Victoribus Spolia wrote:We are talking about different things, you are switching the point. That the life expectancy of Victorian women was, 65, is because of infant mortality.
No. No one has given the life expectancy of Victorian women as "65" at any time. But, and this is the point
, when you say "life expectancy", it has to be "expectancy at a particular age". If you just say "life expectancy", it is taken as "at birth". If you "control for infant mortality" (or for something else), then it has to be "at the age after that" - normally, "infant mortality" is taken as a death under the age of 1, but you might make a case for under 5.
When this is controlled for, we can add 8 years (as the article states) which is the life expectancy of people at age 65.
Infancy does not end at 65. So "controlling for infant mortality" cannot mean "life expectancy of people at age 65." That would be "controlling for death during a normal working life" or something like that. And I showed that the current life expectancy at 65 is almost twice what the Victorians had.
The author is challenging the conception that Mid-Victorians had a dramatically lower quality of life as is typically presented with misleading statistic that the life expectancy of mid-victorians is 65.
Again, no one said the life expectancy of Victorians was 65. At birth, it was in the low 40s (see the ONS link, previous post), by 5 it was about 55 (previous post), by 65, it was 74.
This stat is misleading because it takes into account both child mortality and death in child-bearing.
It's only misleading if you don't understand it.
The reason that the author is controlling for these factors is because she is, as accurately as possible, attempting to compare the quality of life regarding nutrition and fitness.
The point is that she (I thought it was 'they', but whatever) is not even trying to be accurate. She compared present-day life expectancy at birth
with Victorian life expectancy for those who have already survived to 65
. To do so is to fall precisely into the 'misleading' trap again - except that the authors should know they were doing it. I suspect it was for fraudulent reasons, given the "Big Pharma" quote you showed us - they have a political axe to grind.
The point is that people still die in significant numbers before they reach 65 - through accidents, suicide, illness and so on. As I showed, about 9% of us today die between our 5th and 65th birthdays. These deaths mean there is a significant difference in the 'expected' age of death for those at 5 and those at 65, even today. That means you must not directly compare present-day expectancy at birth with Victorian expectancy at 65.
of course, I would argue that this requires controlling for combat deaths as well, which were not controlled for.
Combat deaths are not significant unless in the middle of a major war - the only ones for the UK in this time period being the 2 world wars.
If these had been controlled, the average life expectancy would likely be significantly higher than our own.
And I hope you now realise that's wrong. We have records showing they died at a faster rate all through their lives. The "paper" did not try to allow for nutrition and fitness; all it did was to compare numbers that cannot be meaningfully compared, and then say "I reckon that shows their nutrition and fitness was great". It's nonsense.
That is the point, if we control for child mortality, combat deaths, and death in childbearing, the claims of "we'd be living longer if we had modern medicine and Victorian diet and exercise" would not be void at all, but would be quite compelling. In fact, if we controlled for work-related mortalities, diseases we have cured, and deaths related to basic sanitation, the results would be shocking.
No evidence whatsoever has been shown for that, in that paper. They compared meaningless numbers. You are just guessing about work-related mortalities etc.
You seem to think, that the point of the article is to argue that every facet of Victorian life is to be replicated. Niether the article, nor myself, have argued this. What has been argued is that if we control for the factors that cause the life expectancy averages to be reflected as low for Victorians
Again, there was no attempt to control for those factors.
They compared numbers that cannot legitimately be compared. An attempt to control for all that would have to include looking at the causes of deaths of a large number of adult Victorians, and attempting to say what their outcome would have been
if they had modern medicine, sanitation, health and safety laws, etc.
Likewise, the case for a protein rich, balanced diet, consisting of organic, local, and seasonal foods, low sugar intake, and extensive excercise should not be a point of controversy.
That paper, because of its misuse of statistics, makes no such case at all. The case has to be made in different ways.