Life Expectancy--Car Accident

I am not real familiar with how calculations of life expectancy work, but hopefully some of you math people or actuaries can help me out.

If a 20 year old female, primarily residing in Las Vegas is in an automobile accident, and suffers a severe broken arm resulting in multiple surgeries and a steel rod and screws being put in her arm and subsequently removed after the healing occurred, but leaving a six inch scar on her arm, which basically set her life back 2 years, does all that change the life expectancy of that individual?

Thanks again for the comments and advice.

No change. Good luck.

Quote: SONBP2

I am not real familiar with how calculations of life expectancy work, but hopefully some of you math people or actuaries can help me out.

If a 20 year old female, primarily residing in Las Vegas is in an automobile accident, and suffers a severe broken arm resulting in multiple surgeries and a steel rod and screws being put in her arm and subsequently removed after the healing occurred, but leaving a six inch scar on her arm, which basically set her life back 2 years, does all that change the life expectancy of that individual?

Thanks again for the comments and advice.

The Wiz is an actuary, but this isn't really an actuarial problem. Since the only condition that remains from the accident is the scar, but she is now otherwise intact and healthy (or at least, as intact and healthy as she was before the accident), her life expectancy, logically, would not have changed because of the accident. If there was some kind of permanent condition resulting from the accident, such as internal organ damage that didn't completely heal, that would potentially reduce life expectancy.

Quote: mkl654321

The Wiz is an actuary, but this isn't really an actuarial problem. Since the only condition that remains from the accident is the scar, but she is now otherwise intact and healthy (or at least, as intact and healthy as she was before the accident), her life expectancy, logically, would not have changed because of the accident. If there was some kind of permanent condition resulting from the accident, such as internal organ damage that didn't completely heal, that would potentially reduce life expectancy.

That is what I thought, but I figured I would at least ask since I was not exactly sure if those circumstances were considered in calculating life expectancy.

thanks

Your life expectancy (and therefore, insurance rates) would be adjusted for the expected value of a pool of people having similar accidents, if possible. Who said that her life was set back two years?

Because you are involved in an automobile accident, your life expectancy would also be adjusted for those people who were also involved in car accidents and the mortality of those involved in one non-fatal crash.

Basically, insurance companies will measure their risk based on whatever factors they can. If there is a calculable pool to figure out your individual risk, chances are that the calculation has been done.

It stands to show that your mortality is likely higher if you are involved in one car accident than in none. There is a pool of people who experience one car accident at age 20 who will experience more accidents later on due to many factors.

Quote: boymimbo

Your life expectancy (and therefore, insurance rates) would be adjusted for the expected value of a pool of people having similar accidents, if possible. Who said that her life was set back two years?

Because you are involved in an automobile accident, your life expectancy would also be adjusted for those people who were also involved in car accidents and the mortality of those involved in one non-fatal crash.

Basically, insurance companies will measure their risk based on whatever factors they can. If there is a calculable pool to figure out your individual risk, chances are that the calculation has been done.

It stands to show that your mortality is likely higher if you are involved in one car accident than in none. There is a pool of people who experience one car accident at age 20 who will experience more accidents later on due to many factors.

Set back meaning, she was forced to miss school for a year cause she couldn't attend classes and had to change jobs. Just now getting her life back to normal.

Non-mathematically speaking, she's accident prone so her expectancy is thereby reduced 15+ years.

Quote: JerryLogan

Non-mathematically speaking, she's accident prone so her expectancy is thereby reduced 15+ years.

Please explain? And is there any chart showing proof of this reduced life expectancy and the calculations associated with coming to that conclusion.

Quote: SONBP2

Please explain? And is there any chart showing proof of this reduced life expectancy and the calculations associated with coming to that conclusion.

The absurdity of that assertion aside, the OP didn't say she was the driver in this accident--she could have been a passenger. I doubt that being in the passenger or the back seat of a car when it crashes signifies that you are "accident prone", from an actuarial or any other standpoint.

Also, she could have been one of the drivers, but not at fault---like a collision with a drunk driver.

Quote: boymimbo

It stands to show that your mortality is likely higher if you are involved in one car accident than in none. There is a pool of people who experience one car accident at age 20 who will experience more accidents later on due to many factors.

Not necessarily--only if there is an actual, recorded, statistical correlation. If someone has done a study correlating a SINGLE auto accident to (supposedly) decreased life expectancy, there would have to be a control group--similar persons who do NOT have an auto accident by age 20. This would, in turn, need all other things to be equal from then on---the "crash group" and the "no-crash" group would have to experience similar lives, to make any kind of valid comparison.

Also, the accident in question was, per the OP, nonfatal and caused no permanent injury, so the question would be more behavioral than anything else. Are 20-year-old drivers who have been in one auto accident more likely to die later on in life (from ANY cause, not just car accidents) than 20-year-olds who have not been in any accidents? And is the data sorted between at-fault accidents and others? (Of course, if the girl was not a driver in the accident, the whole question is moot.) I would say there might be a correlation, but it would be a very weak one. The question of sorting the data, establishing a control group for comparison, and charting data over a length of time that would be statistically meaningful, suggests to me that making such an estimation would be problematic.

Of course, an insurance company doesn't need a rigorous statistical analysis as an excuse to jack up your rates.

Quote: SONBP2

Please explain? And is there any chart showing proof of this reduced life expectancy and the calculations associated with coming to that conclusion.

Common sense, my friend, common sense...which translates to there being no need for calculations or pie charts. Some people regularly are involved in accidents through no fault of their own or in addition to their own faults. Our pal mkl thinks everyone's in charge of everything that goes on in their lives, which is way out there somewhere.

Quote: mkl654321

Not necessarily--only if there is an actual, recorded, statistical correlation. If someone has done a study correlating a SINGLE auto accident to (supposedly) decreased life expectancy, there would have to be a control group--similar persons who do NOT have an auto accident by age 20. This would, in turn, need all other things to be equal from then on---the "crash group" and the "no-crash" group would have to experience similar lives, to make any kind of valid comparison.

Also, the accident in question was, per the OP, nonfatal and caused no permanent injury, so the question would be more behavioral than anything else. Are 20-year-old drivers who have been in one auto accident more likely to die later on in life (from ANY cause, not just car accidents) than 20-year-olds who have not been in any accidents? And is the data sorted between at-fault accidents and others? (Of course, if the girl was not a driver in the accident, the whole question is moot.) I would say there might be a correlation, but it would be a very weak one. The question of sorting the data, establishing a control group for comparison, and charting data over a length of time that would be statistically meaningful, suggests to me that making such an estimation would be problematic.

Of course, an insurance company doesn't need a rigorous statistical analysis as an excuse to jack up your rates.

One could wonder all day and night and still not be able to come up with a good reason why someone would make all that stuff up on the go just for posting purposes. It's loaded with so many crazy assertions that heads will spin clean off.

Quote: JerryLogan

One could wonder all day and night and still not be able to come up with a good reason why someone would make all that stuff up on the go just for posting purposes. It's loaded with so many crazy assertions that heads will spin clean off.

Ah...and your assertion about 15+ years off of a person's life expectancy was based on pure fact?

Quote: JerryLogan

Common sense, my friend, common sense...which translates to there being no need for calculations or pie charts. Some people regularly are involved in accidents through no fault of their own or in addition to their own faults. Our pal mkl thinks everyone's in charge of everything that goes on in their lives, which is way out there somewhere.

I never said any such thing, Jerry. I'm asking you now, politely, to please stop the personal attacks. Don't put words in my mouth, either. You can disagree with something I say (or that anyone else says) without the personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.

My post didn't refer to anyone's being in charge of everything that goes on in their lives. You made that one up out of whole cloth. I was discussing the likelihood of accidents and death, which pretty much by definition, implies a lack of control--any given rational person would be presumed to avoid both accidents and death, if he could.

I've favored you with a rational discussion of some of the points you've made, here and on other threads. Others have told me I shouldn't bother to engage in civil discussions with you--that you won't be able to resist attacking ME rather than the arguments I make. I am getting the feeling that those persons were right.

Quote: mkl654321

I never said any such thing, Jerry. I'm asking you now, politely, to please stop the personal attacks. Don't put words in my mouth, either. You can disagree with something I say (or that anyone else says) without the personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.

My post didn't refer to anyone's being in charge of everything that goes on in their lives. You made that one up out of whole cloth. I was discussing the likelihood of accidents and death, which pretty much by definition, implies a lack of control--any given rational person would be presumed to avoid both accidents and death, if he could.

I've favored you with a rational discussion of some of the points you've made, here and on other threads. Others have told me I shouldn't bother to engage in civil discussions with you--that you won't be able to resist attacking ME rather than the arguments I make. I am getting the feeling that those persons were right.

Ever heard that denial is the 2nd most glaring problem of those who just can't tell the truth?

Oh I get it! Another vulgarity-laced private rant is in order!

Quote: JerryLogan

Ever heard that denial is the 2nd most glaring problem of those who just can't tell the truth?

Oh I get it! Another vulgarity-laced private rant is in order!

OK. I tried. You don't want to be civil and decent, that's your choice.

Quote: mkl654321

OK. I tried. You don't want to be civil and decent, that's your choice.

Stop sending me those vulgarity-filled/name-calling rambles as PM's and you might find that a teachable moment.

I doubt if this incident is similar enough, but life expectancy is reduced by some things that I hadn't thought would factor in. Christopher Reeves, for example, shocked me when he up and died, but it came out that such a person with his condition does have a short life expectancy.

Then there's the short life expectancy of someone who plays the role of Superman on TV or in the movies. But I digress.

I only have access to very simple actuarial tables, by age and gender. So if forced to an answer, my actuarial skills wouldn't help at all, and I 'd have to go off of common sense. A lot of surgeries can be tough on a body, but a healthy 20-year old should be able to bounce back. My best guess is there would be a negligible effect on life expectancy.

Quote: JerryLogan

Stop sending me those vulgarity-filled/name-calling rambles as PM's and you might find that a teachable moment.

If you'll agree to stop the personal attacks on me in your public posts, fine. I doubt very much that you can bring yourself to agree to do that, though.

Quote: mkl654321

If you'll agree to stop the personal attacks on me in your public posts, fine. I doubt very much that you can bring yourself to agree to do that, though.

Sure, if you agree to only make assertion-filled essay style posts that can be supported with factual evidence or documentation. I understand that lonely old men need to have a reason to continue on and in your case it's making things up on the go all the time, but you also have to realize most of us believe in reality and require proof when so many assertions are spoon-fed to the masses in your posts.

Quote: mkl654321

If you'll agree to stop the personal attacks on me in your public posts, fine. I doubt very much that you can bring yourself to agree to do that, though.

Well I guess we have our answer to that based on JL's last post.

So seriously, isn't it time to take the high road on this ? Any takers ?

Quote: JerryLogan

I understand that lonely old men need to have a reason to continue on and in your case it's making things up on the go all the time, but you also have to realize most of us believe in reality and require proof when so many assertions are spoon-fed to the masses in your posts.

Unless you can show me where MKL said he was a "lonely old man," that would violate the no personal insults rule. You could have made your point without saying that. It is okay to politely attack MKL's writing, but if you must attack the man, please do it in the Free Speech Zone or by PM.

Quote: JerryLogan

Sure, if you agree to only make assertion-filled essay style posts that can be supported with factual evidence or documentation. I understand that lonely old men need to have a reason to continue on and in your case it's making things up on the go all the time, but you also have to realize most of us believe in reality and require proof when so many assertions are spoon-fed to the masses in your posts.

No one on this forum is tasked with providing "supporting documentation" for everything they say. It would be pretty boring to read everyone's posts if they did. You don't hold yourself to that standard, so why should I?

And news flash--everybody, yourself included, makes "assertions" in their posts. And I haven't written an essay yet here--though you seem to think I have. Perhaps you don't know what an essay is. Pity that you can't attend one of my English classes.

In any case, thank you for answering my question on whether you would consider behaving decently for a change.

Quote: Wizard

Unless you can show me where MKL said he was a "lonely old man," that would violate the no personal insults rule. You could have made your point without saying that. It is okay to politely attack MKL's writing, but if you must attack the man, please do it in the Free Speech Zone or by PM.

I suppose that analogy was made in the same way MKL made the one 2 days ago that claims my wife cheats on me (a very personal insult). And no, I'm never going to send anyone a PM as an attack. I prefer to tell them to their face if there's an issue. In fact, I would expect since the PM function is a part of this forum, that you would at the least be encouraging members NOT to do that, and more appropriately, that they would be penalized for doing it.

I've never read the Free Speech Zone and won't. I heard Nancy Pelosi blogs there.

Quote: mkl654321

No one on this forum is tasked with providing "supporting documentation" for everything they say. It would be pretty boring to read everyone's posts if they did. You don't hold yourself to that standard, so why should I?

And news flash--everybody, yourself included, makes "assertions" in their posts. And I haven't written an essay yet here--though you seem to think I have. Perhaps you don't know what an essay is. Pity that you can't attend one of my English classes.

In any case, thank you for answering my question on whether you would consider behaving decently for a change.

At least I've gotten you to ease up on your long-winded bloviations to nowhere!

Quote: JerryLogan

I suppose that analogy was made in the same way MKL made the one 2 days ago that claims my wife cheats on me (a very personal insult).

I must have missed that post. Can you give me a link to it? That request goes for all rule violation complaints.

Quote: Wizard

I must have missed that post. Can you give me a link to it? That request goes for all rule violation complaints.

Actually, I think mkl was indeed guilty of that offense here. He had previously, in the "Women" thread, been accused of knowing nothing about marriage since he has never been married, and there was discussion about whether first-hand experience was necessary to be knowledgeable about something. Then in the "boyfriend cheating" thread, he was dissed again, so he responded with the offending comment that Jerry has some experience there. Things do sometimes get nasty around here.

Quote: Doc

Actually, I think mkl was indeed guilty of that offense here.

Thank you. A warning has been made about that insult in that thread.

Quote: Doc

Actually, I think mkl was indeed guilty of that offense here. He had previously, in the "Women" thread, been accused of knowing nothing about marriage since he has never been married, and there was discussion about whether first-hand experience was necessary to be knowledgeable about something. Then in the "boyfriend cheating" thread, he was dissed again, so he responded with the offending comment that Jerry has some experience there. Things do sometimes get nasty around here.

I broke the rules when I responded to Jerry in that fashion, but it is unfair to take my remark to him out of context. It is also unfair NOT to consider the dozens, maybe hundreds of times that he has made similar remarks about me. The insult-score is something like Jerry 1,500, mkl 5. All that said, I was in the wrong to violate forum rules, even in response to yet another load of Jerry-dung being flung in my direction.

What I suppose I find UTTERLY disgusting and hypocritical is Jerry pretending to be aggreived about that post. His tender sensibilities are offended? Don't make me laugh! In any case, if you don't want somebody to shoot at you, don't shoot at THEM. The amount of abuse he has flung in my direction over the last several weeks has been positively ridiculous--he can't just disagree with anyone, he has to combine it with a personal attack. My offending post was in response to a series of such attacks.

Maybe Jerry LIVES for the opportunity to infuriate people. He certainly seems to spend a lot of effort to bring about that result. If that is his primary purpose for being here, then perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to participate. I haven't read more than a few of his recent posts, but it doesn't seem as if he is contributing ANYTHING other than insults and rants.

Quote: JerryLogan

I(a very personal insult).

I can't help but ask--how's it feel, Jerry, to be the target of a personal insult?

Unlike you, however, I admit that said insult was unsupported, not based on fact, and therefore inappropriate. There are plenty of negative things I could say about you that are perfectly factual--I don't need to make anything up.

Bust mkl again- stolen thread.....

Quote: JerryLogan

I suppose that analogy was made in the same way MKL made the one 2 days ago that claims my wife cheats on me (a very personal insult).

Jerry, if you were truly offended by that, I apologize. No, scratch that; even if your taking offense was fake, I apologize anyway. I've often pointed out that you make unfounded assertions and personal attacks, but I shouldn't do that in return.

I've asked you a couple of times recently whether you might consider stopping all the mudslinging. You basically lifted your leg and peed on my request, but I can see how my posting something about you and your wife might make me think that I wasn't sincere in my request. For that, I was wrong, especially since I subverted my own point.

I don't actually know who you are, and you don't know who I am. All we know about each other is what we've posted on an internet forum. It is painfully obvious that we have widely differing political and societal views. It is also obvious that we're both opinionated. However, neither of those things should prevent us from being civil to one another. We don't do anyone any good by bitching at each other.

I know you disapprove of teachers, video poker players, people from Oregon, people who write "essays", people who you think are "old", people who don't make as much money as you do, people who dislike Sarah Palin, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. However, this forum isn't about PEOPLE--since we don't really know who anyone here actually is, with the exception of the Wizard. Therefore, we should be discussing IDEAS. It is both logically unsound and pointless to attack the person articulating an idea rather than the idea itself. I mean, I may be a lonely old English-teaching Oregon-dwelling video poker-playing essay-writing Godless liberal non-rich Palin-hater, but what does that have to do with the correctness or incorrectness of my idea(s)?

This pretty much has to be my last attempt, Jerry. I don't want to argue with you any more, so if the choice is between conversing with you and arguing, or not conversing at all, i'll have to choose the latter. I truly dislike the way you attack people, and how you express your opinions, and I wish you would adopt a different tone, but I'm realistic enough to understand that you don't think there's anything wrong with the way you say things.

Quote: mkl654321

I broke the rules when I responded to Jerry in that fashion, but it is unfair to take my remark to him out of context. ...

mkl, I think you know that I have been reasonably supportive of you around here. I chose to provide the link that the Wizard requested rather than having to read whatever comments Jerry would have provided to accompany it if he had made the post.

I certainly did not mean to take your remark out of context. That is why, in addition to posting the link, I tried to provide a little background, showing that you had been repeatedly attacked or baited, and noted that your comment was in response to those assaults. I did not care for your specific quip, but I know that it can be quite difficult to maintain decorum when you are trying to fend off a fusillade of barbs. Perhaps I didn't provide complete background in my four lines, but I don't think I was being unreasonably out-of-context in what I said.

In case my position is not clear, I feel that overall, Jerry's posts have been more over-the-top offensive than what I have seen from you in the past couple of months. But sometimes I feel that both of you need your butts paddled by the school marm.

This is funny stuff. I always wondered what my teachers did in-between classes.

Quote: JerryLogan

This is funny stuff. I always wondered what my teachers did in-between classes.

Appears to be much the same that trucking operation executives do between phonecalls and high powered business decisions. Funny....

Quote: thecesspit

Appears to be much the same that trucking operation executives do between phonecalls and high powered business decisions. Funny....

You need to be one in order to have a good chance at guessing right. I work from home most of the time and am at the computer about 12 hours a day. Not solid work but lots of phone calls, video conferencing, texts, radio calls, and e-mails. That's why I keep my posts short and don't bore people with long-winded, assertion-filled rambles.