If you are reading this you didn't die in 2005. But 2,447,903 Americans did die (if you aren't an American the good news is you aren't at risk of being included in the American death numbers). These are preliminary numbers, just released by CDC and the seven significant figures is a bit of -- what? -- overkill? Doesn't seem like the right word for this, but it is unlikely this is exactly the right number of deaths. Surely someone wasn't counted.
In any event, CDC tells us this corresponds to an "estimated age-adjusted death rate" of 798.8 deaths per 100,000 US standard population. The "age-adjusted" rate is meant to take account of the influence of a change in the age structure of the population (which is getting steadily older, on average) and thus allow comparisons with other years. It wouldn't make much sense to compare the number of people who died in 2005 with those who died in 1930, say, since the 1930 population had far fewer elderly. The 2005 figures in comparison would look worse than "they really are" because we have so many more people who are elderly and the elderly, naturally, have higher death rates. It would be like comparing death rates among high school students with death rates of people in nursing homes in the same community.But what does this number, 798.8 really mean and how is it arrived at?
Well, it doesn't mean it is a more accurate number than a crude rate calculated without reference to age changes. The real number is about 845 per 100,000 of the US population in 2005 (rough estimate; I couldn't find the 2005 population estimate to 9 figures, but if you find it you can do the calculation by dividing the number of deaths, 2,447,903, by the population of the country in 2005). But since we've gotten older, on average, we assume the age distribution is not the one we have in 2005 but the structure of a "standard" population whose age make-up was the same as the population of the US in 2000. By using a standard population we can compare trends over time. However it is the crude figure that tells the actual mortality rate for 2005, not the age-adjusted one. The age-adjusted number is fictitious, used for making comparisons. It is calculated by using the 2005 mortality rates in each age group and applying them to the populations at those ages in the 2000 standard population. Thus 798.8 per 100,000 people in 2005 would have died if the population in 2005 had the same number of people in each age category as the 2000 population. Which, of course, it didn't. But we can now compare that number with other years similarly adjusted to the 2000 census year. More than you wanted to know, I'm sure.
What did these folks die of? Here are the top fifteen causes of death in the US population:
- Diseases of heart (heart disease)
- Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
- Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases
- Accidents (unintentional injuries)
- Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
- Alzheimer's disease
- Influenza and pneumonia
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
- Septicemia
- Intentional self-harm (suicide)
- Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
- Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
- Parkinson's disease
- Assault (homicide)
Note that the first contagious disease to make an appearance on the list is influenza and pneumonia, at number eight. In fact it is the only contagious disease on the list of the top fifteen causes of death. Did you get your flu shot this year?
According to the life expectancy figures, released by CDC in the same document, if I've made it this far I can expect to live another 17 years or so (see table 6 in this document for your own current life expectancy).
That means I can take those hang gliding lessons, start some serious drinking and smoking and keep a gun in the house. No? That's not what it means?
- Log in to post comments
Well I might make it to 80.3 Revere if I do keep a gun in the house. We ended the year in Memphis being only 8 below the highest murder rate from home invasions. We were almost the murder capital but several are still in the hospital lingering on.
Drinking is in moderation..... I mean its Jack Daniels Country.
Smoking ban is now in effect. You want to smoke in a restauraunt or work, you go outside. Been pretty cold and icy. You might fall down. If you drink excessively you will fall down and maybe be mugged. They'll steal your cigarettes too, almost 5 a pack here.
I always see these things about life expectancy and I treat them with a slight diffidence. We have all these people employed to make these determinations but, alas NOTHING EVER CHANGES. It ticks up, it ticks down. Infant mortality goes down when we pile money into healthcare of the poor. But what happens? We grow people into a poor society, then they grow more. Then when there is no money, the infant mortality goes up and someone says its a national crime and they vote for people that will keep them ....poor. Endless cycle.
I also take into account the crappy areas of the world...Say the Sudan. We send billions in aid there because the people are starving and dying. Its a given that we should help with immediate problems. But it changes not one thing apparently. Its like bugs and CFR's. What are the monetary outcomes of sending more and more aid? Do we get more productive people or is it people we might see raising a rifle on TV?
We are partially responsible because we have tried to turn the world into a Great Society aid program. Is it that we are trying to buy them off or is it that we really want to help. The aid ground pounders I have no question that they want to, but how about those Red Cross types making nearly a mill a year. Now thats a travesty.
These statistics are necessary and they are reflective of society as we know it now. I would say they are also pretty accurate. But what it really says is that people are living longer so they can be what at 80? Non productive? Big definition there..What constitutes productive? We have extend the lives of people so they can do ___________? Both my parents retired and just hung out around the house until they died. Their bones were cracking at 70 and at 78 and 79 both got cancer. So what did they do during "retirement." A couple of trips here and there but that was about it.
May be should smoke and drink and plink off home invaders with guns? Life to me is what is productive. If I am not out there making a contribution to society, send me on a cruise and roll me over the side.
Randy: What happens when you improve the health of a population so that infant mortality goes down is that birth rates also go down. the standard of living improves and people are less likely to want to kill us -- unless we have another administration like this one.
More than you wanted to know, I'm sure.
Not true. As a stats geek I always wonder about those standardised stats, but never enough to actually look up how they're doing it. Now I know.
FWIW, in the 2000 census, despite significant immigration in the 2nd half of the 20th century, and increasing longevity of it's citizens, the 65 & over population increased at a slower rate than the overall population for the first time in history.
The 60-64 population in 2000 was 3.84% compared to 4.27% in 1990. The 55-59 group in 2000 will all be retired by 2010, should they make it w/o insurance, and represented 4.78% of the total, up a bit from 1990 (4.23%), so the post 65 crowd should not be much of a burden through 2010.
It really wont be until 2015 that we should see the elderly making up a bigger part of the equation. Those who were 40-54 in 2000 made up 21.3% of the population, compared to 17.24% in 1990, thats when the social security trust fund comes to the rescue (too bad government spent it, the piggy bank is empty except for IOU's)
My guess is government will want more of those in the 40-54 age group not to make it to 65, hence the resistance to single payer health care system, better health care will allow more of them to make it to 65.
That may be why the report makes it very hard to find out the death rates by age (they just give the total number). The historical data of recent years, by age, would probably show those in the 50-64 age groups suffering an increase in death rate yoy. When government makes stuff harder to find, it means the data shows things they don't want known. In some cases, like GDP and CPI, it is just fraudulent.
If people could really see what is going on, well, ignorance is bliss, so better off not knowing.
PFT-Well I never thought of it that way before but the end result is the same. I agree about the UHC thing but they will be on rationed UHC at that time anyway and its called Medicare. .
With all due respect Revere that is for a population that is well educated, fed and not under stress. Thats something we dont have in this country and we didnt under Johnson either. My biggest fear is that illegals invade the country and we end up having to foot the bill for them too. Part of that problem also is that those people are being counted as part of the Section 6 and the Census Bureau makes no bones about the fact that they do.
All of this happened long before GWB went into office Revere. It was spent by the time I was 25 and the first bailout of S. Security was done under Carter.