Where are the missing 90 year olds?

OffGridLiving

We've already seen state pension retirement ages increase to between 66 and 68 with another rise touted at 70 because we are 'all living longer'. However, these projections have come into question when compared with real data

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23126814

"Thousands of elderly people are missing. The last UK census found far fewer people in their 90s than expected, and the same thing happened in the US with people over 100. Could this be an early sign that gains in life expectancy made in recent decades will not be repeated in future?

We've seen amazing improvements in life expectancy over the past few decades.

Six years have been added to global average life expectancy at birth, over the past two decades.

Much of this increase has been down to improvements in child mortality in low- and middle- income countries.

But in countries like the UK, post-retirement life expectancy has also increased rapidly.

"Life expectancy of a man aged 65 has increased from 14 years in the early 1980s to 21 years now - so that's a 50% jump in just three decades," says Richard Willets, director of longevity at insurance company Partnership.

Which is why, when the 2011 census was published, he went straight to the statistics about elderly populations.

And there the data revealed a surprise.

"There were 30,000 fewer people aged in their 90s than previously believed," he says - 429,000 instead of 457,000.

"That was about 15% fewer men; 5% fewer females. There were also fewer centenarians than previously believed - the number of female centenarians was [out] by about 10%."

Something similar has happened in the United States.

A projection made in 2004 suggested that by 2010, there would be around 114,000 people aged 100 or over, Willets says.

But, in reality, the 2010 census counted less than half that number.

Where have they all gone?

Sadly, they've already died. They just didn't live as long as statisticians had predicted."

Tancred

This just proves that statistics tell a lie - we are not all living longer, wer are simply living more healthily. The government will happily tell us all a pack of lies to justify the ever later state retirement age.

GhIFA

Tancred wrote: »

This just proves that statistics tell a lie - we are not all living longer, wer are simply living more healthily. The government will happily tell us all a pack of lies to justify the ever later state retirement age.

Where does it say we're not living longer - what it suggests is that life expectancy is not going to increase at the same rate as we've seen in recent decades.

oliveoil99

Tancred wrote: »

This just proves that statistics tell a lie - we are not all living longer, wer are simply living more healthily. The government will happily tell us all a pack of lies to justify the ever later state retirement age.

I was out with a group of about 10 friends we were discussing people living longer or what we are being led to believe. We asked each other the average age of the people whose funerals we had been to in the last few years came out no-one in there 90s or passed it was mainly 40s 50s and 60s and some a lot lot younger.

redbuzzard

This doesn't surprise me at all, because the scheme actuary I spoke to about this a year ago was also sceptical. It's very much an extrapolation, as it has to be - based on, but not the same as, the ages people are dying (or not dying) at now.

But currently that is heavily influenced by us boomers. We were the first generation to have the NHS from birth, and the general view is that we had a fairly healthy diet in childhood too, plus all that orange juice and school milk. That continues to apply, but lifestyles for many are becoming much less healthy.

I may have the rosy specs on again, but there seemed to be very few seriously overweight younger people around then - and the really obese ones were rare enough to be remarked on. Diabetes is now epidemic it seems.

It's a fact that people generally walk far less now. Children are driven to school half a mile here.

bigadaj

But people currently in their nineties would have been born around 1920, meaning that be Second World War would have seen many of them die surely?

OffGridLiving

redbuzzard wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me at all, because the scheme actuary I spoke to about this a year ago was also sceptical. It's very much an extrapolation, as it has to be - based on, but not the same as, the ages people are dying (or not dying) at now.

But currently that is heavily influenced by us boomers. We were the first generation to have the NHS from birth, and the general view is that we had a fairly healthy diet in childhood too, plus all that orange juice and school milk. That continues to apply, but lifestyles for many are becoming much less healthy.

I may have the rosy specs on again, but there seemed to be very few seriously overweight younger people around then - and the really obese ones were rare enough to be remarked on. Diabetes is now epidemic it seems.

It's a fact that people generally walk far less now. Children are driven to school half a mile here.

I read somewhere that the generation after the boomers will be the first one not to live longer than the generation before it (If my poor English makes sense). I was stood with the dog outside our local convenience store while my wife went in and picked up some bits and was really surprised at the number of seriously overweight people, many of them in their teens and twenties, who went in there.

I think the actuaries need to look again at their figures and the government should start worrying more about NHS costs and less about state pension costs.

bilbo51

oliveoil99 wrote: »

I was out with a group of about 10 friends we were discussing people living longer or what we are being led to believe. We asked each other the average age of the people whose funerals we had been to in the last few years came out no-one in there 90s or passed it was mainly 40s 50s and 60s and some a lot lot younger.

Sounds like a fun night out! :beer:

margaretclare

redbuzzard wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me at all, because the scheme actuary I spoke to about this a year ago was also sceptical. It's very much an extrapolation, as it has to be - based on, but not the same as, the ages people are dying (or not dying) at now.

But currently that is heavily influenced by us boomers. We were the first generation to have the NHS from birth, and the general view is that we had a fairly healthy diet in childhood too, plus all that orange juice and school milk. That continues to apply, but lifestyles for many are becoming much less healthy.

I may have the rosy specs on again, but there seemed to be very few seriously overweight younger people around then - and the really obese ones were rare enough to be remarked on. Diabetes is now epidemic it seems.

It's a fact that people generally walk far less now. Children are driven to school half a mile here.

If you're a 'boomer' you're the generation after mine - children during WWII. I've read that we were the 'golden cohort' because of rationing - enough food but not over-much, and 3 ounces of sweets a week - and we walked or cycled everywhere as a matter of course. Myself, I lived in a small country village in the Vale of York, had a 2-mile walk to school and back. Rationing went on for a decade after hostilities ended and walking or cycling was still the norm. I don't think as many people died in WWII as in WWI and there wasn't the 'Spanish influenza' epidemic that there had been in 1919. We also benefited from the NHS and from the 1944 Education Act, and our standard of living has continued to improve in the years since then. We had no fast-food, no take-aways, we ate meals but the habit of 'snacking' had not taken hold.

What I read was that if we survived to 65, avoided anything that might have killed us off in mid-life, because of our healthy active youth we stood a good chance of living long. Living to 90? Come back in 12 years' time and if I'm still here then that will be DH and me.

Tancred

redbuzzard wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me at all, because the scheme actuary I spoke to about this a year ago was also sceptical. It's very much an extrapolation, as it has to be - based on, but not the same as, the ages people are dying (or not dying) at now.

But currently that is heavily influenced by us boomers. We were the first generation to have the NHS from birth, and the general view is that we had a fairly healthy diet in childhood too, plus all that orange juice and school milk. That continues to apply, but lifestyles for many are becoming much less healthy.

I may have the rosy specs on again, but there seemed to be very few seriously overweight younger people around then - and the really obese ones were rare enough to be remarked on. Diabetes is now epidemic it seems.

It's a fact that people generally walk far less now. Children are driven to school half a mile here.

Living longer has little to do with diet etc. Being seriously overweight isn't a disease - it merely tends to contribute to the causes of certain diseases like diabetes, heart failure etc. Life expectancy is largely written in our genes.

Wealth is probably the real reason why people have been living so long - compare somewhere like Kensington with an area like South Shields and you will see a great disparity in life expectancy. Poverty causes poor nutrition, depression, alcohol abuse and lack of interest in healthcare. With the decline in defined benefit pension schemes and the continuous postponement of the state pension poverty is bound to increase dramatically in the elderly sector of society, and consequently life expectancy will fall.

Hadrian

redbuzzard wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me at all, because the scheme actuary I spoke to about this a year ago was also sceptical. It's very much an extrapolation, as it has to be - based on, but not the same as, the ages people are dying (or not dying) at now.

But currently that is heavily influenced by us boomers. We were the first generation to have the NHS from birth, and the general view is that we had a fairly healthy diet in childhood too, plus all that orange juice and school milk. That continues to apply, but lifestyles for many are becoming much less healthy.

I may have the rosy specs on again, but there seemed to be very few seriously overweight younger people around then - and the really obese ones were rare enough to be remarked on. Diabetes is now epidemic it seems.

It's a fact that people generally walk far less now. Children are driven to school half a mile here.

Thank you redbuzzard you've saved me writing all you said.