Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

# OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check

172 views

### Sylvia Else

Feb 14, 2024, 12:57:38 AMFeb 14
to
<https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>

I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
look at the three right hand columns.

How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
the baseline average?

If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
number could go either way, because of different total populations in
each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
average, I just don't see it.

This seems to happen not just for both sexes, but for each sex individually.

Sylvia.

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 14, 2024, 2:57:10 AMFeb 14
to
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:57:38 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
>
> I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
> If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
> look at the three right hand columns.
>
> How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
> corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
> the baseline average?
>
> If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
> number could go either way, because of different total populations in
> each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
> average, I just don't see it.

It's simple enough. The Covid-19 epidemic killed off quite a few vulnerable people, and the survivors represent samples from the more robust elements of the population.

Years ago it was claimed that males who survived past 80 in good health and women who survived past 85 in good health were predominantly drawn from that more robust population.

It's a statistician's play ground. In practical terms you can't work out precisely what population you belong to - you might just be a lucky snowflake.

An Australian male has an average life expectancy of 81.2 years, so at 81 and a couple of months I might be expected to drop dead soon. As an Australian male of 81, I've actually
got a life expectancy of 8.44 more years. In reality, as an 81-year-old Australian male who never smoked and managed to get a Ph.D. I'm a member of an even longer-lived cohort, but they don't split the life expectation table finely enough that I can quote a number.

> This seems to happen not just for both sexes, but for each sex individually.

Both sexes have been selected in much the same way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Sylvia Else

Feb 14, 2024, 3:10:34 AMFeb 14
to
I'm only concerned here about the relationship between the numbers,
which I cannot make any sense of.

Sylvia.

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 14, 2024, 6:54:17 AMFeb 14
to
> I'm only concerned here about the relationship between the numbers, which I cannot make any sense of.

Presumably the baseline averages go back before Covid-19 was killing people. It isn't killing as many people in 2023 as it was in 2022. but it is still killing some.

Covid-19 kills off more elderly people than young ones, so there are relatively fewer people in the elderly cohorts in 2023 than in 2022. Australia's population is growing so the more numerous younger people are preventing the average age from actually falling.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### legg

Feb 14, 2024, 8:05:21 AMFeb 14
to
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:57:30 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
wrote:

><https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
>
>I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
>If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
>look at the three right hand columns.
>
>How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
>corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
>the baseline average?

Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline

I read all rates higher than baseline except in 85+.
. . . . including all-age.

Monthly rates also higher all months but one.
>
>If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
>number could go either way, because of different total populations in
>each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
>average, I just don't see it.
>
>This seems to happen not just for both sexes, but for each sex individually.
>
>Sylvia.

?

RL

### Martin Brown

Feb 14, 2024, 9:41:41 AMFeb 14
to
On 14/02/2024 05:57, Sylvia Else wrote:
> <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
>
> I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
> If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
> look at the three right hand columns.

I see what you mean. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

All the numbers for Jan-Sept 2023 are below long term average (because a
proportion of those who would naturally have died in 2023 were killed
permaturely by Covid). The column total is above the long term average.

You are right - this data makes no sense at all.

> How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
> corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
> the baseline average?

It can't even with really weird population ratings.

> If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
> number could go either way, because of different total populations in
> each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
> average, I just don't see it.
>
> This seems to happen not just for both sexes, but for each sex
> individually.
>
> Sylvia.

I'll hazard a guess that some of the numbers presented there are summed
over a different period so that the larger numbers are not correct.

Spreadsheets allow people to make very creative mistakes!

--
Martin Brown

### a a

Feb 14, 2024, 10:42:52 AMFeb 14
to
The arsehole Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVtHc77rO1qWe8T8rgtzKWiYistavHNp9vAeRBX2f6i9AIiyPBZnRG+Z4LCU+t7zY1G5Dug5Y2IRLuix6+lLNsW8h87jJW6EEx01y+s2rLu5M5lluGXBV3zpPg4
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1350:b0:42c:4c55:3fa5 with SMTP id w16-20020a05622a135000b0042c4c553fa5mr108490qtk.10.1707897426212;
> Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:57:06 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWJ2761TKfBelZyQgy82SxDS/h2n7EpYeuU7TMqkbi7flOiyhM1LJkX+4/wtdOiyKP7YcQPsIxzvpUyV/Qcuy2fW6jqBch+SziuTSGJOh53Ixm9JZ1PaUnO
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:cec3:0:b0:dc7:48ce:d17f with SMTP id
> x186-20020a25cec3000000b00dc748ced17fmr377439ybe.10.1707897425829; Tue, 13
> Feb 2024 23:57:05 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:57:05 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:57:06 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### darius

Feb 14, 2024, 10:42:59 AMFeb 14
to
The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> Wed, 14 Feb 2024 03:54:12 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUSikclu+tYBSnTuD10o/svr3oGNZOWVLvqaqrw7CiDfG7Ejsdwgg6bDscWiw4ZOqtMoM7FdEtIW5FmZzKsxUEED6hU2vCS6RPv+/M6VcGujkAO02lYrX2h
> 2024 03:54:11 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 03:54:11 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> <l33arh...@mid.individual.net>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:54:12 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### a a

Feb 14, 2024, 10:43:06 AMFeb 14
to
The idiot Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:57:30 +1100
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net jJJgPiG3wh7MOHr0XfyyrgjFMa03krdWWzbW0R1LmuWuautBKt
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:CyzieEjV+AwBUD/xBpUcPG9WRdc= sha256:pb3rAtS2dTCiSc4Io/QQcm+ZcxwlxUntN00YU+tV8gs=
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/102.15.1
> Content-Language: en-US

### darius

Feb 14, 2024, 10:43:12 AMFeb 14
to
The idiot Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:10:25 +1100
> Lines: 38
> Message-ID: <l33arh...@mid.individual.net>
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: individual.net uVRtLcbPCWGwHj63YIJpuAHrnYYPAn+mS/WBkw4leto7e7Xhir
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/102.15.1
> Content-Language: en-US

### darius

Feb 14, 2024, 10:43:18 AMFeb 14
to
The idiot legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:06:12 -0500
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 32
> Message-ID: <qgepsit658aech586...@4ax.com>
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="424b9348b7fd5eb2e64031c5e834aca9";
> logging-data="2797362"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7Zo6tOZ2EPYLhTJnqcMln"
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:qzhvtrZDGLaiFhO2LdpAyOGBYUI=

### darius

Feb 14, 2024, 10:43:24 AMFeb 14
to
The arsehole Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--

> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:41:32 +0000
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <uqijeu\$2mbnj\$1...@dont-email.me>
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:41:34 -0000 (UTC)
> logging-data="2830067"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Gv0m+eGD/wICv5PhrUgcY6viojxCtWzu2vLWORRYa7Q=="
> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y9RRwmsnx/A8PNPqmwdq7tBi8Ac=
> Content-Language: en-GB

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 14, 2024, 12:01:24 PMFeb 14
to
The article is about EXCESS deaths. Care to explain how they would know what that is if they don't know unexcessive death rate is? The answer is they can't. They use historical rate data to estimate the unexcessive rates, called baseline. As they say:

"The purpose of a baseline is to provide a typical year (or combination of years) to compare the current year to. Deaths for 2023 will have two comparisons points - they will be compared to both deaths occurring in 2022 and a baseline period consisting of the average number of deaths occurring in the years of 2017-2019, 2021."

Apparently the variational statistics, that dictate the number of years used in baseline estimation, works out to 3 years at whatever confidence they're striving for.

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 14, 2024, 12:06:53 PMFeb 14
to
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 2:57:10 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:57:38 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
> >
> > I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
> > If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
> > look at the three right hand columns.
> >
> > How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
> > corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
> > the baseline average?
> >
> > If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
> > number could go either way, because of different total populations in
> > each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
> > average, I just don't see it.
> It's simple enough. The Covid-19 epidemic killed off quite a few vulnerable people, and the survivors represent samples from the more robust elements of the population.
>
> Years ago it was claimed that males who survived past 80 in good health and women who survived past 85 in good health were predominantly drawn from that more robust population.
>
> It's a statistician's play ground. In practical terms you can't work out precisely what population you belong to - you might just be a lucky snowflake.
>
> An Australian male has an average life expectancy of 81.2 years, so at 81 and a couple of months I might be expected to drop dead soon. As an Australian male of 81, I've actually

Not really. That life statistic has a standard deviation to it. I don't know what it is for males age 72-88, but for the general population, it is 8 years. That would be 8 years either side of the mean. 2/3 of people die with a standard deviation of the mean. So that would be 33% in the range mean + 8 years. That's not called dropping dead soon.

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 14, 2024, 12:14:53 PMFeb 14
to
There's another extreme value statistic that shows death rate departs from the simplified exponential at the extremes, making for the conditional finding that the longer one has lived increases the chances of continuing to live. If you make it to 100, you're much less likely to die within the year than an 80 yo.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 14, 2024, 10:32:40 PMFeb 14
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:06:53 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 2:57:10 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:57:38 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
> > >
> > > I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
> > > If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
> > > look at the three right hand columns.
> > >
> > > How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
> > > corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
> > > the baseline average?
> > >
> > > If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
> > > number could go either way, because of different total populations in
> > > each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
> > > average, I just don't see it.
> > It's simple enough. The Covid-19 epidemic killed off quite a few vulnerable people, and the survivors represent samples from the more robust elements of the population.
> >
> > Years ago it was claimed that males who survived past 80 in good health and women who survived past 85 in good health were predominantly drawn from that more robust population.
> >
> > It's a statistician's play ground. In practical terms you can't work out precisely what population you belong to - you might just be a lucky snowflake.
> >
> > An Australian male has an average life expectancy of 81.2 years, so at 81 and a couple of months I might be expected to drop dead soon. As an Australian male of 81, I've actually As an Australian male of 81, I've actually got a life expectancy of 8.44 more years.
In reality, as an 81-year-old Australian male who never smoked and managed to get a Ph.D. I'm a member of an even longer-lived cohort, but they don't split the life expectation table finely enough that I can quote a number.
>
> Not really. That life statistic has a standard deviation to it. I don't know what it is for males age 72-88, but for the general population, it is 8 years. That would be 8 years either side of the mean. 2/3 of people die with a standard deviation of the mean. So that would be 33% in the range mean + 8 years. That's not called dropping dead soon.

As usual, you managed to insert you comment in the middle of my paragraph,

The expectation of life at a given age does tend to shrink as you get older, and the standard deviation can be expected to shrink in proportion. Your assertion assumes that the subsequent life spans will be normally distributed, and they won't be.

I'm not much of a statistician, but you even worse informed

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 14, 2024, 10:48:28 PMFeb 14
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:14:53 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 6:54:17 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 7:10:34 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 14-Feb-24 6:57 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:57:38 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> > > > Years ago it was claimed that males who survived past 80 in good health and women who survived past 85 in good health were predominantly drawn from that more robust population.

<snip>

> There's another extreme value statistic that shows death rate departs from the simplified exponential at the extremes, making for the conditional finding that the longer one has lived increases the chances of continuing to live. If you make it to 100, you're much less likely to die within the year than an 80 yo.

Not true. There s a dog leg in the statistics at around 80 for male and 85 for females, but at best if means that you are marginally less likely to die

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

gives the actual numbers.

For males the probability of dying in the next year at age 80 is 0.065568, and at age 100 its 0.384967, so it is six times more likely, not less.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Sylvia Else

Feb 15, 2024, 12:22:35 AMFeb 15
to
Thanks.

There's a update due in a couple of weeks. I'll wait to see whether that
suffers the same issue, and contact them if so. Otherwise I'll just
assume it was a one-off error.

Sylvia.

### a a

Feb 15, 2024, 8:40:15 AMFeb 15
to
The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVGZiLD76VUG+V+tFa/Dt4VuJIhZSdt9Zr+QGYo7kgzo8MMm5NF/RHgtdKkrUlO2d4JSTUBD9zu/pKNclll+0LAvu2jNnSGiZEOzsmufXg6UPD3G2FMdQ+earo=
> Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:48:23 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWl/nXcgQSFu5yAVgPUTD9C6M3tzW4qSuW+fdHguV2tQCWjVl52tXK3vZHGFpW97kbWOwUUIxxDB3r7u8Fv5tdm1Hh6BMIzo8LqGS6OieRLdWECEO+1JoMc
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:d60f:0:b0:dc7:463a:46d2 with SMTP id
> n15-20020a25d60f000000b00dc7463a46d2mr723223ybg.0.1707968902733; Wed, 14 Feb
> 2024 19:48:22 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:48:22 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 03:48:23 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### a a

Feb 15, 2024, 8:40:21 AMFeb 15
to
The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWxSdU17i93uQ+f1FsXtAK22EK3H+MYwxeNppOOyDKm3p+siJYYdJk0hFnqinR2hrPV3d0P8NsE5vpg12Bjbfcs8GPqd58nrzHXvpVOrHWQjwMmNUyNAzpLuQ8=
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:8398:b0:787:375b:6fdf with SMTP id pb24-20020a05620a839800b00787375b6fdfmr474qkn.11.1707967955352;
> Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:32:35 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUvkhcfbYcWy5ry3ooLSlMTapgODg+qQuOkYiN7x7uiA9Fvj98lXAzFGWWP2mfl1CEmo4rYlA+EShY3GnDS62jyRM2CWX2qX3SyTE3OTQOmElxVuwM/6pw3
> X-Received: by 2002:a81:4e85:0:b0:603:ea10:c37c with SMTP id
> c127-20020a814e85000000b00603ea10c37cmr137059ywb.7.1707967954968; Wed, 14 Feb
> 2024 19:32:34 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:32:34 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 03:32:35 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### darius

Feb 15, 2024, 8:40:43 AMFeb 15
to
The idiot Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:22:27 +1100
> Lines: 45
> Message-ID: <l35lcj...@mid.individual.net>
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net> <uqijeu\$2mbnj\$1...@dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net xT49qUXJrPMa9xNSFATY5gbAU7ivbfAf8TzYHBYusFSljESOy1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:z9CX9Yu3xTxz40PzeHRKw7hLGWk= sha256:fNqBSvrwIdG4S6B4+fK5+ibp+qGN5HPesswWxAX3PbQ=
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/102.15.1
> Content-Language: en-US

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 15, 2024, 10:20:12 AMFeb 15
to
All that is wrong, SSA is behind the times. My statement comes from recent medical based research.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 15, 2024, 9:04:13 PMFeb 15
to
It's not wrong. You are.You seem to have misunderstood whatever you think "your recent medical research" is telling you, not for the first time.

The data I quoted comes directly from the data on American people who actually died.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Cursitor Doom

Feb 16, 2024, 12:40:54 PMFeb 16
to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:22:27 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
wrote:

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 16, 2024, 1:44:50 PMFeb 16
to
Your idea of being informed is a self-delusion.

The density function for years of life should be normal-like, a crude fit is said to be the log-normal, the logarithm of an underlying normal variate. Literature is calling it a survival distribution, which makes sense. If F(A) is the cumulative distribution (integrated ) of that density up to year A, indicating the fraction of population still alive by year A. Then the chance of an individual of age A living to age A + T, T being time interval of continued life, should be F( A + T)- F( A ). What you're after, whether you realize it or not is the distribution of T. Literature says it's an exponential distribution, and that makes no sense at all since it implies a constant death rate. If you can't compute the mean and standard deviation of that simple thing, then you have problems.

Writeup by some blithering person:

https://users.stat.ufl.edu/~rrandles/sta4930/4930lectures/chapter2/chapter2R.pdf

They think they're geniuses for fitting a Weibull.

Survival in general wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_function

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 16, 2024, 1:47:45 PMFeb 16
to
You're always saying that but the only person around here with amply demonstrated impaired comprehension is you.

>
> The data I quoted comes directly from the data on American people who actually died.

Phony data and analysis designed to make the place look like less of a hell-hole.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

### darius

Feb 16, 2024, 4:11:51 PMFeb 16
to
The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUOxqsrxXar3EEB2gSjFqNNGc6M/20tCnHld6O9XE5Gr9Q7ztlKgbozQmih1saT87Nm/eZ8R1RRh5T+qfVmBz2myn3Ytoti0AJYlHdswSZiPG99JlQXXpEpOI4=
> Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:04:07 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVoeA8kjpyPFdaGB4I4U+LaRYr/qpzHlaw45rMNpr6/kJJRHtEjnkqZIQ9wKC5YNFgCm2xMwnGCS7o/3OvDCTw7ynAwqs41c6WAPHwdKMvPyXMK26mZG2VN
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1885:b0:dbf:4359:326a with SMTP id
> cj5-20020a056902188500b00dbf4359326amr1009731ybb.1.1708049047105; Thu, 15 Feb
> 2024 18:04:07 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:04:06 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 02:04:07 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### a a

Feb 16, 2024, 4:12:00 PMFeb 16
to
The idiot Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:40:47 +0000
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 50
> Message-ID: <6g7vsiljka5efm6j5...@4ax.com>
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net> <uqijeu\$2mbnj\$1...@dont-email.me> <l35lcj...@mid.individual.net>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b2194b8eae8ab1ba9a5429f844773613";
> logging-data="4162108"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18B5RxHhSJBMiQHb0Dm2JsmRq7GWqmqwpQ="
> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:dEf6AbhVZRAK9yFsIz+/g14RmxI=

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 16, 2024, 10:51:59 PMFeb 16
to
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 5:44:50 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 10:32:40 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:06:53 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 2:57:10 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:57:38 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> > > > Years ago it was claimed that males who survived past 80 in good health and women who survived past 85 in good health were predominantly drawn from that more robust population.
> > > >
> > > > It's a statistician's play ground. In practical terms you can't work out precisely what population you belong to - you might just be a lucky snowflake.
> > > >
> > > > An Australian male has an average life expectancy of 81.2 years, so at 81 and a couple of months I might be expected to drop dead soon. As an Australian male of 81, I've actually As an Australian male of 81, I've actually got a life expectancy of 8.44 more years.
> > In reality, as an 81-year-old Australian male who never smoked and managed to get a Ph.D. I'm a member of an even longer-lived cohort, but they don't split the life expectation table finely enough that I can quote a number.
> > >
> > > Not really. That life statistic has a standard deviation to it. I don't know what it is for males age 72-88, but for the general population, it is 8 years. That would be 8 years either side of the mean. 2/3 of people die with a standard deviation of the mean. So that would be 33% in the range mean + 8 years. That's not called dropping dead soon.
> >
> > As usual, you managed to insert you comment in the middle of my paragraph,
> >
> > The expectation of life at a given age does tend to shrink as you get older, and the standard deviation can be expected to shrink in proportion. Your assertion assumes that the subsequent life spans will be normally distributed, and they won't be.
> >
> > I'm not much of a statistician, but you even worse informed.
>
> Your idea of being informed is a self-delusion.

Perhaps, but I'm clearly better-informed than you are.

> The density function for years of life should be normal-like, a crude fit is said to be the log-normal, the logarithm of an underlying normal variate. Literature is calling it a survival distribution, which makes sense. If F(A) is the cumulative distribution (integrated ) of that density up to year A, indicating the fraction of population still alive by year A. Then the chance of an individual of age A living to age A + T, T being time interval of continued life, should be F( A + T)- F( A ). What you're after, whether you realize it or not is the distribution of T. Literature says it's an exponential distribution, and that makes no sense at all since it implies a constant death rate. If you can't compute the mean and standard deviation of that simple thing, then you have problems.

A rather long-winded way of announcing that you don't know what you are talking about.

> Writeup by some blithering person:
>
> https://users.stat.ufl.edu/~rrandles/sta4930/4930lectures/chapter2/chapter2R.pdf
>
> They think they're geniuses for fitting a Weibull.

It's a shopping list of fitting functions. There's nothing in that write-up that shows the fit of an actual function to actual acturial data.

> Survival in general wiki:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_function

That is marginally better, in that it makes passing reference to real world breast cancer data, but it doesn't make any direct connection.

You do go to a lot of trouble to tell us that you don't know what you are talking about. The improved survival past age 80 for males and 85 for females might be susceptible to being modelled by a Weibull function - I wouldn't know. I could ask my cousin the statistician, but even though he is retired, I'd hate to waste his time on such a pointless question.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 16, 2024, 10:57:34 PMFeb 16
to
What "demonstrates" it to you is that I don't agree with the nonsense you post. What you post as what you imagine to be a "demonstration" merely reminds us that you have lost it.

> > The data I quoted comes directly from the data on American people who actually died.
>
> Phony data and analysis designed to make the place look like less of a hell-hole.

Cursitor Doom has the same attitude to climate change data. If it doesn't fit his preferred story, it has been faked.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

### a a

Feb 17, 2024, 1:14:41 AMFeb 17
to
The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:224c:b0:68e:e2bc:5290 with SMTP id c12-20020a056214224c00b0068ee2bc5290mr441718qvc.1.1708142249871;
> Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:57:29 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW21UqLEMcKpd56csCcaNb/K7p4zhmaHYuNHitXvp8UG2XmZ6I7Ay1c03Nc3qDxCjjuKfTrDBuQQiVX8J0arLAipiOcPiL+C6AriMATNjzSTZTMOSRTV1yG
> X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ea43:0:b0:604:d53e:4616 with SMTP id
> t64-20020a0dea43000000b00604d53e4616mr1069195ywe.6.1708142249521; Fri, 16 Feb
> 2024 19:57:29 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:57:29 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 03:57:29 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### legg

Feb 17, 2024, 9:21:06 AMFeb 17
to
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:06:12 -0500, legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:57:30 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>><https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
>>
>>I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
>>If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
>>look at the three right hand columns.
>>
>>How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
>>corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
>>the baseline average?
>
>Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline
>
>I read all rates higher than baseline except in 85+.
>. . . . including all-age.
>
>Monthly rates also higher all months but one.

Sorry - was reading 'all deaths' chart, not age grouped table.
>>
>>If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages
>>number could go either way, because of different total populations in
>>each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline
>>average, I just don't see it.
>>
>>This seems to happen not just for both sexes, but for each sex individually.
>>
>>Sylvia.

It looks like the anomaly in the report is resticted to 'persons'
and 'males'. It is not repeated in 'female' figures.

Neither parts of the table reflect trends in the charts.

RL

### a a

Feb 17, 2024, 9:34:42 AMFeb 17
to
The arsehole legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:22:00 -0500
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 40
> Message-ID: <g5f1tit658aech586...@4ax.com>
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net> <qgepsit658aech586...@4ax.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2a715cf813a5e184b5d7a618fe55788a";
> logging-data="481629"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EFYLi66r5AjNkvH4gy9uu"
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:hOdtoGV/4yJPJ2VJyLagtYuNw1s=

### darius

Feb 17, 2024, 9:34:43 AMFeb 17
to
The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVMuQAwsgtmK1aPMUZabf/uKmtOmDMTk60kF6i8maueXJfl1uSVqMg3QMQukkn91uwnnrOJmt2GexqLelskxt8zo9H5JNCAVb4iqGinfA79Lyew/j9ehIQ3Eqc=
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:301e:b0:68c:b29f:6271 with SMTP id ke30-20020a056214301e00b0068cb29f6271mr305669qvb.9.1708141914101;
> Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:51:54 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVmIkQaHomxvgUw1UIq4lCYhFRc016dZbgvMgHTghkqelVfUqaIM+FIOA99VsvE0G+5cXT/3hSx0x2qp7nPUjN35WHrD9dzu26YodKUBujKUlXGW6u9c7Iw
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:eb07:0:b0:dc6:b7c2:176e with SMTP id
> d7-20020a25eb07000000b00dc6b7c2176emr1806540ybs.4.1708141913665; Fri, 16 Feb
> 2024 19:51:53 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:51:53 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 03:51:54 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### Anthony William Sloman

Feb 17, 2024, 11:01:02 AMFeb 17
to
On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 1:21:06 AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:06:12 -0500, legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:57:30 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>wrote:

<snip>

> It looks like the anomaly in the report is resticted to 'persons'
> and 'males'. It is not repeated in 'female' figures.
>
> Neither parts of the table reflect trends in the charts.

I don't think that any of these statistics are worth worrying about. Every human being is unique - identical twins do come close to being much the same, but while their basic genome is identical, even they develop slightly differently.

People age, and they don't age at exactly the same rate. Australia has lost 928 per million to Covid-19 - fewer than the US and the UK which at are about 3400 per million - which means that the survivors are a bit more robust than the population before the epidemic, but there's not a lot to be learned from small changes in the death rate post-epidemic, and you'd have to know what people were dying of to learn any thing useful.

Cursitor Doom does seem to think they might be dying from side-effects of the anti-Covid-19 vaccines, but that's because he's fond of lunatic conspiracy theories.

The one thing that did show up was that people stopped dying of flu during the pandemic - the anti-infection precautions against Covid-19 were even more effective at stopping flu spreading. - but we seem to be back to normal again now.

--
Bill Sloman. Sydney

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 17, 2024, 11:53:24 AMFeb 17
to
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 10:51:59 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 5:44:50 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 10:32:40 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:06:53 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 2:57:10 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 4:57:38 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > Years ago it was claimed that males who survived past 80 in good health and women who survived past 85 in good health were predominantly drawn from that more robust population.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a statistician's play ground. In practical terms you can't work out precisely what population you belong to - you might just be a lucky snowflake.
> > > > >
> > > > > An Australian male has an average life expectancy of 81.2 years, so at 81 and a couple of months I might be expected to drop dead soon. As an Australian male of 81, I've actually As an Australian male of 81, I've actually got a life expectancy of 8.44 more years.
> > > In reality, as an 81-year-old Australian male who never smoked and managed to get a Ph.D. I'm a member of an even longer-lived cohort, but they don't split the life expectation table finely enough that I can quote a number.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. That life statistic has a standard deviation to it. I don't know what it is for males age 72-88, but for the general population, it is 8 years. That would be 8 years either side of the mean. 2/3 of people die with a standard deviation of the mean. So that would be 33% in the range mean + 8 years. That's not called dropping dead soon.
> > >
> > > As usual, you managed to insert you comment in the middle of my paragraph,
> > >
> > > The expectation of life at a given age does tend to shrink as you get older, and the standard deviation can be expected to shrink in proportion. Your assertion assumes that the subsequent life spans will be normally distributed, and they won't be.
> > >
> > > I'm not much of a statistician, but you even worse informed.
> >
> > Your idea of being informed is a self-delusion.
> Perhaps, but I'm clearly better-informed than you are.

Of course you're going to think that, it's an ego preservation refuge for the megalomaniac.

> > The density function for years of life should be normal-like, a crude fit is said to be the log-normal, the logarithm of an underlying normal variate. Literature is calling it a survival distribution, which makes sense. If F(A) is the cumulative distribution (integrated ) of that density up to year A, indicating the fraction of population still alive by year A. Then the chance of an individual of age A living to age A + T, T being time interval of continued life, should be F( A + T)- F( A ). What you're after, whether you realize it or not is the distribution of T. Literature says it's an exponential distribution, and that makes no sense at all since it implies a constant death rate. If you can't compute the mean and standard deviation of that simple thing, then you have problems.
> A rather long-winded way of announcing that you don't know what you are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. The fact of you saying it's long winded goes to show how weak is your so-called analytical thinking.

> > Writeup by some blithering person:
> >
> > https://users.stat.ufl.edu/~rrandles/sta4930/4930lectures/chapter2/chapter2R.pdf
> >
> > They think they're geniuses for fitting a Weibull.
> It's a shopping list of fitting functions. There's nothing in that write-up that shows the fit of an actual function to actual acturial data.

It's a parameterized distribution used for fitting exponentials, and used extensively in modeling systems for reliability engineering lifetime statistics, just something else you don't know the first thing about.

> > Survival in general wiki:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_function
> That is marginally better, in that it makes passing reference to real world breast cancer data, but it doesn't make any direct connection.

Statistics is a tool of scientific discovery and not the science itself. Dunno what kind of childish arrested development would think it would be.

>
> You do go to a lot of trouble to tell us that you don't know what you are talking about.

You're too ignorant with an exacerbation of stupidity to make that assessment.

> The improved survival past age 80 for males and 85 for females might be susceptible to being modelled by a Weibull function - I wouldn't know. I could ask my cousin the statistician, but even though he is retired, I'd hate to waste his time on such a pointless question.

It's more than just a model. It does show that beyond a critical age range the death rate becomes constant, being directly proportional to the interval of time under consideration regardless of when that interval occurs, up to a limiting age when it rapidly breaks down.
You're too much of lightweight to understand any of that, so go ahead and call bullshit- the refrain of ignoramuses.

:

The exponential distribution is often concerned with the amount of time until some specific event occurs. For example, the amount of time (beginning now) until an earthquake occurs has an exponential distribution. Other examples include the length of time, in minutes, of long distance business telephone calls, and the amount of time, in months, a car battery lasts. It can be shown, too, that the value of the change that you have in your pocket or purse approximately follows an exponential distribution.

Values for an exponential random variable occur in the following way. There are fewer large values and more small values. For example, marketing studies have shown that the amount of money customers spend in one trip to the supermarket follows an exponential distribution. There are more people who spend small amounts of money and fewer people who spend large amounts of money.

Exponential distributions are commonly used in calculations of product reliability, or the length of time a product lasts.

The random variable for the exponential distribution is continuous and often measures a passage of time, although it can be used in other applications. Typical questions may be, “what is the probability that some event will occur within the next x
hours or days, or what is the probability that some event will occur between x1
hours and x2
hours, or what is the probability that the event will take more than x1
hours to perform?” In short, the random variable X equals (a) the time between events or (b) the passage of time to complete an action, e.g. wait on a customer. The probability density function is given by:

f(x)=1μe−1μx

where μ is the historical average waiting time.

and has a mean and standard deviation of 1/μ.

An alternative form of the exponential distribution formula recognizes what is often called the decay factor. The decay factor simply measures how rapidly the probability of an event declines as the random variable X increases.

When the notation using the decay parameter m is used, the probability density function is presented as:

f(x) = me−mx

where m=1μ

In order to calculate probabilities for specific probability density functions, the cumulative density function is used. The cumulative density function (cdf) is simply the integral of the pdf and is:

F(x)=∫∞0[1μe−xμ]=1−e−xμ '

:

Total waste of time to post that, you and numbers don't get along.

I'm finding the business pages have the best explanations for statistical principles. They do the best job of making real sense of it. The 'nurd' pages are mostly jackass-inine factoid regurgitators. The nurds are used to being confused.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 17, 2024, 12:07:54 PMFeb 17
to
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:01:02 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 1:21:06 AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:06:12 -0500, legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:57:30 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>wrote:
> <snip>
> > It looks like the anomaly in the report is resticted to 'persons'
> > and 'males'. It is not repeated in 'female' figures.
> >
> > Neither parts of the table reflect trends in the charts.
> I don't think that any of these statistics are worth worrying about. Every human being is unique - identical twins do come close to being much the same, but while their basic genome is identical, even they develop slightly differently.
>
> People age, and they don't age at exactly the same rate.

People die because of a lifetime of accumulated damage. If there was no accumulation of damages, everyone would live to 120. Individuality in death rate arises form individuality in exposure to damage. Your mortality curve is a survival function of damage.

### Fred Bloggs

Feb 17, 2024, 12:11:24 PMFeb 17
to
She may be suffering from vaccine-induced dementia it looks like.

### RichD

Feb 17, 2024, 2:49:39 PMFeb 17
to
On February 13, Sylvia Else wrote:
> <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release>
>
> I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency.
> If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and
> look at the three right hand columns.
> How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the
> corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than
> the baseline average?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00424.x
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/garrison_keillor_137097

Given Joltin' Joe and Sam Slugger, both on the same team.

In 2025, it's reported that Joe's batting average exceeds Sam's during
the first half of the season, also during the second half. Yet Sam's
average, over the entire season, exceeds Joe's.

Would you take this seriously?

--
Rich

### RichD

Feb 17, 2024, 3:00:56 PMFeb 17
to
On February 17, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> People age, and they don't age at exactly the same rate.
>
> People die because of a lifetime of accumulated damage. If there was no accumulation of
> damages, everyone would live to 120.

A firm manufactures a device, which includes a clock. The clock is guaranteed to
trigger an alarm after 35 years, with uncertainty ~5 years.

That is, the device is designed to operate at least that long, unless destroyed by
external forces. If it does survive that long, the clock and alarm is guaranteed.

Would you trust them? Do you know of any device with such a timer spec, manufactured
in very large quantities?

--
Rich

### darius

Feb 17, 2024, 4:06:41 PMFeb 17
to
The arsehole Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:00:57 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWrE0kX33XPOlZ0mlMLqqudKPSX69i6FyJmWemjU46FIZoI8cqXjB+rYtEMD8xNRZKYwsY6i5Z8ki2sP334tazzupR/Wcq1cz+t8SeW2mZ9TOaSnNXYrVk/
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1209:b0:dc6:e5e9:f3af with SMTP id
> s9-20020a056902120900b00dc6e5e9f3afmr2049303ybu.9.1708185656640; Sat, 17 Feb
> 2024 08:00:56 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:00:56 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net> <qgepsit658aech586...@4ax.com>
> <g5f1tit658aech586...@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:00:57 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

### a a

Feb 17, 2024, 4:06:47 PMFeb 17
to
The arsehole RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVTHftyaYRSIgdqzokQ57rZHaKjFXIDHm5jIVL0peEIlOqc7PGNlM/MS1ra8vVZgFaHSUC+LdYKIBg0FNSjwGBdd8BzX0MQAM5Z+COPufi0bZL9UVRbQlhbDPU=
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1314:b0:68c:b476:2ef7 with SMTP id pn20-20020a056214131400b0068cb4762ef7mr58823qvb.11.1708200051495;
> Sat, 17 Feb 2024 12:00:51 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXFT9RdxYzRj4+jmLAizJ2iuwr3SjvrBVXhey7EO25sNTOkuTx9LxI1Nbksm04/Os4Qvk1TgkvPmThlXFKlMBmR/n0WuOUjih2J/1Gwcok9czYcF4nhqrxW
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1149:b0:dc7:9218:df47 with SMTP id
> p9-20020a056902114900b00dc79218df47mr2357067ybu.5.1708200051071; Sat, 17 Feb
> 2024 12:00:51 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 12:00:50 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.154.192.197
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net> <qgepsit658aech586...@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 20:00:51 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

### a a

Feb 17, 2024, 4:06:54 PMFeb 17
to
The idiot RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

--
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVekB8+3sZ8uyZhUBf+ELCFz6ATeaG0gCtCbda3XUyeb/sPUiVbwLZwxBC2xM/EcZfQORDcJ6hi1z/qJEYQu3uU2nMiIEPLLYeLrieyJ57CvkJou5jHzhUoyLc=
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:410e:b0:68f:5729:10cd with SMTP id kc14-20020a056214410e00b0068f572910cdmr62585qvb.4.1708199375301;
> Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:49:35 -0800 (PST)
> X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXZEGjjcumUcjNzAC/6qS1yx/ELA9MrBGXwxcQ2QPYGpLvuus351HhwkQPG/JXUAT2ag+wDw5ab5tZ7KgMRCh7k2iKEnWOxj9MvLKgfIN9v/XoJD/Uf35AP
> X-Received: by 2002:a0d:cb89:0:b0:607:c619:8200 with SMTP id
> n131-20020a0dcb89000000b00607c6198200mr1966982ywd.2.1708199374757; Sat, 17
> Feb 2024 11:49:34 -0800 (PST)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:49:34 -0800 (PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.154.192.197
> References: <l3332a...@mid.individual.net>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check
> From: RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:35 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"