tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post2047268417085530838..comments2024-03-27T16:39:43.522+00:00Comments on Liberal England: Nick Clegg's The Liberal Moment: Chapter 7Jonathan Calderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730157683743989696noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-31174473454425003482009-10-24T23:51:08.600+01:002009-10-24T23:51:08.600+01:00"a child born today in the poorest neighbourh...<i><br />"a child born today in the poorest neighbourhood in Sheffield will die on average fourteen years before a child born in the most affluent neighbourhood a few miles away".<br /></i><br /><br />It is a silly statement because we just don't know that. We don't know when people born now will die.<br /><br />So perhaps Nick ought to clarify just what he means by it. If he is taking it from the average age now of death in the two neighbourhoods, this is a very different thing.<br /><br />Yes, it is certainly a serious issue that poor people tend to die at a very much younger age than rich people. But that doesn't excuse a totally bogus and innumerate use of statistics.<br /><br />The first thing I should like to know is whether the statistics used are just average age of death in the two neighbourhoods, or whether there's somd compensating balance to take into account age differences.<br /><br />Let us give an example. Suppose there is a neighbourhood X where mostly young people live. Actually, everyone moves from there by the time they reach 50. So the average age of death in that neighbourhood will be below 50 - must be, no-one over that age lives there. Not many people die there, but there's always the odd accident etc.<br /><br />OK, so now consider a neighbourhood Y which consists of all specially adapted houses for the very elderly, so only people aged 85+ live there. Average age of death in that neighbourhood will, obviously, be over 85.<br /><br />So would Nick be saying "A child born today in X will die on average 40 years younger than a child born in Y"? <br /><br />It may be that the figures Nick uses are more sophisticated than plain average age of death, but the fact that he uses this phrase "child born today" already tells me this isn't literally true, so obviously I'm left wondering, well, just how untrue is it? Which detracts from the serious point being made.Matthew Huntbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255872047710686115noreply@blogger.com