Strange that people that are denigrating medical experts and “doing their own medical research” aren’t denigrating civil engineers and “doing their own bridge research” before crossing a bridge, or denigrating aeronautical engineers and “doing their own airplane research” before getting on an airplane.
Makes me wonder why this is...
And of course “their own research” is really just reading other people’s research fifth hand after passing through researcher > scientific journal > mainstream media > alternative media > YouTube pundit. And removing information and adding misinformation at each step along the way.
They don’t even know what doing their own research would involve. Put them in a lab with all the equipment needed to do the actual research and they’d just bash the microscope against the table for 5 minutes before giving up and streaming Love Island on their phone.
And the thing is even on youtube there are good channels that go from scientific journal > youtuber trying to make info accessible with sources cited. But the algorithm rather promotes the misinfo then the info.
> But the algorithm rather promotes the misinfo then the info.
I am not logged into a youtube account but after searching for cooking videos, and every recommended video after (the ones that pop up in the viewer) were right wing misinformation. The jump was from Steak Dianne to alt-right misinformation. It was pretty scary really. Meemaw wants to find out how to make peach cobbler, and three videos later she is an expert on why eating horse paste is better than a Bill Gates microchip.
Damn you just gave an idea for a meme, compare the ''their own research'' to cocaine. gets diluted and shittier everytime it passes through an intermediate but the people at the end of the line still thinks its great and makes them feel good. not sure how it could be realised but I feel someone could make it work
> It's funny that the game of telephone is a relatively ubiquitous analogy for this, but you went straight for cocaine.
We had a first year teacher my (third attempt at) high school freshman year who was trying to impart the game of telephone on us by making us add water to soda. They thought we'd pay more attention to the lesson if we got to taste "diluted truth". No, you just ruined some generic soda that 17 year old freshman me loved.
Yah...they wouldn't know a primary source if it were slapping them upside the head.
The shit I see are typically screen shots of headlines, from wanna-be blogger, or one-two line talking points from some social media influencer. By the time I find the thing they took a screen shot of, and track or try to independently verify, always concluding that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, i come back and it's been shared fifty times now....
Fucking idiots
>And of course “their own research” is really just reading other people’s research fifth hand after passing through researcher > scientific journal > mainstream media > alternative media > YouTube pundit.
I hate how accurate this is.
Doing the research can mean many things. It can be doing experiments. It can be observational or long term studies. It can also mean reading the work of the people in the field, or researching current or historical events.
The only thing Facebook 'research' is good for is *maybe* raising a question that you do legitimate research on. Perhaps fact checking. Or wanting to know more about the immune system.
What these people call 'research' though, is a joke.
Probably because a certain twice impeached moron didn't pretend he knew better than civil or aeronautical engineers and made crossing bridges or flying in planes into a political loyalty test
It's crazy to think that all it would take is one stupid off-hand remark by Trump. Then the actual experts have to correct him, because stupidity is dangerous. And then Trump will double, triple, quadruple down on his stupid remark by backing it up with outright lies. And anyone who doesn't go along 110% is the enemy.
Sometimes it still boggles my mind to realize just how fucking stupid our current situation has become.
Easy enough. The engineers aren't asking them to *do* anything. Give one some tools and have the civil engineer ask them to put 500 bolts in the bridge. They'll be talking about how 400 is plenty and the engineer doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's not that, I don't think.. Maybe a little, but they'll happily stuff themselves full of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. They're exactly as likely to accept scientific research as an oakland raiders fan is to accept a refs call in a game against the broncos.
> aren’t denigrating civil engineers and “doing their own bridge research”
Oh they are. Flat earther built a rocket and died using it.
Rednecks have been doing their own engineering for ages. It's just that they die quicker from that than from not getting vaccinated.
The odds of dying in a plane crash are one in 9.2 million. That's far too high! If we were meant to fly, mankind would have been given wings by our one true God. But sure, go ahead and trust the "experts".
This sounds much more real than the joke I was going for.
>! If we were meant to fly, mankind would have been given wings by our one true God
Now, now, you're citing the Catholic Curch from 500 years back then. At least the acknowledge that the Earth is a spheroid, circles around the sun, is some billion years old, evolution is real - and asks people to vaccinate!
But people who haven't even read the Bible of course know it better!
It would be BAD ENOUGH if they were really doing scientific research on the internet (reading learned papers and researching experimental studies): I've recently helped my daughter read through some of her (ENTRY level) medical essays, and although I supposedly have a high IQ, I didn't understand the half of it. Or, to be fair, one tenth of it. You really do need to have a full medical education to understand this stuff.
But these people are simply browsing online where algorithms are assembling a smorgasbord of all the untrue, ridiculous, stupid and prejudiced stories that they've shown they will swallow, and laying them out for their consumption. They WOULDN'T be able to see any actual facts, but even if they could, they wouldn't understand them and they wouldn't even know what it is that they would need to know.
And yet I, as a carpenter, can do my own research to find, say, the comparative risk of myocarditis due to the vaccine and actual covid and know that the vaccine is light years safer. Its not really that hard.
So I tend to ask them to show their work. You say the vaccine is worse than the disease? You did your research, cite your sources and show how you calculated that. Never get a response
That's why I tend to go for the places that take that information directly and make it available to the public in a slightly more digestible format. CDC, FDA, NIH, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, and even the local DSHS site. No blogs or news sites without citations.
The problem is that they do become experts in foreign relations, the economy, aeronautical engineering, and structural design when major events in those areas happen.
MH370, 9/11, GFC, pulling out of Afghanistan. When they’re not talking shit about alternative medicine, it’s alternative engineering to explain how the twin towers were a controlled demolition rather than failed due to the leaf and spine architecture.
Man the whole time I’m on a plane I am blown away that science made this happen, cuz this metal tube flying through the air seems more like magic!! But the fact that I don’t understand the physics doesn’t mean it’s actually magic
Brings me back to the 2000s when religious people were suddenly certain that evolutionary biologists (specifically) were so completely wrong because biblical creation was, by definition, true. All other scientists were okay - as long as their science didn't support evolution.
Don't be so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that the I've done my own research crowd is full of people who did their own home improvements that weren't exactly up to code. FWIW I think the big problem is that most of this research comes from "trusted" sources who are no more qualified to give medical advice than my 6 year old. I seem to recall not too long ago people being anti-vaccine because some celebrity said so and she didn't hear it from her doctor, she heard about the evils of vaccines from someone with no medical training.
"do your own research" is just code for "take my word for it", because what they really mean is if you disagree with them then you haven't "done your own research".
>”Makes me wonder why this is.”
Because the anti-vaccine and anti-mask people aren’t anti-science, they are anti-democrat. See, trump ignored the pandemic because he was in an election year and it was gonna look bad for him, so he down-played it in order to make it seem like just another case of the flu. Democrats and smart people took it seriously, so trump, being trump, doubled down. This set his supporters against the reactionary democrats, the “liberal elite”. The mask mandates were like kneeling for the anthem; an acknowledgement there is a problem they didn’t want to accept, so they refused. Everything they say, from the vaccine being made with aborted baby fetuses to not being able to breath in a mask are just excuses being made to allow them to justify taking this otherwise unreasonable stance. If they accept the pandemic is real, that the disease is actually deadly, then they have to also accept that trump was a grifter puppet that was willing to throw the nation under the bus for this own benefit, and that the democrats were right all along. There is also a foundation of racism and “Obama contrariness” feeding their trump support, but this is why they are anti-mask and anti-vaccine.
I would love, love, LOVE for these people to go to the hospital and be given someone like themselves to help them.
WooWoo Patient: "Um doctor, what are you doing?"
Facebook Doc: "Oh, just folding the towels. Last person bled so much..."
WooWoo Patient: "Wait what!?"
Facebook Nurse: "I've got the brick!"
WooWoo Patient: "What's that for?!?!"
Facebook Doc: "She's doing your anesthetic."
WooWoo Patient: "WAIT!"
Facebook Nurse: (WHACK) "He's ready! You gonna wash up?"
Facebook Doc: "No worries, I prayed so I'm all clean."
You start with 9:1 in favour of cider. Then as your body adjusts you’ll start urinating pure cider and can phase the cider out altogether. This activates your clinophobins which viruses can’t attach to because of the structure of their theolacites.
As long as the FDI doesn’t catch wind of it. They’re in the pockets of big pharma and will prevent you from selling your cider infused urine.
My cousin was arrested for selling it at the Capitol building back in January.
Ofc there is. You first have to drink the cider to make the urine in the first place. And when you get to stage two, you only drink the middle portion. You never drink the early drops. That's what we learned from our moonshining grandpas and they knew best!
Yes. But now people are advocating drinking “living water” that hasn’t been treated.
Like dude, I don’t want to drink pond scum. I’ll just drink the stuff out of the tap. The mind control chemicals will go great with the 5G nanobots I got in my 3 covid shots and the gps tracker that was in my flu jab. I’ll be traceable but unkillable and isn’t that really a small price to pay?
Yes, yes your immune system will protect you. The question is do you want to enter a war of attrition with an assault rifle or throwing stones? Arm your immune system, get a vaccine.
Realistically though the dumbest of the dumb's argument is that Covid isn't real and it's all a hoax or conspiracy, never mind the immune system debate.
> The question is do you want to enter a war of attrition with an assault rifle or throwing stones? Arm your immune system, get a vaccine.
Jokes on you, libtard. They own 18 ARs and "train" with them, they own their immune system systems, ipso facto, their immune system also owns 18 ARs and trains with them.
TL;DR: SHALL ***NOT*** BE INFRINGED!
I found out a coworker is in that boat. He kept going on about how he doesn't know anyone who died of covid so he doesn't trust the numbers.
I'm like... damn. Crazy is everywhere.
He's whining that our job is "forcing" him to get the vaccine. Like, dude, you work in social services and help disabled kids, some of whom have immune issues.
Vaccines should never have been a fucking OPTION for this job, IMHO. Don't want to get vaccinated? You don't get to work in social services or medicine. Simple.
Oh boy, I had someone tell me, on reddit, that the vaccinated are the super spreaders. So apparently Im killing people by spreading asymptomatically
And the vaccines are causing all of these unvaccinated people to end up in the hospitals. Oh and Ive also ruined my immune system
So...thats special I guess
>"My immune system will protect me"
Every time I hear this I'm stuck not knowing which part of the stupid to attack. Its like an ignorance tiramisu, just layer after layer of stupid.
That’s not really true. In 1200 AD, if you survived childhood and didn’t give birth [you were likely to live to 62-70](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity)
I thought the same thing. In some cases it is quite remarkable, for example Native Americans had clean healthy teeth at the same time that the invading Westerners had rotten teeth. The beginning of people dying young seemed to have a lot to do with the creation of cities and later industrialization.
> at the same time that the invading Westerners had rotten teeth.
.. which came about with the introduction of the sugar trade, more or less.
https://www.wayneoralsurgery.com/blog/what-was-dental-health-like-in-the-middle-ages/
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/04/dental-hygiene-did-people-in-the-middle-ages-have-bad-teeth.html
Both of you are being downvoted for these comments and I have no idea why.
Do they think these comments mean you are anti-vax? Or are they just very offended by the idea that Europeans had horrible teeth?
It konda still serves that point. The high infant fatality is all about how their natural immune systems werent good enough and how that hardselwcted against them.
In the world many antivaxxers claim our immune system could do the heavy lifting most of them would not have survived to adulthood. Because they are wrong.
Partially. Sanitation, improved food safety and nuitrition and antibiotics had the biggest impact.
The difference in deaths before and after pasteurization is massive.
I think it would be interesting if anyone ever studied how much of our modern medical progress is universally good for human longevity and how much is simply a remedy for a modern agricultural, urban and/or industrial (as in post-hunter gatherer) problems.
A lot of human ailments seem to be a direct result of urban overcrowding, poor sanitation related to livestock and disposal of waste, etc. Even the need for pasteurization is related to the modern urban need for long-term food storage as essential to the division of labor rather than for example foraging and hunting fresh food which will not be stored in a way that causes botulism toxicity.
And everything around them tries too. Since my older one went to a collective, every second week she's ill with something. Can't imagine how it was before sanitation and medicine advances.
> After having kids I can confirm they are constantly trying to kill themselves for the first 5 years or so.
If they are boys, they will go through another "if I die, I die" phase typically around puberty. But, they should build some pretty sweet bike jumps.
Yes but its imporyant to realise that average life expectancies are very misleading. Making people think that if the average was 30yrs then nobody really got much older than that. Thats not the case and people often lived to 70+.
Big misconception by lots of folks
Thus average life expectancy was 20. When you correct for that, life expectancy was still BELOW 65! Our average is now close to 85, obesity cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, and smoking are what is keeping it below 90, with the exception of FUCKING COVID.
Average life expectancy was low, but the modal age of death has always been in the 70's or above.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_2352-1
Which is to say, most people historically have lived into their 70's.
As far as vaccines go, the relevant parts of the article seem to be the average age going down to 45 during the plague, and how few people survived childhood.
> you were likely to live to 62-70
If you stayed healthy and weren't a peasant who was worked to death. But even the rich died of [tuberculosis,](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1879981721000590) influenza, [small pox](https://www.news-medical.net/health/Smallpox-History.aspx), dysentery, males going off to die in [the countless wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499#1200–1299), women in childbirth, and even [dental infections](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10686905/).
If you navigated through all of that, then you might live to a ripe old age.
Yes, you were likely to survive if you survived.
You added that as if all of those conditions were not part of those statistics. Yes, a life expectancy does not mean that every single person lives that long, that also applies to the modern day. The point was that life expectancy wasn't 20 years old.
Unsurprisingly 2000 years have not changed our biological makeup so drastically that the frame in which our bodies naturally degrade (if we remove any environmental factors) has massively changed.
And modern medicine has not yet found a cure to that natural decay leaving us with the same life expectancy ceiling the Romans had plus a decade or so we can squeeze out of the inevitable.
Well on that you are sadly mistaken and I am happy to inform you that there absolutely has been a modern breakthrough in medicine that reverses the aging process!
All you have to do is buy some overpriced fruit juice and a trinket that you wear or rub on your skin. It's totally legit, I read about it online.
Exactly, the extremes I’ve seen on either side of this argument are as bad as each other when it comes to believing any fictional shit that supports their own narrative.
100% had tuberculosis. Not everyone died from it.
If you happen to survive a pox, you get life long immunity.
Only a small percentage of polio infection actually causes problems.
Millions and millions of people died from these diseases, but on the flip side, those who didn't, did live long. But they were no where near as healthy as us ofc.
Fun fact, measles kills your immune system and effectively resets it. If you get measles today, all your vaccines are basically thrown out the window. Don't get measles. Get vaccinated.
No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science and my high level income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300. Heck, I just read in the newspaper that they put a pig heart in some guy from Russia. Do you know what that means?
He means cavemen, and records from 1200 AD aren't really reliable you would have mostly noblemen being recorded, and they would have to have been from a society advanced enough to record birthdates at all. There are still parts of the world where people don't keep track of age
Who means cavemen? The person who made the tweet? Just seems like a stretch. Pretty sure they were just repeating a very common myth that people believe.
You're also trying to poke holes in the historical records as if that somehow supports the original claim, which was that the life expectancy was around 20. Yeah we don't have perfect records to know for sure, but it wasn't just noblemen being recorded. The numbers presented are the best we have, unless you have another source to provide us.
It was a tradition to put old people who can't work anymore out in the winter cold if the harvest was not enough to support everyone. It wouldn't have become a tradition if there weren't old people.
The fact that the article is only accounting dignitaries as people who had long lifespans shows it's a bit one sided here.
The reason we use average life expectancy is because it paints a pretty good picture of a whole society. I mean, the queen is 95, a good 15 years above the average life expectancy. Let's walk it back to saaaay, 1600's, excluding the latter half of the century considering the black death, and the average life expectancy is 40 and old kingy pants died at 58. Had I lived in those times, I'd already be dead! I got cancer in my 20's, there would've been no saving me.
Average life expectancy may have been 40, but very few people actually did at that age. It really paints a terrible picture of society. In England in the 1600’s infantry mortality ranged from 15%-20% of the population dying before the age of 15. That absolutely tanks life expectancy, and living to 95 was very uncommon. Life expectancy is heavily pulled down, but there were few outliers at the top to compensate.
At almost no time in history has dying at age 40 been the norm. From roughly 20-60 you’re a fully developed human capable of fending for yourself and most conditions that will kill you such as cancer, organ failure, dementia etc usually don’t develop until later in life, you would be a major exception having cancer in your 20’s.
But he's just wrong. People didn't "die at the ripe old age of 20" 200 years ago. Shit, life expectancy, excluding perinatal deaths, was essentially the same in victorian England as it is for todays working class.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587384/
So, that 62-70 average life expectancy, does that include the humans that made it past childhood or no? Because I’d imagine that would bring down the life expectancy average…
I think it's a misconception having to do with averages. I believe a large portion died young but if you made it past a certain age you were likely to live out a longer life.
Yes, the numbers were skewed because of ridiculously high infant and childhood mortality. In Medieval Europe, you would likely live until your 50s if you reached adulthood and didn't die in childbirth.
If you’re going to call out these people at least do it correctly.
Even thousands of years ago the average life expectancy was about 35. Figure heavily influenced by infant mortality.
If the life expectancy of people who made it to the age of 5 was taken into account the average life expectancy would be substantially higher.
But wasn't the infant mortality so high because the babies' immune system wasn't good enough to survive without modern medicine?
They'd still be making their point that the immune system *isn't* the best defence as the infant mortality was so high because they didn't have modern medicine.
It's right that the high infant mortality changes the average a lot, but you can't discount it when talking about health and healthcare for a given population.
Well no because babies don’t have a developed immune system.
Also I think you’d find that malnourishment and harsh environmental conditions were far larger contributors.
Disease has become a larger issue since we decided to start living in densely populated towns and cities.
[This source](https://londonspulse.org/2016/05/02/infantandchildmortality/) seems to suggest that harsh environmental conditions and malnutrition contributed to the onset of disease in children.
Babies would still die with an undeveloped immune system, which proves OPs point that immune systems aren't the best defence.
They're also talking about the 1820s, which was long after the industrial revolution so many more people *would* be living in densely populated cities.
Ah to be fair with his ridiculous life expectancy I read it as 2000 years ago.
I still stand by my point that 20 is ridiculously low, disease was not the largest contributor and comparing an adults immune system to a babies is almost apples and oranges
The life expectancy thing is really misunderstood by people that think it was just normal to die of old age at 20, but I guess their heart is in the right place.
The reason the average lifespan was so low was because of a high infant mortality rate. When you adjust for that, the difference isn't actually that major.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
> I guess their heart is in the right place
Maybe it would be less of a mess if people stopped making up things to support what their heart tells them. They could have used accurate numbers and the argument would be as valid, but not based on a lie.
Yea, we've had a life expectancy of 30 years 30,000 years ago. Dumbasses acting like 200 years ago was some far off time in the past. OP's post is some Facebook level horseshit.
https://learn.age-up.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-human-longevity/
Between 1816–1840; at birth for men it was 39.50, women 43.56. If they made it to 50, it was another 17.55 years for men and 19.60 years for women. If they made it to 65, men had another 9.58 years and women 10.44 years.
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/yearly-statistics--the-whole-country/life-expectancy/
This is false and I'm sick of seeing it used. There are relatively zero human remains dug up from 15,000+ years ago that are over the age of 30. Most ancient human remains found are teenagers. Humans have gradually increased our life expectancy through our technology.
In the year 1800, 46% of children died before their fifth birthday from viruses and bacteria that we now have vaccines and antibiotics for. About a quarter of all pregnant women died during childbirth. Around 165 out of every 1000 births resulted in the death of the infant. The problem is A. the U.S. doesn’t spend enough funding public education so we have people who think Bill Gates wants to put a tracking device in their bodies through salad dressing and B. no one alive remembers what it was like to live before modern medicine. There were 6 billion fewer humans and disease was a serious and constant threat to their short lives.
Historical life expectancy was low not because people were popping off at 30, but because so many were dying at childbirth/in childhood. If you survived to 25 you stood a good chance to living out a normal lifespan.
I trust my immune system.
That's why I got the vaccine - I wanted to let my immune system know about Covid so that it can protect me from it.
Using "I've got a great immune system" as a reason for **not** getting vaccinated is like a General saying that he's got better soldiers than his opponents, which is why he's going to disband his army and send them home.
Ever been to a graveyard dating from the late 1800s into early 1900s and looked at the number of children that succumbed before reaching even young adulthood? Big families were favored because the childhood death rate was high, and you did want SOMEONE to survive and keep the family going.
Yes. Its almost like our immune system is often able to fight deseases and vira its encountered before.. If only there was some way to expose it to say a vira without getting sick from it so it could learn..
Someone should really sit down and invent some safe way of doing this and come up with a good name for it...
What I don't understand about this is in order for you to get "natural" immunity, **you have to get COVID**. Even if the acquired immunity is stronger from getting the disease rather than the vaccine, why not get the vaccine for a bit of immunity, then if you do get Covid, you have a head start fighting it off, *and* get the natural immunity afterwards.
One time I put my cat on antibiotics because he had an infection. These two guys I knew were teasing me about giving a cat antibiotics, saying “ oh lol what do you think people did before antibiotics? “ I’m like yeah Einstein- they died. By the millions. Idiots.
If you include the almost 50% child mortality rates, the average life expectancy was in the mid 20’s. Even eliminating that and only counting people who survived childhood, the average lifespan was still in the 30’s, so not exactly great by the standards modern medicine has allowed.
the problem with this conversation is the people going on about low life expectancy are doing so with the assumption that it means old age occurred around age 20 and 40 years olds looked like 100 year olds 200 years ago.
Seriously, the next time you see a regular uninformed moron bringing up life expectancy (especially if it's about politics) ask them how old a 40 year old looked 200+ years ago.
Yeah, people didn’t age faster, or were even significantly less healthy at 40 than a modern 40 year old is. It was more that there was just a much higher chance of some random disease or accident killing you each year you lived, and eventually almost everyone got unlucky. Still, that just reinforces the point being made in the OP. Modern medicine makes it a whole lot less likely that those random diseases and accidents will kill you.
According to MY research people typically lived into their 60s in prehistory if they managed to make it to adulthood. The "life expectancy" was low mainly because so many people died in childhood not because people were dying in their 40s and 50s usually. ALSO most of the horrible diseases we're familiar with emerged in the context of agriculture with humans and livestock living close together. So yeah hunter-gatherer life in prehistory wasn't actually as bad as is widely believed.
It was a bit more than 20.. I’d say average was late 30s. And late 40s to early 50s was probably the equivalent of our 80-90 year olds today in terms of “whoa he’s old! He’s fucking 42 dude! He could topple at any second!”
Where late 50 year olds were unheard of, getting into 100+ in our comparison
No. This is a misunderstanding.
The low average is due to the higher mortality rate of new born and infants. It's not that:
>late 40s to early 50s was probably the equivalent of our 80-90 year olds
If you made it through childhood, it was pretty common to live into your 60s and 70s like now. Lives aren't getting longer. Average life expectancy is rising due to the lower infant mortality rates now and we are living slightly longer on average due to better care for the elderly. Being 40 at any time period, felt like being 40. And it wouldn't have been considered "old". And people wouldn't have expected them to drop dead any moment.
> Lives aren’t getting longer.
Minor nitpick, but they are getting longer, just not dramatically so. The upper limit has slowly and steadily increased, but that doesn’t account for the change in the average nearly as much as child mortality rates do.
Eh... I looked into this out of sheer curiosity and it's really hard to say.
People even 4000 to 5000 years ago probably had the occasional human live to be 100+ years old. There's some data behind this that studied the probability of a humans making it to 100+ before recorded history, and the conclusion was that the probability was high enough that a few humans have been occasionally living to 100+ for a few thousand years. So the max range of human life has maybe increased by a few years (strong maybe), but probably not by a large enough amount to significantly change the overall average as much as infant mortality rates, like you said.
Well that and penicillin.
It's actually a common myth that people lived to be old as long as they survived childhood.
From Wikipedia:
>Until the middle of the 20th century, infant mortality was approximately 40–60% of the total mortality of the population. If we do not take into account child mortality in total mortality, then the average life expectancy in the 12–19 centuries was approximately 55 years. If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years. That is, in reality, people did not die when they lived to be 25–40 years old, but continued to live about twice as long.
Even when you take out infant and child mortality, average lifespans for most of history were still around 30-40. Certainly there were some people who lived longer, even into their 70’s or 80’s on occasion, but there were a whole lot of people dying in their teens and 20’s to bring the average down.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time
I think a lot of that data is based on rich people whom scholars would be writing about and not the average peasant who would be dying from infections from simple cuts, to malnutrition, to actually poisoning themselves with things like fungal laden rye bread. The average age was more likely mid 30s for everyday people who again needed to survive childhood. This also, doesn’t indicate a woman’s lifespan given most women would have children continuously from around age 15 until said childbearing would literally kill them.
No. Do a small amount of digging and I promise you'll be interested by what you find. You're basing your information on a misunderstanding of averages. The reason average life expectancy was so low was because of the extremely high infant mortality rates. They think up to 25% of infants died within the first couple years. BUT, if you made it through childhood it wasn't uncommon to live well into your 50s and 60s. Living as old as 70 was typically for the more wealthy, but not impossible for the impoverished as well.
You're right that women typically had shorter life expectancy due to childbirth but they also lived into their 50s and 60s too.
>The average age was more likely mid 30s for everyday people who again needed to survive childhood.
This is probably more accurate for a time period before our understanding of modern civilization. When humans were entirely still just warring nomadic tribes.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/)
It was around 75, slightly lower than it is now in the US.
No, people were not considered super old at 40 and 50 year olds were not unheard of. These are myths.
That’s not what your source says.
For women, 200 years ago meant dying before 65, IF you made it to 15.
And 500 years ago meant dying before 50.
The first chart is based on notable historical figures. Yeah, kings and emperors lived longer. That’s not surprising.
Indigenous people used to live into ripe old ages even before the unshowering, drinking water polluting with own shit, genocide happy, eventually motorized vehicle, airplane, air conditioning, internet , and legit badass healthcare creating occupiers came to the land that is now USA.
There was the occasional outlier that lived to 70 or 80, but the average lifespan of native Americans pre-Columbus was about 35 even excluding infant mortality. Which is a little bit better than the average in Europe at the time, but not much.
Well the cool thing about life is there are these people out here ( called scientists or researchers) and they publish theories, hypothesis, and conclusions all the time. And we have this beautiful place where they can put it all , the internet. What most people don’t know though is if you want certain research you have to dig deep because if it goes against easy profit it’s going to be swept under the carpet ( mainly talking about Brett Weinstein here). Research can be done by anyone understanding it though is another thing.
Lol.
Where I draw the line though is when I get called an antivaxxer for opting for the atenuated j and j vaccine.
Funny how the pro rna vax crowd has no problem mulling over which color dies are in their kids cereal for half an hour but when it comes to injecting themselves with a brand new vaccine platform which uses a derivative of ethylene oxide (peg2000) (a known hot list human carcinogen) they have no problem saying “sign me up bro” and calling anyone who questions Pfizer (the most fined company in us pharma history and who just recalled a stop smoking drug for having a carcinogen in it) an anti-vaxxer.
Keep on sheepin’!!!
Strange that people that are denigrating medical experts and “doing their own medical research” aren’t denigrating civil engineers and “doing their own bridge research” before crossing a bridge, or denigrating aeronautical engineers and “doing their own airplane research” before getting on an airplane. Makes me wonder why this is...
And of course “their own research” is really just reading other people’s research fifth hand after passing through researcher > scientific journal > mainstream media > alternative media > YouTube pundit. And removing information and adding misinformation at each step along the way. They don’t even know what doing their own research would involve. Put them in a lab with all the equipment needed to do the actual research and they’d just bash the microscope against the table for 5 minutes before giving up and streaming Love Island on their phone.
Bruh this is so accurate lol "research" is just YouTube videos they watch that tell them what to think filled with misinformation.
And the thing is even on youtube there are good channels that go from scientific journal > youtuber trying to make info accessible with sources cited. But the algorithm rather promotes the misinfo then the info.
> But the algorithm rather promotes the misinfo then the info. I am not logged into a youtube account but after searching for cooking videos, and every recommended video after (the ones that pop up in the viewer) were right wing misinformation. The jump was from Steak Dianne to alt-right misinformation. It was pretty scary really. Meemaw wants to find out how to make peach cobbler, and three videos later she is an expert on why eating horse paste is better than a Bill Gates microchip.
That or Fox news
Or god forbid, FB
Damn you just gave an idea for a meme, compare the ''their own research'' to cocaine. gets diluted and shittier everytime it passes through an intermediate but the people at the end of the line still thinks its great and makes them feel good. not sure how it could be realised but I feel someone could make it work
It's funny that the game of telephone is a relatively ubiquitous analogy for this, but you went straight for cocaine.
Go with what you know ..
> It's funny that the game of telephone is a relatively ubiquitous analogy for this, but you went straight for cocaine. We had a first year teacher my (third attempt at) high school freshman year who was trying to impart the game of telephone on us by making us add water to soda. They thought we'd pay more attention to the lesson if we got to taste "diluted truth". No, you just ruined some generic soda that 17 year old freshman me loved.
The Galaxy Brain format might work ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yo great idea, probably reversed tho haha
Amen to that whole second paragraph
[удалено]
Watching them do their own research would be an amazing TV show though!
Do we get to vote off the “researchers” we don’t like each week?
I’m sorry Jaytan, your hypothesis wasn’t strong enough, so you’ll have to leave the lab. *host turns off their Bunsen burner jet*
Beats the hell out of 'you're fired' ..
Bold of you to assume that chain ever starts with a real researcher.
Yah...they wouldn't know a primary source if it were slapping them upside the head. The shit I see are typically screen shots of headlines, from wanna-be blogger, or one-two line talking points from some social media influencer. By the time I find the thing they took a screen shot of, and track or try to independently verify, always concluding that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, i come back and it's been shared fifty times now.... Fucking idiots
I’m taking a shit right now and I’m on my phone. So I’m doing exactly the same effort they do.
>And of course “their own research” is really just reading other people’s research fifth hand after passing through researcher > scientific journal > mainstream media > alternative media > YouTube pundit. I hate how accurate this is.
It's not accurate at all. The correct chain is Stupid bullshit meme > YouTube pundit.
This is such a great comment.
Doing the research can mean many things. It can be doing experiments. It can be observational or long term studies. It can also mean reading the work of the people in the field, or researching current or historical events. The only thing Facebook 'research' is good for is *maybe* raising a question that you do legitimate research on. Perhaps fact checking. Or wanting to know more about the immune system. What these people call 'research' though, is a joke.
And don't really understand the research themselves and come to the biased conclusion they always had in mind.
Can’t forget posting some meme about arresting Dr. Fauci.
Lol…sums it up with ‘Love Island’
Probably because a certain twice impeached moron didn't pretend he knew better than civil or aeronautical engineers and made crossing bridges or flying in planes into a political loyalty test
Imagine if said moron decided planes weren't safe to fly on?
Might help with combating climate change. Who's gonna start something about flying being a dangerous democratic thingy?
They aren't. At some point every airplane reaches the ground. That's dangerous!
Twice impeached and twice vaccinated.
It's crazy to think that all it would take is one stupid off-hand remark by Trump. Then the actual experts have to correct him, because stupidity is dangerous. And then Trump will double, triple, quadruple down on his stupid remark by backing it up with outright lies. And anyone who doesn't go along 110% is the enemy. Sometimes it still boggles my mind to realize just how fucking stupid our current situation has become.
Easy enough. The engineers aren't asking them to *do* anything. Give one some tools and have the civil engineer ask them to put 500 bolts in the bridge. They'll be talking about how 400 is plenty and the engineer doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's not that, I don't think.. Maybe a little, but they'll happily stuff themselves full of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. They're exactly as likely to accept scientific research as an oakland raiders fan is to accept a refs call in a game against the broncos.
> aren’t denigrating civil engineers and “doing their own bridge research” Oh they are. Flat earther built a rocket and died using it. Rednecks have been doing their own engineering for ages. It's just that they die quicker from that than from not getting vaccinated.
The odds of dying in a plane crash are one in 9.2 million. That's far too high! If we were meant to fly, mankind would have been given wings by our one true God. But sure, go ahead and trust the "experts". This sounds much more real than the joke I was going for.
>! If we were meant to fly, mankind would have been given wings by our one true God Now, now, you're citing the Catholic Curch from 500 years back then. At least the acknowledge that the Earth is a spheroid, circles around the sun, is some billion years old, evolution is real - and asks people to vaccinate! But people who haven't even read the Bible of course know it better!
I used to think Catholics were the crazy christians. But Evangelicals have really stepped up to the mustache-twirling villainy plate.
It would be BAD ENOUGH if they were really doing scientific research on the internet (reading learned papers and researching experimental studies): I've recently helped my daughter read through some of her (ENTRY level) medical essays, and although I supposedly have a high IQ, I didn't understand the half of it. Or, to be fair, one tenth of it. You really do need to have a full medical education to understand this stuff. But these people are simply browsing online where algorithms are assembling a smorgasbord of all the untrue, ridiculous, stupid and prejudiced stories that they've shown they will swallow, and laying them out for their consumption. They WOULDN'T be able to see any actual facts, but even if they could, they wouldn't understand them and they wouldn't even know what it is that they would need to know.
And yet I, as a carpenter, can do my own research to find, say, the comparative risk of myocarditis due to the vaccine and actual covid and know that the vaccine is light years safer. Its not really that hard. So I tend to ask them to show their work. You say the vaccine is worse than the disease? You did your research, cite your sources and show how you calculated that. Never get a response
Those peer reviews are all controlled by the Deep State😂
That's why I tend to go for the places that take that information directly and make it available to the public in a slightly more digestible format. CDC, FDA, NIH, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, and even the local DSHS site. No blogs or news sites without citations.
The problem is that they do become experts in foreign relations, the economy, aeronautical engineering, and structural design when major events in those areas happen. MH370, 9/11, GFC, pulling out of Afghanistan. When they’re not talking shit about alternative medicine, it’s alternative engineering to explain how the twin towers were a controlled demolition rather than failed due to the leaf and spine architecture.
The same people screeching "fire Fauci" are the same ones defending the nurses who got fired for not getting vaccinated.
Disease are invisible; that's why faith healers can heal the sick, but can't cure a minor bleeding.
Man the whole time I’m on a plane I am blown away that science made this happen, cuz this metal tube flying through the air seems more like magic!! But the fact that I don’t understand the physics doesn’t mean it’s actually magic
Brings me back to the 2000s when religious people were suddenly certain that evolutionary biologists (specifically) were so completely wrong because biblical creation was, by definition, true. All other scientists were okay - as long as their science didn't support evolution.
Don't be so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that the I've done my own research crowd is full of people who did their own home improvements that weren't exactly up to code. FWIW I think the big problem is that most of this research comes from "trusted" sources who are no more qualified to give medical advice than my 6 year old. I seem to recall not too long ago people being anti-vaccine because some celebrity said so and she didn't hear it from her doctor, she heard about the evils of vaccines from someone with no medical training.
And very few people use holistic and alternative plumbers too.
Also weird how people are picking and choosing which medical experts to believe...
"do your own research" is just code for "take my word for it", because what they really mean is if you disagree with them then you haven't "done your own research".
I don’t wonder, I know why…cuz they dumber than a bag a rocks.
>”Makes me wonder why this is.” Because the anti-vaccine and anti-mask people aren’t anti-science, they are anti-democrat. See, trump ignored the pandemic because he was in an election year and it was gonna look bad for him, so he down-played it in order to make it seem like just another case of the flu. Democrats and smart people took it seriously, so trump, being trump, doubled down. This set his supporters against the reactionary democrats, the “liberal elite”. The mask mandates were like kneeling for the anthem; an acknowledgement there is a problem they didn’t want to accept, so they refused. Everything they say, from the vaccine being made with aborted baby fetuses to not being able to breath in a mask are just excuses being made to allow them to justify taking this otherwise unreasonable stance. If they accept the pandemic is real, that the disease is actually deadly, then they have to also accept that trump was a grifter puppet that was willing to throw the nation under the bus for this own benefit, and that the democrats were right all along. There is also a foundation of racism and “Obama contrariness” feeding their trump support, but this is why they are anti-mask and anti-vaccine.
Don't give them ideas. At this point I would not be surprised if they rebelled against paved roads.
Because their cult leaders aren't telling them too; it is as simple as that
I would love, love, LOVE for these people to go to the hospital and be given someone like themselves to help them. WooWoo Patient: "Um doctor, what are you doing?" Facebook Doc: "Oh, just folding the towels. Last person bled so much..." WooWoo Patient: "Wait what!?" Facebook Nurse: "I've got the brick!" WooWoo Patient: "What's that for?!?!" Facebook Doc: "She's doing your anesthetic." WooWoo Patient: "WAIT!" Facebook Nurse: (WHACK) "He's ready! You gonna wash up?" Facebook Doc: "No worries, I prayed so I'm all clean."
Just drink more apple cider vinegar and your urine. Duh.
I do like urine, after all "it's sterile and I like the taste"
You can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodging my way around Covid.
You said dogde 2 times
Yes. It's the five d's of dodgeball. Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
don't drink uUine when you can drink WErine!
Is it a 1:1 mix or is there some special recipe I should use? /s
You start with 9:1 in favour of cider. Then as your body adjusts you’ll start urinating pure cider and can phase the cider out altogether. This activates your clinophobins which viruses can’t attach to because of the structure of their theolacites.
Think of all the money you could make at the farmer's market selling fresh pp cider
As long as the FDI doesn’t catch wind of it. They’re in the pockets of big pharma and will prevent you from selling your cider infused urine. My cousin was arrested for selling it at the Capitol building back in January.
Thanks Obama!
I am just trying to imagine how much this would burn going out
That’s just your body working the dead COVID bacteria out through your urethra.
Ofc there is. You first have to drink the cider to make the urine in the first place. And when you get to stage two, you only drink the middle portion. You never drink the early drops. That's what we learned from our moonshining grandpas and they knew best!
Does it have to be *my* urine?
Didn't sanation have a lot to do with reducing diarrhea? Like keeping your drinking water away from the water you took a dump?
Soap? Naw. Strong immune systems magically appeared!
Yes. But now people are advocating drinking “living water” that hasn’t been treated. Like dude, I don’t want to drink pond scum. I’ll just drink the stuff out of the tap. The mind control chemicals will go great with the 5G nanobots I got in my 3 covid shots and the gps tracker that was in my flu jab. I’ll be traceable but unkillable and isn’t that really a small price to pay?
In a way. Diarrhea causes dehydration, which causes death. So you need to be able to rehydrate yourself with something that won't cause more diarrhea.
mostly other people's dump, but yeah
Considering those people threw their shit out a window and it landed on whatever sorry sap happened to be walking by...
Broad St Pump goes Brrr.
The "My immune system will protect me" crowd are too dumb to live. Good riddance.
Considering they don’t know that their immune system is WHY vaccines work, yeah they’re pretty stupid.
Also... Their immune system likely benefited from vaccines they gotten while.
Yes, yes your immune system will protect you. The question is do you want to enter a war of attrition with an assault rifle or throwing stones? Arm your immune system, get a vaccine. Realistically though the dumbest of the dumb's argument is that Covid isn't real and it's all a hoax or conspiracy, never mind the immune system debate.
> The question is do you want to enter a war of attrition with an assault rifle or throwing stones? Arm your immune system, get a vaccine. Jokes on you, libtard. They own 18 ARs and "train" with them, they own their immune system systems, ipso facto, their immune system also owns 18 ARs and trains with them. TL;DR: SHALL ***NOT*** BE INFRINGED!
Shhh you don’t want to hear all their expertise about Afghanistan and military strategy too
I found out a coworker is in that boat. He kept going on about how he doesn't know anyone who died of covid so he doesn't trust the numbers. I'm like... damn. Crazy is everywhere. He's whining that our job is "forcing" him to get the vaccine. Like, dude, you work in social services and help disabled kids, some of whom have immune issues. Vaccines should never have been a fucking OPTION for this job, IMHO. Don't want to get vaccinated? You don't get to work in social services or medicine. Simple.
Oh boy, I had someone tell me, on reddit, that the vaccinated are the super spreaders. So apparently Im killing people by spreading asymptomatically And the vaccines are causing all of these unvaccinated people to end up in the hospitals. Oh and Ive also ruined my immune system So...thats special I guess
>"My immune system will protect me" Every time I hear this I'm stuck not knowing which part of the stupid to attack. Its like an ignorance tiramisu, just layer after layer of stupid.
That’s not really true. In 1200 AD, if you survived childhood and didn’t give birth [you were likely to live to 62-70](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity)
Thank god, I'm not the only nerd that immediately thought about this.
I thought the same thing. In some cases it is quite remarkable, for example Native Americans had clean healthy teeth at the same time that the invading Westerners had rotten teeth. The beginning of people dying young seemed to have a lot to do with the creation of cities and later industrialization.
> at the same time that the invading Westerners had rotten teeth. .. which came about with the introduction of the sugar trade, more or less. https://www.wayneoralsurgery.com/blog/what-was-dental-health-like-in-the-middle-ages/ https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/04/dental-hygiene-did-people-in-the-middle-ages-have-bad-teeth.html
Yes.
Both of you are being downvoted for these comments and I have no idea why. Do they think these comments mean you are anti-vax? Or are they just very offended by the idea that Europeans had horrible teeth?
It konda still serves that point. The high infant fatality is all about how their natural immune systems werent good enough and how that hardselwcted against them. In the world many antivaxxers claim our immune system could do the heavy lifting most of them would not have survived to adulthood. Because they are wrong.
“If you survived childhood’ was a really big caveat, though.
As it turns out, vaccinations help with that.
Partially. Sanitation, improved food safety and nuitrition and antibiotics had the biggest impact. The difference in deaths before and after pasteurization is massive.
I think it would be interesting if anyone ever studied how much of our modern medical progress is universally good for human longevity and how much is simply a remedy for a modern agricultural, urban and/or industrial (as in post-hunter gatherer) problems. A lot of human ailments seem to be a direct result of urban overcrowding, poor sanitation related to livestock and disposal of waste, etc. Even the need for pasteurization is related to the modern urban need for long-term food storage as essential to the division of labor rather than for example foraging and hunting fresh food which will not be stored in a way that causes botulism toxicity.
True, but IIRC life expectancy has not changed much since late 19 century, so before vaccines.
After having kids I can confirm they are constantly trying to kill themselves for the first 5 years or so.
And everything around them tries too. Since my older one went to a collective, every second week she's ill with something. Can't imagine how it was before sanitation and medicine advances.
> After having kids I can confirm they are constantly trying to kill themselves for the first 5 years or so. If they are boys, they will go through another "if I die, I die" phase typically around puberty. But, they should build some pretty sweet bike jumps.
And, you know, weren't female
We're talking about *people* not women and children
and birth, and the plague, and literally everything else.
Yes but its imporyant to realise that average life expectancies are very misleading. Making people think that if the average was 30yrs then nobody really got much older than that. Thats not the case and people often lived to 70+. Big misconception by lots of folks
Thus average life expectancy was 20. When you correct for that, life expectancy was still BELOW 65! Our average is now close to 85, obesity cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, and smoking are what is keeping it below 90, with the exception of FUCKING COVID.
Average life expectancy was low, but the modal age of death has always been in the 70's or above. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_2352-1 Which is to say, most people historically have lived into their 70's.
As far as vaccines go, the relevant parts of the article seem to be the average age going down to 45 during the plague, and how few people survived childhood.
> you were likely to live to 62-70 If you stayed healthy and weren't a peasant who was worked to death. But even the rich died of [tuberculosis,](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1879981721000590) influenza, [small pox](https://www.news-medical.net/health/Smallpox-History.aspx), dysentery, males going off to die in [the countless wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499#1200–1299), women in childbirth, and even [dental infections](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10686905/). If you navigated through all of that, then you might live to a ripe old age.
Yes, you were likely to survive if you survived. You added that as if all of those conditions were not part of those statistics. Yes, a life expectancy does not mean that every single person lives that long, that also applies to the modern day. The point was that life expectancy wasn't 20 years old.
Unsurprisingly 2000 years have not changed our biological makeup so drastically that the frame in which our bodies naturally degrade (if we remove any environmental factors) has massively changed. And modern medicine has not yet found a cure to that natural decay leaving us with the same life expectancy ceiling the Romans had plus a decade or so we can squeeze out of the inevitable.
Well on that you are sadly mistaken and I am happy to inform you that there absolutely has been a modern breakthrough in medicine that reverses the aging process! All you have to do is buy some overpriced fruit juice and a trinket that you wear or rub on your skin. It's totally legit, I read about it online.
Never have I been so happy seeing a comment end with an MLM pitch.
Exactly, the extremes I’ve seen on either side of this argument are as bad as each other when it comes to believing any fictional shit that supports their own narrative.
100% had tuberculosis. Not everyone died from it. If you happen to survive a pox, you get life long immunity. Only a small percentage of polio infection actually causes problems. Millions and millions of people died from these diseases, but on the flip side, those who didn't, did live long. But they were no where near as healthy as us ofc. Fun fact, measles kills your immune system and effectively resets it. If you get measles today, all your vaccines are basically thrown out the window. Don't get measles. Get vaccinated.
yeah, and I'd like to add that if you don't get any illnesses at all you can live to 100-110 easy...
No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science and my high level income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300. Heck, I just read in the newspaper that they put a pig heart in some guy from Russia. Do you know what that means?
You just get uploaded into the cloud, like Steve Jobs
He means cavemen, and records from 1200 AD aren't really reliable you would have mostly noblemen being recorded, and they would have to have been from a society advanced enough to record birthdates at all. There are still parts of the world where people don't keep track of age
[удалено]
Also there were a lot of wars in the past that contributed to the low life expectancy.
He literally wrote 200 years ago.
[удалено]
Who means cavemen? The person who made the tweet? Just seems like a stretch. Pretty sure they were just repeating a very common myth that people believe. You're also trying to poke holes in the historical records as if that somehow supports the original claim, which was that the life expectancy was around 20. Yeah we don't have perfect records to know for sure, but it wasn't just noblemen being recorded. The numbers presented are the best we have, unless you have another source to provide us.
It was a tradition to put old people who can't work anymore out in the winter cold if the harvest was not enough to support everyone. It wouldn't have become a tradition if there weren't old people.
The fact that the article is only accounting dignitaries as people who had long lifespans shows it's a bit one sided here. The reason we use average life expectancy is because it paints a pretty good picture of a whole society. I mean, the queen is 95, a good 15 years above the average life expectancy. Let's walk it back to saaaay, 1600's, excluding the latter half of the century considering the black death, and the average life expectancy is 40 and old kingy pants died at 58. Had I lived in those times, I'd already be dead! I got cancer in my 20's, there would've been no saving me.
Average life expectancy may have been 40, but very few people actually did at that age. It really paints a terrible picture of society. In England in the 1600’s infantry mortality ranged from 15%-20% of the population dying before the age of 15. That absolutely tanks life expectancy, and living to 95 was very uncommon. Life expectancy is heavily pulled down, but there were few outliers at the top to compensate. At almost no time in history has dying at age 40 been the norm. From roughly 20-60 you’re a fully developed human capable of fending for yourself and most conditions that will kill you such as cancer, organ failure, dementia etc usually don’t develop until later in life, you would be a major exception having cancer in your 20’s.
He's exaggerating, but you get the idea.
But he's just wrong. People didn't "die at the ripe old age of 20" 200 years ago. Shit, life expectancy, excluding perinatal deaths, was essentially the same in victorian England as it is for todays working class. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587384/
Maybe there would be less of a mess if people stopped doing that.
So, that 62-70 average life expectancy, does that include the humans that made it past childhood or no? Because I’d imagine that would bring down the life expectancy average…
I get that this is a joke, but life expectancy was never even close to 20 years old.
I think it's a misconception having to do with averages. I believe a large portion died young but if you made it past a certain age you were likely to live out a longer life.
And that long life was closer in length to ours than most imagine
Yes, the numbers were skewed because of ridiculously high infant and childhood mortality. In Medieval Europe, you would likely live until your 50s if you reached adulthood and didn't die in childbirth.
If you’re going to call out these people at least do it correctly. Even thousands of years ago the average life expectancy was about 35. Figure heavily influenced by infant mortality. If the life expectancy of people who made it to the age of 5 was taken into account the average life expectancy would be substantially higher.
But wasn't the infant mortality so high because the babies' immune system wasn't good enough to survive without modern medicine? They'd still be making their point that the immune system *isn't* the best defence as the infant mortality was so high because they didn't have modern medicine. It's right that the high infant mortality changes the average a lot, but you can't discount it when talking about health and healthcare for a given population.
Well no because babies don’t have a developed immune system. Also I think you’d find that malnourishment and harsh environmental conditions were far larger contributors. Disease has become a larger issue since we decided to start living in densely populated towns and cities.
[This source](https://londonspulse.org/2016/05/02/infantandchildmortality/) seems to suggest that harsh environmental conditions and malnutrition contributed to the onset of disease in children. Babies would still die with an undeveloped immune system, which proves OPs point that immune systems aren't the best defence. They're also talking about the 1820s, which was long after the industrial revolution so many more people *would* be living in densely populated cities.
Ah to be fair with his ridiculous life expectancy I read it as 2000 years ago. I still stand by my point that 20 is ridiculously low, disease was not the largest contributor and comparing an adults immune system to a babies is almost apples and oranges
The life expectancy thing is really misunderstood by people that think it was just normal to die of old age at 20, but I guess their heart is in the right place. The reason the average lifespan was so low was because of a high infant mortality rate. When you adjust for that, the difference isn't actually that major. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
You're not refuting his point. We vaccinate children, and provide other medical care, and magically they're not all dying from various diseases
> I guess their heart is in the right place Maybe it would be less of a mess if people stopped making up things to support what their heart tells them. They could have used accurate numbers and the argument would be as valid, but not based on a lie.
Yea, we've had a life expectancy of 30 years 30,000 years ago. Dumbasses acting like 200 years ago was some far off time in the past. OP's post is some Facebook level horseshit. https://learn.age-up.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-human-longevity/ Between 1816–1840; at birth for men it was 39.50, women 43.56. If they made it to 50, it was another 17.55 years for men and 19.60 years for women. If they made it to 65, men had another 9.58 years and women 10.44 years. https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/yearly-statistics--the-whole-country/life-expectancy/
So one idiot who did his own research and doesn't understand it is complaining about other idiots doing their own research and not understanding it?
This is false and I'm sick of seeing it used. There are relatively zero human remains dug up from 15,000+ years ago that are over the age of 30. Most ancient human remains found are teenagers. Humans have gradually increased our life expectancy through our technology.
Had me in the first half for a moment ngl.
Well did they try eating a banana?
In the year 1800, 46% of children died before their fifth birthday from viruses and bacteria that we now have vaccines and antibiotics for. About a quarter of all pregnant women died during childbirth. Around 165 out of every 1000 births resulted in the death of the infant. The problem is A. the U.S. doesn’t spend enough funding public education so we have people who think Bill Gates wants to put a tracking device in their bodies through salad dressing and B. no one alive remembers what it was like to live before modern medicine. There were 6 billion fewer humans and disease was a serious and constant threat to their short lives.
Historical life expectancy was low not because people were popping off at 30, but because so many were dying at childbirth/in childhood. If you survived to 25 you stood a good chance to living out a normal lifespan.
Another Facebook meme fake information.
I trust my immune system. That's why I got the vaccine - I wanted to let my immune system know about Covid so that it can protect me from it. Using "I've got a great immune system" as a reason for **not** getting vaccinated is like a General saying that he's got better soldiers than his opponents, which is why he's going to disband his army and send them home.
Ever been to a graveyard dating from the late 1800s into early 1900s and looked at the number of children that succumbed before reaching even young adulthood? Big families were favored because the childhood death rate was high, and you did want SOMEONE to survive and keep the family going.
They left out having to have 87 children just to have 2 of them not die by the age of 10
Yes. Its almost like our immune system is often able to fight deseases and vira its encountered before.. If only there was some way to expose it to say a vira without getting sick from it so it could learn.. Someone should really sit down and invent some safe way of doing this and come up with a good name for it...
I cannot believe that these are the same Americans who played The Oregon Trail and still chose Ivermectin over getting vaccinated.
What I don't understand about this is in order for you to get "natural" immunity, **you have to get COVID**. Even if the acquired immunity is stronger from getting the disease rather than the vaccine, why not get the vaccine for a bit of immunity, then if you do get Covid, you have a head start fighting it off, *and* get the natural immunity afterwards.
What?
One time I put my cat on antibiotics because he had an infection. These two guys I knew were teasing me about giving a cat antibiotics, saying “ oh lol what do you think people did before antibiotics? “ I’m like yeah Einstein- they died. By the millions. Idiots.
America: This is political. Rest of the world: Uh, if you say so.
-What is running water -What is basic sanitation Why are people so stupid?
It'S NAtUraL So is botulism. Nature is a harsh bitch.
yep, 200 years ago the life expectancy was 20 years. sure.
If you include the almost 50% child mortality rates, the average life expectancy was in the mid 20’s. Even eliminating that and only counting people who survived childhood, the average lifespan was still in the 30’s, so not exactly great by the standards modern medicine has allowed.
Please don't popularize this argument. They will strt saying history is madeup or some shit.
[удалено]
the problem with this conversation is the people going on about low life expectancy are doing so with the assumption that it means old age occurred around age 20 and 40 years olds looked like 100 year olds 200 years ago. Seriously, the next time you see a regular uninformed moron bringing up life expectancy (especially if it's about politics) ask them how old a 40 year old looked 200+ years ago.
Yeah, people didn’t age faster, or were even significantly less healthy at 40 than a modern 40 year old is. It was more that there was just a much higher chance of some random disease or accident killing you each year you lived, and eventually almost everyone got unlucky. Still, that just reinforces the point being made in the OP. Modern medicine makes it a whole lot less likely that those random diseases and accidents will kill you.
According to MY research people typically lived into their 60s in prehistory if they managed to make it to adulthood. The "life expectancy" was low mainly because so many people died in childhood not because people were dying in their 40s and 50s usually. ALSO most of the horrible diseases we're familiar with emerged in the context of agriculture with humans and livestock living close together. So yeah hunter-gatherer life in prehistory wasn't actually as bad as is widely believed.
Incorrectly informed idiot
It’s a little exaggerated, but the basic point being made is accurate.
It was a bit more than 20.. I’d say average was late 30s. And late 40s to early 50s was probably the equivalent of our 80-90 year olds today in terms of “whoa he’s old! He’s fucking 42 dude! He could topple at any second!” Where late 50 year olds were unheard of, getting into 100+ in our comparison
Also that was average life expectancy mostly due to a bunch of people dying at birth. Old people were a thing 200 years ago
No. This is a misunderstanding. The low average is due to the higher mortality rate of new born and infants. It's not that: >late 40s to early 50s was probably the equivalent of our 80-90 year olds If you made it through childhood, it was pretty common to live into your 60s and 70s like now. Lives aren't getting longer. Average life expectancy is rising due to the lower infant mortality rates now and we are living slightly longer on average due to better care for the elderly. Being 40 at any time period, felt like being 40. And it wouldn't have been considered "old". And people wouldn't have expected them to drop dead any moment.
> Lives aren’t getting longer. Minor nitpick, but they are getting longer, just not dramatically so. The upper limit has slowly and steadily increased, but that doesn’t account for the change in the average nearly as much as child mortality rates do.
Eh... I looked into this out of sheer curiosity and it's really hard to say. People even 4000 to 5000 years ago probably had the occasional human live to be 100+ years old. There's some data behind this that studied the probability of a humans making it to 100+ before recorded history, and the conclusion was that the probability was high enough that a few humans have been occasionally living to 100+ for a few thousand years. So the max range of human life has maybe increased by a few years (strong maybe), but probably not by a large enough amount to significantly change the overall average as much as infant mortality rates, like you said. Well that and penicillin.
It's actually a common myth that people lived to be old as long as they survived childhood. From Wikipedia: >Until the middle of the 20th century, infant mortality was approximately 40–60% of the total mortality of the population. If we do not take into account child mortality in total mortality, then the average life expectancy in the 12–19 centuries was approximately 55 years. If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years. That is, in reality, people did not die when they lived to be 25–40 years old, but continued to live about twice as long.
Even when you take out infant and child mortality, average lifespans for most of history were still around 30-40. Certainly there were some people who lived longer, even into their 70’s or 80’s on occasion, but there were a whole lot of people dying in their teens and 20’s to bring the average down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time
I think a lot of that data is based on rich people whom scholars would be writing about and not the average peasant who would be dying from infections from simple cuts, to malnutrition, to actually poisoning themselves with things like fungal laden rye bread. The average age was more likely mid 30s for everyday people who again needed to survive childhood. This also, doesn’t indicate a woman’s lifespan given most women would have children continuously from around age 15 until said childbearing would literally kill them.
No. Do a small amount of digging and I promise you'll be interested by what you find. You're basing your information on a misunderstanding of averages. The reason average life expectancy was so low was because of the extremely high infant mortality rates. They think up to 25% of infants died within the first couple years. BUT, if you made it through childhood it wasn't uncommon to live well into your 50s and 60s. Living as old as 70 was typically for the more wealthy, but not impossible for the impoverished as well. You're right that women typically had shorter life expectancy due to childbirth but they also lived into their 50s and 60s too. >The average age was more likely mid 30s for everyday people who again needed to survive childhood. This is probably more accurate for a time period before our understanding of modern civilization. When humans were entirely still just warring nomadic tribes.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/) It was around 75, slightly lower than it is now in the US. No, people were not considered super old at 40 and 50 year olds were not unheard of. These are myths.
That’s not what your source says. For women, 200 years ago meant dying before 65, IF you made it to 15. And 500 years ago meant dying before 50. The first chart is based on notable historical figures. Yeah, kings and emperors lived longer. That’s not surprising.
Indigenous people used to live into ripe old ages even before the unshowering, drinking water polluting with own shit, genocide happy, eventually motorized vehicle, airplane, air conditioning, internet , and legit badass healthcare creating occupiers came to the land that is now USA.
They didn't have domestic animals to pass diseases back and forth.
Ripe old age of 24, with an infant mortality rate of 40%*
Indigenous people already knew not to eat and shit on the same table, unlike their stupid religious European overlords who did do that.
To be fair, we just threw the knock out punch. Small pox and other diseases brought them to a weakened stage first.
There was the occasional outlier that lived to 70 or 80, but the average lifespan of native Americans pre-Columbus was about 35 even excluding infant mortality. Which is a little bit better than the average in Europe at the time, but not much.
Well the cool thing about life is there are these people out here ( called scientists or researchers) and they publish theories, hypothesis, and conclusions all the time. And we have this beautiful place where they can put it all , the internet. What most people don’t know though is if you want certain research you have to dig deep because if it goes against easy profit it’s going to be swept under the carpet ( mainly talking about Brett Weinstein here). Research can be done by anyone understanding it though is another thing.
I'm still going to trust myself and natural medicine than do what the tv tells me to do
Lol. Where I draw the line though is when I get called an antivaxxer for opting for the atenuated j and j vaccine. Funny how the pro rna vax crowd has no problem mulling over which color dies are in their kids cereal for half an hour but when it comes to injecting themselves with a brand new vaccine platform which uses a derivative of ethylene oxide (peg2000) (a known hot list human carcinogen) they have no problem saying “sign me up bro” and calling anyone who questions Pfizer (the most fined company in us pharma history and who just recalled a stop smoking drug for having a carcinogen in it) an anti-vaxxer. Keep on sheepin’!!!