[cockerpunk]

what is new about this and how does this differ from the CDC analysis?

breaking things down by age doesn't change the numbers, just you perceive them. since your chances of dying doesn't change significantly based on your age from one year to another, the only reason to break it down by age, is to make it seem safer than it is. ie, a person who is 34 and 35 years old does not have a significant difference in there chance of dying, so breaking them down that way can only serve to water down the analysis.

this is why in such cases you typically would use binning. you would use brackets of ages, based on realistic age gaps/changes in health statistics.

you know, if you wanted to be honest.


if you want to further dilute the numbers, you could break it down by age, month of the year you were born, and your hair color, AND eye color ... i mean really get those numbers to be small.




this is the same data analysis of the corvette owner at the car show with the "one of only 34 made, super rare!" sign, because no one else bought a yellow, with leather, manual, sport package, cold weather package, with the rubber mats.

is it rare? no, nothing about it rare. but it SEEMS rare because as you add meaningless smaller and smaller filters, it seems rarer and rarer.

breaking down your chance of dying by your age, is equally meaningless. and why stop at one year? keep putting filters on, month of birth, hair color, etc ... i mean really get those numbers down.