In another example of vital statistics being grossly distorted by a combination of poor record keeping and possibly people with a selfish agenda, it is being reported in the Guardian and elsewhere that possibly hundreds of thousands of people over age 100 in Japan are actually dead, but unreported. Investigations are now underway to determine how much of this problem is due to record keeping problems and how much to family members failing to report the deaths of their elderly relatives in order to continue to collect their pension benefits by fraudulent means.
There are more than 77,000 Japanese citizens reported to be over age 120, and even 884 persons AGED OVER 150 YEARS OF AGE, who are still alive according to government rolls.
While we in the US wouldn’t bat an eye if we heard this story coming out of the Chicago area of Cook County, Illinois, given the number of dead people still actively voting in elections there, there are at least 230,000 people in Japan over age 100 who simply cannot be located by any means. This large centenarian population is largely responsible for the very high average life expectancy in Japan (currently listed by the World Bank as 82.6 years, more than four years greater than the US average of 78.4 years (this is including dead voters in Chicago)), as well as any senior citizens under 100 who are actually dead but have not been reported as such on government records.
NOTE: Even if persons over 100 aren’t counted in life expectancy statistics, as is claimed later in the article, the problem doesn’t just begin at age 100, it is clear that whatever problems are at the root of these errors, they extend to a large number of people below age 100 who are also dead but are listed as alive on government records.
This distortion in Japan’s real average life expectancy is a great example of how a large body of statistics can be spoiled by poor record keeping or outright fraud.
Where this becomes problematic for us in the US is that Japan’s high life expectancy has been repeatedly used by the left as “facts” to support their demands for universal health care as well as various changes in the dietary, smoking, and exercise habits of Americans, frequently associated with proposals for large amounts of government regulation and taxation of the lives of private citizens and regulation and banning of various legal products (soda pop, breakfast cereals, beef, etc). We should look on the exposure of this statistical error as an object lesson we can apply to other public policy issues that so-called scientists attempt to promote ‘solutions’ to problems that they claim exist, based on faulty facts.
If only you had finished reading the article before venting. The last paragraph reads:
The government said the findings would have a minimal impact on longevity figures, which are based on census data collated during home visits. In addition, men over 98 and women over 103 are not factored into life expectancy calculations.
REPLY: Yes, we’ve heard that claim before…. – Mike
It reminds me of the pre-amble in the “Guiness Book of (World) Records” to the effect of:
Actually the real quote is
“The government said the findings would have a minimal impact on longevity figures, which are based on census data collated during home visits. In addition, men over 98 and women over 103 are not factored into life expectancy calculations.”
I guess this last paragraph from the guardian’s article nullify the point you’re making in your own last paragraph.
REPLY: No, it doesn’t. It’s just typical government CYA. The fact is that the problem doesn’t start at age 100. Whatever problems are behind these errors, they extend to a large number of people less than 100 years of age who are dead but are listed as living as well. – Mike
If true, the story is amusing (to me in the UK, not paying for it); but until someone shows the math I won’t believe the fraud is on scale that would make a discernable difference to Japanese longevity.
Mike: This looks like an echo chamber effect here. You and everyone else is using this 230k missing centenarians figure without linking to the demographics of Japan. That’s a lot of people to allow to die without obtaining a death certificate. Also, I don’t like your linking this to policies of the “left”, since I represent the left; the left that is sure the planet isn’t warming due to industry.
It’s very easy to “outlive” the rest of the world with only a few percentage more centenarians. This article points to a cohort of 41k centenarians: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10672507
So, what are the actual numbers before you start tee-ing off on leftists and universal health care?
BTW Is Paul Ralph Ehrlich still around?, how is it going his famous forecast “India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980” ?
Try again, I’ll bold the important bit.
“The government said the findings would have a minimal impact on longevity figures, which are based on census data collated during home visits. In addition, men over 98 and women over 103 are not factored into life expectancy calculations.”
Continuing to collect someone’s pension after death is one thing – fooling a census taker who’s actually in your house at the time is quite another.
I don’t see a problem. We have people in Chicago who have been dead for a hundred years still voting….
Granny Gate.
Japan’s 2000 census report is available online.
They make no exclusion for people over 98/103.
Everyone over 65 is grouped in the over 65 catagory.
“In addition, men over 98 and women over 103 are not factored into life expectancy calculations.”
That’s total hogwash.
Why do it at all then?
It is unfortunate that life expectancy is defined as the mean age at death. It’s hard to imagine how median age could be significantly affected by the non-reporting of deaths of the most elderly Japanese. The mean age is another matter entirely. The non-reporting of infant mortality, or the misreporting of infant mortality as stillbirth is a larger statistical problem for many countries that inflates both the mean and median life expectancy at birth figures. Life expectancy figures in general are prone to all sorts of statistical mischief. Age-specific median life expectancy, such as median life expectancy at 5 years of age, is a more robust figure.
DocattheAutopsy says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:27 am
I don’t see a problem. We have people in Chicago who have been dead for a hundred years still voting….
====================
A large number of ‘metabolically challenged’ residents of the great State of Louisiana are just as dedicated to executing their responsibilities with regard to voting as are the ‘metabolically challenged’ residents of the State of Illinois!
Dead People in Chicago Vote. But they do not add to the longevity of the US! They do add to the deadgevity, but then like Francisco Franco, there has been no change in their status. They are still dead!
On the serious side, I wonder how many other countries are in a similar bind. In other words, is America really fatal to your health? Or just anal retentive when it comes to record keeping?
The Japanese from what I have heard are fairly heavy smokers and drinkers-
sort of like the so called ” French Paradox”. Also there is a unique homogeneity
in the Japanese population. So wha tis good for them isn’t so for the American
population. -I’m convinced Tofu Kills 🙂 ….
The same people who keep temperature records keep death records???
Mike,
As you state, it is a question of the accuracy of the data. If the data used for life expectancy is genuinely obtained only by way of census conducted at a home visit and if that census consists of actually seeing (and preferably verifying by id) the number of people alive in the household, then the point that you make that there will be many peopled claimed alive but actually dead below the age of 100 is wrong. Anyone who is dead say at the age of 90 wouldn’t be counted in a home visit since ex hypothesis that person could not present themselves.
I accept that errors could well creep in if quality control regarding the manner in which data is collected and recorded is poor. This, of course, is one of the problems with the so called global temperature stastics
Peter Ellis says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:26 am
“……… Continuing to collect someone’s pension after death is one thing – fooling a census taker who’s actually in your house at the time is quite another.”
=========================================================
You’re kidding, right? You must have some knowledge about how their census is more accurate than ours. If they act or operate in any manner similar to ours, then “fooling” a census taker is ridiculously easy. But then, one quarter of a million misplaced “centenarians” seems to point to the ease of fooling Japanese bureaucrats.
Funny stuff to find resistance to questioning a longevity myth. Why is it important for people to believe that one group is living longer than another?
“We should look on the exposure of this statistical error as an object lesson we can apply to other public policy issues that so-called scientists attempt to promote ‘solutions’ to problems that they claim exist, based on faulty facts.”
If the battleground over public policy issues is fought on the basis of statistics, you will always lose. Gov’t will always have more statistics.
The real battlefield is ‘rights’ and if you can’t even argue an issue on moral grounds, you lose with the acceptance of the premise that you’ve given up your rights – and are only dickering on the price.
Having lived in Japan for 15+ years and observed the pressures to conform, etc., I could not think of a single factor that would lead to increased longevity (apart from quite a good health system).
IanM
I also think this is a stretch to subtly compare this with …and I mean to say it boldly… possible fraud in temperature/CO2 data driving policy decisions. To add the “left” remark paints this post author as having an ax to grind instead of wanting to report facts.
Are there not Davids, Chets, or Cronkites left in this world?
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:41 am
“The non-reporting of infant mortality, or the misreporting of infant mortality as stillbirth is a larger statistical problem for many countries that inflates both the mean and median life expectancy at birth figures.”
=========================================================
I thought it was worth repeating. This is where the largest divergence of life expectancy occurs. Many countries count infant mortality differently than the U.S. Even without fraudulent intent, people are simply counted differently. So, when making a comparison as far as life expectancy its apples and oranges. I don’t know why people obsess about such trivia. Is it really that important to believe some people may outlive another group of people for an average of a couple of years?
For our warmist friends, the point here is:
“We should look on the exposure of this statistical error as an object lesson we can apply to other public policy issues that so-called scientists attempt to promote ‘solutions’ to problems that they claim exist, based on faulty facts.”
[snip]
[OTT . . . mod]
New post on GLOBAL WINDS and HURRICANE IGOR
http://sabolscience.blogspot.com