from 78 to 76.47.