My five times great grandfather was Jeremiah Bateson. He died at the age of 56. He was born in 1729 and was a farm worker. My four times great grandfather died at 79, successive generations died at the ages of 79, 80, 60,72 and my father at 76. Are we atypical?
My four times great grandfather married Francis Gilder, and they had fourteen children. Five died before the age of 15. However, many lived long lives: William (84), Henry (54), Thomas (79), John (78) and Mary (65). Francis herself died at the age of 77 and Henry at 79. All their children were born around 1800. Is my family gifted with long life or is our view of lifespan in the past distorted?
Three Score Years and Ten.
The biblical definition of lifespan seems at odds with our view of the tough and brutal lives of our ancestors. However, the data suggests otherwise.
The chart shows the same “death curves” that I introduced in last weeks Newsletter (See "Research Section for Chart) (Newsletter#241 The Value of Life). It was prepared by the Office of National Statistics in the UK. Each curve plots the ages at which people died in that year. There is one important change compared to last week’s chart. It omits deaths below the age of ten. In 1841 “life expectancy” defined by the Government was only 42. However, if you survived to the age of ten the most likely age for you to die was 75. In 1900 that number fell back to 71. After that it remained virtually constant around 75-77. It is only in my lifetime that there has been a significant upward jump. (How did you get on with your homework from last weeks Newsletter?).
Today the modal age to die in the UK is 89 for women and 86 for men. Japanese women come top of the league with 93. The US today is 89 for women and 87 for men. (It was 90 for women in 2019 but fell during COVID. This happened all over the world by the US has not recovered as far). France is 92 for women and 89 for men.
Concentrated Dying
The shape of these curves have been changing dramatically. In 1841 there were many more deaths before people reached the mode. People were dying at younger ages. Many communicable diseases were taking their toll. Tuberculosis, Dysentery, Cholera, Typhoid, Pneumonia, Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever were killing children and adults alike. Accidents in the home and workplace were much more common. Over time we can see more people surviving, longer. What we do not see is an extension to the maximum age. The curves are becoming steeper and narrower.
Is this perhaps the answer to the problem of the increasing value of a statistical life? I showed in last weeks Newsletter that we seem to be valuing life more highly. Medicine has moved on from child mortality. It has moved on from communicable diseases. Vaccination does work. With the correct penetration of the population, we can eradicate these killers. Public health campaigns on sanitation have eradicated cholera and typhoid. We now understand the harm that smoking has done to the health of the population. For the first time we are moving beyond the biblical three score years and ten. Is that why our lives are more valuable?
Our images of Older Societies.
In previous Newsletters I have pointed out the dangers of focusing on the “life expectancy” statistic. (Newsletter #132 "Life Expectancy is not a Forecast")In the area of Yorkshire where my family lived child mortality below the age of 5 was one of the highest in the UK. It was 18% in 1850. Many more children died before the age of 10. It was an unusual family that did not bury a child. That large bump in the death curve meant that there were two peaks of almost equal size in some years. Any single summary number would be irrelevant.
If you survived in 1840 past the age of 10 the society in which you lived looked very much like the world in which we lived today. There were plenty of old people. More young people died than today but there were people who lived to their 80s and 90s. The Bateson family in East Yorkshire was not atypical.
Today’s Society
Using these “death charts” illustrates the changes that are occurring in our Societies in a new way. We always had the potential to live to the age of 70 but now we are more likely to live to the age of 90. Those extra 20 years are not all years of misery. Medicine may not be able to cure chronic diseases, but it can ease the symptoms. Living to our eighties is no longer the preserve of the affluent few. Many more people are able to live their “natural term” and it is getting longer. There are still massive variations with deprivation. Many of the deaths before the mode are of people living in deprived areas. But some of them to are living much longer.