So let's break this down:
The probability is incorrect, sayeth the actuary. The mortality table they're using is for life insurance, which has conservatism built in.
Go here:
http://www.soa.org/research/pension/res
If you have Excel, you can download my spreadsheet and try it out for yourself.
I put in 72-year-old male. Now I use two different mortality tables, and they're for different purposes. One mortality table (giving the lower life expectancy) is the general Social Security calendar year 2000 table. This is the general population mortality for the U.S. in the year 2000. Life expectancy for a 72-year-old man is about 11.4 years. Now that's the average but not the survival probability. You'll notice that the least number of years that will display is 10 years for the 72-year-old man. Click on the "Change mortality tables" button a couple times. Then stop it on the Social Security mortality table. You'll see it in small print at the bottom of the results area.
I wrote this spreadsheet, but I welcome you to walk through the guts with me. Go to Tools > Protect > Unprotect Workbook (I don't password protect, but protect to keep people from doing stupid stuff). Now go to Tools > Options ... > View tab and click on Sheet tabs. Now go to Format > Unhide sheet... > and choose the "Calcs" sheet.
Let's look on the calcs sheet. Column C, labeled S(x), is the survival probability. So C5 shows 1 as the guy is 72 (age is in column A) and obviously has survived to age 72. We need McCain to survive to age 77 to get all the way through one term (I don't want to deal with fractional age issues, so let's pick the more conservative) and to age 81 to get through two terms.
With the SS CY 2000 table, the probability of surviving one term is almost 80% and two terms is about 60.5%.
So what is this "32% chance of survival" stuff? They're using life insurance tables. There's a problem with life insurance tables -- we build in conservatism in assuming you'll die earlier than expected, because that's where the companies will get hurt if you buy life insurance. The only underwriting variable I have is his age and sex, and a few details of his cancer history. I could try to make an adjustment off the Social Security tables, but they weren't set up for that.
Now, I claim the SS CY 2000 table is still pretty conservative, because it covers everyone, from the extremely fit and active to the highly disabled and chronically ill. McCain has been pretty active, and his mother is still alive, so I would guess his "mortality table" (if there were such a thing) would be better than the population in general. Which makes me want to go to the other mortality table.
The purpose of the life expectancy calculator I wrote is to help people plan for retirement, as many people might not have a good concept of how long they could live if they've survived up to age 65 (or in McCain's case, 72.) First, people hear about life expectancy from birth, but that's irrelevant if you've survived many years past birth. Life expectancy from birth averages in the people who died at age 15 as well as those who died at age 85. You have to calculate the probabilities starting at current age.
The second problem is, you can't go by when your parents or grandparents died alone as there have been =huge= improvements in mortality rates, given a huge drop in smoking rates (much more for men than women) as well as improved safety (fewer accidental deaths) and health (better survival rates for cancer and heart disease). To be sure, obesity militates against improvement, but so far it's been steady improvement over the last 100 years .... and I've seen evidence of accelerated improvement in the senior ages in the last ten years. We're getting a little far afield, so check this out for light reading.
Anyway, let's pull up the annuitant mortality table. Go back to the front page, change mortality tables to the SOA A-2000 table.
Survival probabilities for 72-year-old man:
to age 77: 87.7%
to age 81: 74.5%
Now, given McCain's cancer status, it may not be appropriate to use this table, but given the level of healthcare he has access to, and his long-lived mother, and his general health status aside from the cancer, it might not be too bad. Say this is the upper range for survival probabilities.
So what does this mean in practicality? Not much, frankly. The central limit theorem doesn't kick in at one person. I'm just trying to do a little education here. If we want to go with the stats of people dying in office, only a few had "natural" deaths (having read about FDR's health stats... wooo... it's amazing he lived that long. Top number for blood pressure around 300!) - assassins have held far more danger than old age. Remember it was John Hinckley who almost did in Reagan, not his old age -- and even his Alzheimer's disease didn't claim him until a few years ago.
There are also morbidity tables to go for possibilities of various incapacitating conditions that would require McCain to resign, but it's really not that useful to look at.
Considering the number of well-known people who suddenly died this year, many of whom were around twenty years younger than McCain, anybody can pop off at any time. Teddy Roosevelt was expected just to be a placeholder, and his VP pick was to stop him messing around with the NY political machine. Well, we see where that led. So I am not trying to diminish the risks here. I'm just trying to get the order of magnitude into the correct range.
UPDATE: I just found a pretty good article on this, with good numbers, and quoting some people I know. Jim Daniel and Jack Luff most definitely know what they're talking about. They are using more up-to-date mortality tables, too. I need to deal with that in my calculator.
September 4 2008, 19:59:54 UTC 3 years ago
Completely agree and won't argue over the most valid distribution to us. But I look at my Dad, a doctor also age 72, and I simply couldn't imagine him sustaining the energy and peak brainpower required for 4-8 non-stop action and thinking years. I am sure there are many kick-ass 72 yrs old, but you have to wonder about the quality of each incremenetal year --- yes McSame might have a decent probability of living into his 80's, but will he be able to stave off the age's inevitable cruel scurge? He's a real man, not Dumbledore.
September 4 2008, 21:00:29 UTC 3 years ago
What I'm actually trying to do has nothing to do with McCain - I'm trying to raise awareness of longevity in old age. Too many people hear the life expectancy from birth stats and think the expected age at death remains constant throughout life -- no, it increases (at varying rates). This does feed into politics, because I was one of many actuaries that came together for this statement on Social Security: http://actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/s
There's a followup tomorrow morning, so I'll write more about longevity in retirement later.
September 5 2008, 13:09:35 UTC 3 years ago
but, um, doesn't that mean that people who are older than the life expectancy at birth have negative life expectancy?
I guess people don't bother to think about it, because it should be obvious that that's false.
September 5 2008, 13:57:37 UTC 3 years ago
Most people do not think very much about these subjects. Both the Society of Actuaries and TIAA-CREF have done research into what the general population thinks they need to plan for in retirement, how old they think they'll live to, what their medical care needs will be, etc. Some people do go overboard, but a lot of people seem to keep thinking they'll die before 80 when chances are good that they'll live beyond 90.
September 5 2008, 14:12:47 UTC 3 years ago
1. what is the meaning of "expectancy"? as a probabilist I deal with "expectation" a lot, which is basically the same thing, and people seem to have trouble with the concept.
2. what is the meaning of "life"? The only answer I know, "42", does not seem useful here.
October 17 2008, 03:54:55 UTC 3 years ago
September 4 2008, 20:54:40 UTC 3 years ago
September 5 2008, 00:19:35 UTC 3 years ago
September 5 2008, 07:43:27 UTC 3 years ago
There are lots of mortality tables out there, of course. They were all developed for different purposes. The CSO mentioned in the article is for life insurance valuation, so has a bunch of conservatism, and is based off of industry experience. The Social Security one is based on general population experience, plus some extrapolation of trends. The annuitant table I mentioned is for valuation purposes for annuities and involves extrapolation of trends as well (it was intended for year 2000, so it's out-of-date.)
Anonymous
September 5 2008, 19:49:43 UTC 3 years ago
does the avg date of death take into account ability?
You keep saying that the odds are he'll live beyond his term because some table shows people live longer. Does the table distinguish between the incapacitated senior in the nursing home and the active senior enjoying life and making decisions for themselves? Does it exclude seniors who can't remember to eat or need a little help now and then?What happens to your table if your remove all the people who do not possess the menatal or health ability to be active and make good decisions for themselves?
It doesn't matter how long we can keep him on life support.
September 5 2008, 20:07:37 UTC 3 years ago
Re: does the avg date of death take into account ability?
I mention morbidity/disability tables in this sentence:"There are also morbidity tables to go for possibilities of various incapacitating conditions that would require McCain to resign, but it's really not that useful to look at."
The reason they're not useful to look at is because these data aren't as good as the death data. And the mortality tables really aren't that useful, either, as I mentioned at the end of the post. Presidents are exposed to a risk (assassins) that most other people aren't; granted, the Secret Service should be doing a better job than in McKinley's era.
I mentioned that an annuitant table may be more appropriate due to McCain's family history and the fact that he is currently very active (as opposed to being a 72-year-old who is in a nursing home already). If he needed the longevity protection and wasn't President (which he doesn't, with his material assets and various pensions), I would recommend he get an annuity.
But again, these tables were meant for particular populations, and the President is a very special case. I doubt any life insurance company would cover him if he were getting a newly-issued policy now. There are too many risks involved that aren't involved with a regular 72-year-old man.
Anonymous
September 11 2008, 15:03:20 UTC 3 years ago
New Motality Table Standard
The new standard for Mortality Tables is RP-2000 and is based on an extensive mortality study done by the SOA. Pension Plans are required to measure liabilities based on this table (projected with AA scale which reduces the incidence of mortality).The qx for males are:
72 2.7281%
73 3.0387%
74 3.3900%
75 3.7834%
the probability of a male McCain surviving to Age 76, given that he is currently 72 (like McCain) is 87.67%. (1-q72)(1-q73)(1-q74)(1-q75). Personally, I suspect he will live longer as 'retirees' live longer when they have a job, a purpose to live.
(Surviving 8 years is 71.47%)
signed,
Anonymous Actuary in training.
now back to studying. My CAS4 exam is the day before elections.
Feel free to use my "findings"
September 11 2008, 19:34:42 UTC 3 years ago
Re: New Motality Table Standard
Well, there's pension plans, and there's individual annuities (which I worked with at TIAA-CREF, and we use A-2000.... with mortality improvement.) Of course, there's a distinction between tables used for pricing and tables used for valuation... amongst other things.Anyway, good luck with your exam. I'm off to teach a seminar for that course.
Anonymous
January 14 2011, 19:00:29 UTC 1 year ago
Leap at the opportunity inflatable rental software?
At the time of the most recent tour toward Mexico City I met Mariano while on this route. This man stated to my person, he was ready to get an innovative Software here the Computer Storehouse around the bend. Nicely, what a luck, I was on the way to go in the direction of the equal warehouse, but for a diverse goal. We decided that we go together, therefore we be able to offer advice to each other.Nowadays I infrequently get Software programs in the stock. I fancy getting in our Online worlds since nearly at all times there appears to be the benefit to get a presentation or even sample it over a limited time otherwise through restricted features. I can never achieve that inside a shop! My friend opposed me, telling me he has learned exactly what he desires. This man experienced already at his acquaintances piece of equipment as a consequence it appears to be the greatest he has yet encountered up till now!
Here in Mexico nonetheless it appears to be safe and sound to obtain [url=http://www.accuevent.com]inflatable rental software[/url] within the Net. The thing comes with every advantage you need. Unquestionably it appears to be great, when you offer persons enjoyment and this so much needed recreation, when you handle a small business that certainly is correlated to Parties, Actions and Celebration, however even this kind of making cash however needs to receive cash (smirk at this moment). Hence hold it as one and stay convinced you have a good quality program to deal with every one of your dealings plus maintains you up to date!
For me, Scotty Joyner the thing certainly is the most valuable chunk of equipment one does hold!
For eternity identify, what has been unsurpassed!!