Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Ismail Lagardien wrote:
>
> > Why the &^%$ is it that males can carry HPV, "give it" to their
> > FEMALE partners and thereby exposing them to the possibility of
> > cervical cancer, and yet, not show ANY signs, or symptoms of it
> > ourselves. We just pull up our zippers and away we go!!!!
> >
> > i am officially pissed - and hate men!
>
> We do die younger.
These mortality figures (logevity at birth) are well and good for a very rough and ready assessment of the health of a whole nation in comparison to other nations or to its own (reasonably distant path). For almost any other purpose they should be looked at skeptically. As long ago as the 1950s a number of public health writers were pointing out, for example, that if one measured life expectancy _at 60_ rather than at birth, life expectancy in 1955 was not much different than it had been in 1890. (Example produced for this post -- I don't remember any of the details.) The great extension of life expectancy was almost wholly due to the great reductions in infant and child mortality. After that, not much change.
I wonder, for example, if one's base line was (say) 15, and the question was proportion still alive at 45, would there be a gender difference, and if so which way.
My suspicion, though I have no basis except pure guessing, is that the extra longevity of women has _two_ sources: (a) greater infant amd child mortality among males and (b) _possibly_, of the cohort remaining at 60, women live longer.* But what is the evidence of relative death rates from 15 to 60?
Carrol
*And that, if true, could be explained by the inability of men to take
care of themselves, and their greater vulnerability to the health
effects of loneliness.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk