Are solar panel installs now free ?

[EFLImpudence]

Is it being simplistic to point out that life expectancy is just a meaningless average.

If the US relies on insurance, then, a) those without it are likely to die younger and, b) huge profits will be made; explaining both anomalies.


In looking into my ancestors - not at all well off, I was surprised that most of them seemed to live about the same as now - 70s,80s.
However, a lot of people died really young.

If you don't die, life expectancy is very good.

 

[JohnW2]

Is it being simplistic to point out that life expectancy is just a meaningless average.

Not at all - although I didn't go into detail - I commented on that above.

If the US relies on insurance, then, a) those without it are likely to die younger and, b) huge profits will be made; explaining both anomalies.

That may be a factor but, as I've illustrated, the evidence from most other countries is that, once one is over a (low) threshold, the amount spent on healthcare doesn't appear to make a blind difference to life expectancy.

In looking into my ancestors - not at all well off, I was surprised that most of them seemed to live about the same as now - 70s,80s. However, a lot of people died really young. If you don't die, life expectancy is very good.

I had exactly the same experience when looking into my family history, and may have reported it here. 200 or 300 years ago, ('average') life expectancy from birth was very low, which is why I cautioned about that statistic. However, just like you, I found that nearly all my ancestors who reached adulthood (and didn't die as a result of pregnancy) lasted until their 70s or 80s, just as people do now. Many of them died in infancy or early childhood, or as a result of pregnancy - but, if they avoided those fates, they usually got their "three score years and ten" (and don't forget that that expression is bibilical, suggesting that those who didn't suffer one of those fates were often/usually getting into their 70s a couple of thousand years ago).

It's no longer such an issue in 'developed' countries, since infant mortality and pregnancy-related deaths are now dramatically less than was the case in the past, but it still probably makes sense to look at life expectancy 'from age 5/10', or something like that, rather than 'at birth'. In any event, as I said, 'at birth' (now) life expectancy estimates are little more than guesses - about what is going to happen to health and healthcare over the next many decades. However, there are many other indices of the quality of healthcare now being used, and life expectancy, even when estimated sensibly, is by no means all (or even most) of the story.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

The US has, for a developed country, unusually poor perinatal mortality.

Some say this is because there are quite a few young, single, unemployed mothers who can't afford the high quality healthcare available to the well-heeled and those in well-paid secure employment.

 

[PBC_1966]

Who uses 400Hz?

Some ships and aircraft.

 

[JohnW2]

The US has, for a developed country, unusually poor perinatal mortality.

I'm not sure that is true. The most recent figures I have immediately to hand are the WHO#s figures for 2000, but they indicate that the US (well, 'Northern America') had a perinatal mortality comparable with the lowest in any region of the world - 7 (per 1,000 live births) in US, as compared with 6 in Western Europe, 6 in Australasia, 8 in Northern Europe and 8 in Southern Europe. No region of the world had a rate lower than 6. In contrast, for most countries/regions outside of N/S/W Europe, North America and Australia, the figures were generally in the range 20-75 (even Eastern Europe was 21), the overall world figure being 47.

Some say this is because there are quite a few young, single, unemployed mothers who can't afford the high quality healthcare available to the well-heeled and those in well-paid secure employment.

If your premise were correct, that could well be an explanation (and also and explanation for the slightly lower 'life expectancy at birth' in the US) - but, as above, I'm not sure that the premise is correct.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Who uses 400Hz?

Some ships and aircraft.

I'm not sure that either of those qualify as network-distributed electricity

There are obviously many pros and cons of 'high' frequency distribution, in terms of such factors as transformer size and losses, distribution losses etc., issues of capacitive and inductive 'coupling', maybe even skin effect if the frequency got high enough - but no-one seems to have settled on anything above 60 Hz.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The US has, for a developed country, unusually poor perinatal mortality.

Some say this is because there are quite a few young, single, unemployed mothers who can't afford the high quality healthcare available to the well-heeled and those in well-paid secure employment.

And depending on how it's measured, that can have a disproportionate effect on "average life expectancy".

However, a lot of people died really young.

If you don't die, life expectancy is very good.

I read once that what appeared to be a life expectancy of X years in historical times could be a bit misleading if it simply looked at averages, as that would include infant and child mortality, which were high. The reality was that if you survived beyond, say, 5 years of age you weren't looking at an average life expectancy of only another 40-odd years. Yes, if you got cancer, or even a simple infection, it could carry you off, but barring that you had a fighting chance of living longer than the stats would have you believe.

"Average", as in mean, can be misleading. For example, I have an above average number of limbs and eyes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who uses 400Hz?

Some ships and aircraft.

I'm not sure that either of those qualify as network-distributed electricity

There are obviously many pros and cons of 'high' frequency distribution, in terms of such factors as transformer size and losses, distribution losses etc., issues of capacitive and inductive 'coupling', maybe even skin effect if the frequency got high enough - but no-one seems to have settled on anything above 60 Hz.

Kind Regards, John

I just wondered, given 110.1.2(i)

 

[JohnW2]

I just wondered, given 110.1.2(i)

I'd never noticed that, and certainly don't who who uses 400 HZ, and for what. 'Ships and aircraft', as previously mentioned, do not appear to come within the scope of BS7671 (as described in 110.1.1).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You could use it if you wanted:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=400hz+(inverter+OR+"motor+generator")



This made me laugh:

Q: (Why not use) hydraulic power (instead of 400Hz)?
A:
(1) Better power than air if work is close to power pack.

(2) Needs two heavy, oily hoses.

(3) Lots of line loss, long hoses suck up power.

(4) Machinery gets hot, oily and difficult to handle.

(5) Doctors do not like 55 gallons of hot hydraulic oil on the floor of the operating room.

 

[JohnW2]

And depending on how it's measured, that can have a disproportionate effect on "average life expectancy".

Indeed. As I wrote:

If your premise were correct, that could well be an explanation (and also and explanation for the slightly lower 'life expectancy at birth' in the US) - but, as above, I'm not sure that the premise is correct.

I read once that what appeared to be a life expectancy of X years in historical times could be a bit misleading if it simply looked at averages, as that would include infant and child mortality, which were high. The reality was that if you survived beyond, say, 5 years of age you weren't looking at an average life expectancy of only another 40-odd years. Yes, if you got cancer, or even a simple infection, it could carry you off, but barring that you had a fighting chance of living longer than the stats would have you believe.

That's the very point which EFLI and I have been making. 'Average' life expectancies (from birth, or from an specified age) of of very limited usefulness, except for actuaries - for them, the mean life expectancy from a particular age provides a precise measure of the risk ('expected payout') with life insurance.

There are other misconceptions/anomalies. Many people think of the 'average life expectancy' as being a median, rather than the mean that it actually is. In other words, they think that if they have a 'life expectancy' of, say, 80 years, that means that they have a 50% chance of reaching that age - which, in practice, is virtually never the case. Life expectancy is also a 'moving target'. If a person had a 'life expectancy' (at birth) of 80 years, they would still have a finite (further) life expectancy if they reached, say, 90.

As populations get older and medical sciences advance, lifespan is going to become an increasingly questionable realistic measure of healthcare. Particularly if we make major inroads into preventing/delaying deaths due to cancer and/or heart disease (which, between them, currently account for the majority of deaths), 'increased lifespan' will increasingly mean 'keeping people alive' beyond the point at which they can have meaningful independent lives - so it not necessarily an 'outcome' to strive for.

Everyone dies of something, eventually, regardless of the quality of healthcare. Reduction in what can be described (although not so easy to define!) as 'premature' deaths (and 'disabilities') is probably a much more reasonable measure of the quality of healthcare than is any measure of 'life expectancy'.

However, one cannot really look at this in impassionate utilitarian terms. A very disproportionate amount of healthcare expenditure goes into giving very high-tech and expensive treatment to a relatively small number of patients. A utilitarian would presumably simply "allow those 'few' to die", without treatment, releasing a lot of resources which could be used to improve the quality of healthcare for 'the many'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have an above average number of limbs and eyes.

Yes, I like that one - and so do the vast majority of people.

 

[JohnD]

the "QUALY" is sometimes used to estimate the value/return on competing treatments.

"If we spend £1,000 on this treatment, or on that treatment, which of them gives the most quality years of life?"

 

[JohnW2]

You could use it if you wanted:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=400hz+(inverter+OR+"motor+generator")

Judging by the first couple of pages, most of that is about aircraft. Is 400 Hz perhaps used in that scenario to reduce size/weight of trannys etc.?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I have an above average number of limbs and eyes.

Yes, I like that one - and so do the vast majority of people.

Indeed - but that's only because you think of 'average' as meaning 'arithmetical mean'. If the 'average' in question were a median, mode or even a 'trimmed mean' (excluding extreme values), then the vast majority of people would have 'the average' number of eyes and limbs.

Kind Regards, John