Life expectancy question

Monday55 · 14/11/2021 23:43

It's a median number, that means some will live to 75yrs old and some will live to 85yrs old.

Original poster

Allywill · 14/11/2021 23:48

Yes but life expectancy in 1938 for men was around 62, in 1950 it was around 73, now it is around 80. It changes (hopefully goes up) every year. So is the 80 figure quoted now based on people born today?

OP posts:

EnrouteNOTonroute · 14/11/2021 23:55

I think it’s the average age of death for men, today. So life expectancy will probably go down a bit now with covid.

Hoplop · 14/11/2021 23:57

It’s based on the average age someone can expect to live to today, not dependent on when you were born. E.g. if you’re 71 and were born in 1950, your LE is still ~80 and not whatever it was in 1950 when born.

Nikki305 · 14/11/2021 23:57

It's complicated and depends whether the figure quoted was a period life expectancy or a cohort life expectancy. You are completely correct that life expectancy is linked to the year you are born

pandora206 · 15/11/2021 00:07

ONS have a Life Expectancy calculator that takes into account date of birth and sex.
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/articles/lifeexpectancycalculator/2019-06-07

maofteens · 15/11/2021 00:10

Your life expectancy changes as you age. Say it is 80 if you are born today, but if you are 75 it is longer. I know this because I have a US IRA and the annual distribution is based on your age and life expectancy and there is a formula they use as the idea is you use up the IRA by the time you pass away. Also demographics and location make a difference.

EvilRingahBitch · 15/11/2021 00:11

It's linked to the year you were born (your cohort) but also to how old you are now. Obviously your DF's life expectancy is now much higher than it was at his birth - the average man of his age will live to 91.

Monday55 · 15/11/2021 00:25

Technology is an obvious factor. Better medical equipment and medicine in this day and age.

Clun · 15/11/2021 03:44

It changes as you get older as others have said. Put simply, if in 1940 a new born had a life expectancy of 75, now they 81 they do not have a negative life expectancy of 6 years. Our pooled risk is recalibrated every year. We have survived and in so doing push up the average.

This is a handy table on the link below. Go to 2018-2020 sheet. Go to female age 70. Follow the row to the sixth column headed up ex and it says 16.88. That means her current life expectancy is 86.88 years.

A 70 year old doing the same exercise in 1980-1982 would read they had a life expectancy of 83.34 years, ie 13.34 left.

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2flifeexpectancies%2fdatasets%2fnationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables%2fcurrent/nationallifetables3yruk.xlsx

BarbaraofSeville · 15/11/2021 05:09

It's also an average that is skewed by big variations.

For example, years ago there were a lot more deaths due to childhood diseases and also accidents at work or women dying in childbirth.

If you managed to survive past these, you had a lot better chance of living to what we consider old age, eg beyond 80. So the average life expectancy might be 72, but as this is brought down by people who died very young, it's not that remarkable to live to 84, if you manage to survive childhood and common causes of death in younger adults.

SonicBroom · 15/11/2021 05:36

These numbers are all life expectancy at birth (LE0).

A more useful measure of ageing is life expectancy at 65 (LE65) which tells you on average how long someone aged 65 today is likely to live because it strips out the effect of mortality at younger ages. It’s 18.5 for men, and 21 for women, so the average 65 year old man today can expect to live to 83.5 and the average 65 year old women to 86.

Life expectancy goes up when less people die at younger ages. One of the big differences compared to the past is improved infant mortality, which is still high in some developing countries and the reason they have lower life expectancy. The main reason for increased LE65 is advances in medicine and also improved lifestyle behaviours.

LE65 is one reason (along with relatively low fertility rates and the size of the baby boomer cohort) that state pension ages are rising, because more people are spending a greater proportion of their adult life in retirement than ever before.

ShrikeAttack · 15/11/2021 05:52

Why do you ask?

Your father's life-expectancy is entirely his own based on various factors. At 84 now his continuing life-expectancy is entirely based on his own circumstances and not on any 'average'. That was only an 'expectancy' at birth or with his cohort. You can't extrapolate anything now using these factors.

Someone born in 2021 may have wildly different life-expectancies based on place of birth and emerging technologies. I think given the current pace of change, it's very difficult to project a life-span for an 'average' person now.

Riapia · 15/11/2021 06:04

I have heard or read somewhere that the first person that will live to be
200 years old has already been born.

Hetyanni · 15/11/2021 06:13

@Riapia

I have heard or read somewhere that the first person that will live to be 200 years old has already been born.

Yes this. So life expectancy for 2021 is for people who are dying now, not people who are being born now.

SonicBroom · 15/11/2021 07:04

No that’s not correct @Hetyanni. It’s for people who are born now. It doesn’t get higher because people suddenly start living to 200, it gets higher because less people die younger.

And no the first person to live to 200 has not been born, no one will live to 200 unless we come up with a “cure” to senescence… which is the notion that cells have a maximum number of times that they can renew before they start breaking down.

Despite all the changes in life expectancy, the age of the OLDEST person has not changed significantly over the past 100 years.

ronfa · 15/11/2021 07:08

I have heard or read somewhere that the first person that will live to be 200 years old has already been born.

That doesn't make sense. The current record is 122, how can we have gained 80 years?

MrsPleasant · 15/11/2021 07:14

@Riapia

I have heard or read somewhere that the first person that will live to be 200 years old has already been born.

200?! Glad it's not me, how boring to be so old for that long.

cptartapp · 15/11/2021 07:19

Why on earth would you hope life expectancy goes up every year? Society can barely cope now with the many thousands of very elderly, frail, demented and infirm.
As a nurse of over thirty years I would say far too many people already live too long.

SonicBroom · 15/11/2021 07:23

@cptartapp in part I agree with you, we keep too many people alive with utterly awful quality of life, I’ve seen it first hand in my family.

However, if we can increase HEALTHY life expectancy (HLE) then more people living longer in good health is a good thing. That’s the main focus for health policy overall (in part because it will cost public services less).

BarbaraofSeville · 15/11/2021 07:28

I agree @cptartapp. I know it's unpalatable, but I don't want to live for years physically and/or mentally incapable of living a life that is enjoyable to me.

And if the time comes that my quality of life has deteriorated significantly due to these factors, I'll be perfectly happy to end it there and then. I've seen many relatives spend years suffering due to dementia, aftermath of strokes, terminal cancer etc and I don't want that.

I just want to live for a good few years after retirement age to enjoy some of the decent pension that I pay thousands of pounds into every year. Because that's the other factor people seem to forget. If we start to live longer as a society, we need to work longer to pay for the longer retirement that we are hoping for...

ronfa · 15/11/2021 07:40

If we start to live longer as a society, we need to work longer to pay for the longer retirement that we are hoping for...

that's already happening, I think it's 68 for me & expect it will increase for those younger than me.

Ozanj · 15/11/2021 07:46

@Allywill

Can someone clear something up for me? Life expectancy for men in the UK is quoted as around 80. Does that mean if you are born in 2021 you can expect to live (on average) to 80? My dad was born in 1938 and is now just short of 84. Is his life expectancy different I.e is it based on the year you were born? This thought came about because someone on another thread said 70 wasn’t elderly but surely the life expectancy of a male born in 1950 wouldn’t have been much in excess of 70? Or am I completely wrong in how I am viewing the statistic?

There are two kinds of life expectancy figures. To plan for retirement you need to look at the mode ie the age at which most people die. That has been 85-89 for a while but is expected to rise to 90+ for children born after 2010.

Original poster

Allywill · 15/11/2021 08:41

thank you everyone for your explanations. i think i understand it a bit better now. very interesting.

OP posts:

DadDadDad · 15/11/2021 10:49

@ronfa

I have heard or read somewhere that the first person that will live to be 200 years old has already been born.

That doesn't make sense. The current record is 122, how can we have gained 80 years?

It is speculative, but it could be possible.

100 years from now, some of the babies already born this year will still be alive (assuming no global catastrophe), and benefitting from medical science which has advanced a century from today. If you think about how much technology and medicine has advanced since 1921, then who knows what body modifications and other treatments might be available in 2121? That would enable some of those centenarians to live until 200 perhaps.