No, this isn’t about a presidential election. It’s about something else: Longevity. As you may know, there are people who think that if we can live just a few years longer then developments in medicine and nanotechnology will enable us to live much, much longer than we do today.
But what are the odds that we’ll live through the gap? In fact, what are the odds that we’ll make it through just the next four years?
I’ve known for a while that it would be possible to go consult actuarial tables–the kind that insurance companies use–to get estimates of this kind of thing, but I’ve never done that.
Now someone has come up with a simple test in which you get points based on various factors, and the lower the number of points you get, the lower the chance of you dying in the next four years.
For example, being a man gets you two points right off the bat. Having diabetes gets you one point. Having cancer gets you two points. If you’re sixty to sixty four years of age you get one point (more points with more age). And so on.
The test has some limitations. It really isn’t designed for populations undre fifty years of age, for example, and the population that the study is based on may not be fully representative. The authors of the relevant paper–which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association–also warn that you shouldn’t try to self-diagnose with this thing because there may be mitigating factors in your case that a doctor could point out to you.
Of course, by announcing the existence of this test publicly, many people will ignore this and do it anyway.
So,
and
I took test and it said I died four years ago. Math mistake on my part?
The New York Times recently had a story on a new medicine for cancer that costs over $100,000 a year, or for people with insurance, usually meaning a co-pay of about $20,000 a month — all to buy just a little more time (I think they said the average time bought was 5 months!).
I’d don;t understand this perverse clinging to life. Tolkien thought it was a great evil. I would prefer to leave the money to the kids.
Not quite the topic, I know, but still….
My score was 2.
Of course, they didn’t ask about things like dangerous activities or exposure to toxic chemicals.
Years ago I switched from the traditionally pigmented oil paints to synthetic, eliminating exposure to heavy metals like cadmium. I have had good results and haven’t found any big problems working with the synthetic pigments.
Most artists still work with the old pigments, though.
My score is probably in the negative range, except for the one about weight (but what does anyone expect after 5 kids?) I’m female, 54, don’t smoke, walk a lot, don’t have any of the problems listed. I should be good for another fifty years at this rate.
So what do Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg score?
Ed Peters! If you died four years ago, how is it you are posting on this blog? Has Jimmy installed his much-desired time warp here?
Does that make Ed a blood-sucking vampire canon lawyer?
I scored a two. It seems weird that you avoid an extra point by being overweight.
I scored two, I guess being a stay at homeschool dad of six doesn’t add or subtract from my total.
Benedict the test had this “Note: Researchers say the 1-point penalty for having a body-mass index under 25 (normal weight or less) is based on findings that being underweight is a health risk for elderly people.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
MP3 download, Music CD, Online music
Download the sheet music for your current favorites and explore our … Download sheet music for Grammy®-winning and related titles, composers, and artists…
Advanced MP3 Catalog
Download advanced mp3 catalog pro Advanced MP3 Catalog is designed for anyone …