SONBP2
SONBP2
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 289
November 16th, 2010 at 3:11:16 PM permalink
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.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 103
  • Posts: 6004
November 16th, 2010 at 3:51:18 PM permalink
No change. Good luck.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 16th, 2010 at 3:52:34 PM permalink
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.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
SONBP2
SONBP2
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 289
November 16th, 2010 at 3:57:04 PM permalink
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
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
November 16th, 2010 at 4:03:05 PM permalink
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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
SONBP2
SONBP2
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 289
November 16th, 2010 at 4:11:58 PM permalink
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.
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
November 16th, 2010 at 4:24:56 PM permalink
Non-mathematically speaking, she's accident prone so her expectancy is thereby reduced 15+ years.
SONBP2
SONBP2
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 289
November 16th, 2010 at 4:36:34 PM permalink
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.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 16th, 2010 at 5:02:30 PM permalink
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.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 16th, 2010 at 5:14:31 PM permalink
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.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

  • Jump to: