horizon wrote:Vorpal wrote:For what it's worth, I think it is unreasonable on any scientific basis to dismiss the affects of immunisation against polio, rubella, mumps, measles, etc. which ensured that many thousands more children survived their childhoods compared to earlier decades.
1. Your quote from the King's Fund above was very helpful - thank you.
2. I can't quite get my head round this, but AIUI, childhood survival isn't relevant here: what matters is the proportion of adults (who survived childhood) who reach ever older old age. That to me is the difference between longevity and life expectancy.
The article that you originally linked uses them interchangeably which is possibly a little confusing. But what 'life expectancy' means to the ONS and the report that the article was based upon is actually 'life expectancy from birth' (unless they specify otherwise) so the proportion of the population that survives childhood is very relevant. That's one of the reasons I posted about the life expectancy at 65, which means, for those who survive to 65, what is their continued life expectancy.