You seem to be changing what you're saying. You previously said:
> more people would die off between 50-65 than after 65
And that is clearly untrue.
Yes, someone who's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50. That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2) people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age, the more likely you are to reach that age.
I'm getting confused as to what sort of point you're trying to make. You originally seemed to be saying that there's a spike in mortality around ages 50-60. Now you seem to be saying... well, I can't figure it out.
Yes, someone who's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50. That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2) people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age, the more likely you are to reach that age.
What you're doing here is grossly oversimplifying the statistical significance of that fact. You seem to think that all people, regardless of race, genetic profile, income, etc. have equal chance of dying the older they get. This is simply untrue.
For example, people between the ages of 50-65 have a higher likelihood of dying from cancer before the age of 85 than somebody who is age 66. This isn't simply because the 66 year old has already made it to 66 so is 1/3 of the way ahead of a 55 year old, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
The fact is that certain diseases, statistically, have a higher incidence in that 50-65 age band and once you are out of it, your odds of succumbing to those diseases are lower. Sure, the 66 year old could get a clean bill of health and then walk in front of a bus, but the odds are they aren't going to die of cancer. That isn't insignificant. Obviously the longer you live the greater the odds something will happen that will end your life, but looking at life expectancy in a black box and ignoring the causes of death is misinformed.
The rate of death from cancer goes up with age. There's no age where it decreases.
Perhaps there are certain diseases that have a higher incidence in the 50-65 group than in the 65+ group. Cancer, at least taken as a whole, is not it though.
If you're going to continue this, please give me some numbers before calling me "misinformed" because I'm actually checking your claims.
> more people would die off between 50-65 than after 65
And that is clearly untrue.
Yes, someone who's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50. That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2) people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age, the more likely you are to reach that age.
I'm getting confused as to what sort of point you're trying to make. You originally seemed to be saying that there's a spike in mortality around ages 50-60. Now you seem to be saying... well, I can't figure it out.