Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned (as
it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to lateral
thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that make murder
look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and involving people
of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of sawdust or puddles
of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day. Why
is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of knowing
whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and articles
such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which describe the
effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are born
dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include alcohol-related
accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday party". No, we were
told. We were over-thinking the problem and over-complicating it. The reason
was blindingly obvious. The question became really quite smug (to the point
that I could see some of my mates were itching to punch his lights out!) and
said that the teacher had asked the question when he was a lad at school;
although he'd never been asked it before or even thought about it, he got
the answer immediately. He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is
this true in all cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and
therefore whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and
repeated that we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you think
about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the answer" and I
never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve alcohol-related
accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out until their next
birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I was" etc? Something
which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old at school?

"NY" wrote in message
...
One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day. Why
is this?"

Forgot to say: he assured us that it was not a trick question or one that
relied on the precise words that he'd used.

On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to
lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that
make murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and
involving people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of
sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?


If you include deaths immediately after birth, surely that would be
enough to swing the figures?


If deaths were randomly distributed, you'd expect roughly 3 per 1000
deaths on any day of the year.

The neonatal mortality rate in this country is about 3 per 1000 live
births, with a substantial number of those on the day of birth
(literally the birthday).

So, all other things being equal, you'd have a 3 per 1000 chance of
dying on any day of the year, except your birthday when you have to add
in roughly an extra 3 per 1000 chance that you died at birth.

Sorry, but there's no tactful way of explaining that.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the answer"
and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?


If you include deaths immediately after birth, surely that would be enough
to swing the figures?


If deaths were randomly distributed, you'd expect roughly 3 per 1000
deaths on any day of the year.

The neonatal mortality rate in this country is about 3 per 1000 live
births, with a substantial number of those on the day of birth (literally
the birthday).

So, all other things being equal, you'd have a 3 per 1000 chance of dying
on any day of the year, except your birthday when you have to add in
roughly an extra 3 per 1000 chance that you died at birth.

Sorry, but there's no tactful way of explaining that.

I agree with your explanation, But the questioner had ruled it out as
"over-complicating" the issue. He acknowledged that things like neonatal
death would have a small affect, as would psychological things like terminal
patients "holding on" to stay alive until a special event, or people
committing suicide more frequently on their birthday or at Christmas. But
all these perfectly valid effects were negligible compared with "his"
explanation - he said.

If I'd thought at the time, I'd like to have asked him whether people with a
more analytical, questioning approach would be more or less likely to hit on
"his" answer than people who thought more in terms of words and concepts,
rather than statistics and medical explanations. I'd also have asked him
whether everyone in his class worked it out at roughly the same time: was it
some thought process that had been taught at school and which the teacher
was relying on when he asked his class the question.

As an aside, the way he asked the question and responded to questions was a
textbook example of how to alienate your audience and make them want to hit
you. He had a smug attitude of "I know the answer and you don't. I'm amazed
no-one has got anywhere *near* the right answer". Think of Jeremy Beadle
crossed with Gyles Brandreth to get an idea of how insufferably smug and
gleeful he was ;-) I was reminded of the question when I saw a reference
to Gyles Brandreth the other day.

"NY" wrote in message
...
He acknowledged that things like neonatal death would have a small affect,
as would psychological things like terminal

Sorry, typo: I did, of course, mean "effect". Serves me right for trying to
type (and proof-read) without my reading glasses on ;-)

What has Giles ever done to you? Actually a friend who knows him says, he
does tend to deliberately wind people up, but is actually a kind person.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" wrote in message
...
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?


If you include deaths immediately after birth, surely that would be
enough to swing the figures?


If deaths were randomly distributed, you'd expect roughly 3 per 1000
deaths on any day of the year.

The neonatal mortality rate in this country is about 3 per 1000 live
births, with a substantial number of those on the day of birth (literally
the birthday).

So, all other things being equal, you'd have a 3 per 1000 chance of dying
on any day of the year, except your birthday when you have to add in
roughly an extra 3 per 1000 chance that you died at birth.

Sorry, but there's no tactful way of explaining that.

I agree with your explanation, But the questioner had ruled it out as
"over-complicating" the issue. He acknowledged that things like neonatal
death would have a small affect, as would psychological things like
terminal patients "holding on" to stay alive until a special event, or
people committing suicide more frequently on their birthday or at
Christmas. But all these perfectly valid effects were negligible compared
with "his" explanation - he said.

If I'd thought at the time, I'd like to have asked him whether people with
a more analytical, questioning approach would be more or less likely to
hit on "his" answer than people who thought more in terms of words and
concepts, rather than statistics and medical explanations. I'd also have
asked him whether everyone in his class worked it out at roughly the same
time: was it some thought process that had been taught at school and which
the teacher was relying on when he asked his class the question.

As an aside, the way he asked the question and responded to questions was
a textbook example of how to alienate your audience and make them want to
hit you. He had a smug attitude of "I know the answer and you don't. I'm
amazed no-one has got anywhere *near* the right answer". Think of Jeremy
Beadle crossed with Gyles Brandreth to get an idea of how insufferably
smug and gleeful he was ;-) I was reminded of the question when I saw a
reference to Gyles Brandreth the other day.

On 13/06/2021 08:20, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

What has Giles ever done to you? Actually a friend who knows him says, he
does tend to deliberately wind people up, but is actually a kind person.

He thinks (Thought for the Day) that petitionary prayer is just "hoping"
or "wishing" which rather misses the (religious) point.

And he refused to be drawn on whether God actually exists when
questioned on Today.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/06/2021 08:20, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

What has Giles ever done to you? Actually a friend who knows him says, he
does tend to deliberately wind people up, but is actually a kind person.

He thinks (Thought for the Day) that petitionary prayer is just "hoping"
or "wishing" which rather misses the (religious) point.

And he refused to be drawn on whether God actually exists when questioned
on Today.

Anyone who looks for proof that God exists and doesn't accept it as a fact
because other people think so gets a big thumbs-up from me. Religion as a
moral code for living together harmoniously makes a great deal of sense to
me; but then they go and spoil it by asking us to belief in something whose
existence can't be proved - and even make a positive *virtue* out the fact
that there is no proof. That goes against my ethos of believe nothing;
question everything; if observations don't fit the theory, maybe the theory
is wrong.

On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to
lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that
make murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and
involving people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of
sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?



The literature has this to say:

"...the results of the study support the €œanniversary reaction€� or
€œbirthday blues€� hypothesis: 13.8% more people died on their own
birthday than on other days of the year. When the results were further
analysed by age, the increase in deaths on birthdays was only observed
for individuals aged 60 and older. Common causes of birthday deaths were
heart problems, cancer, stroke disease in women and suicides and
accidents in men. However, there were limitations to the study, which
included data from records stretching back as far as the late 1960s,
making some results questionable. Furthermore, the exact reasons as to
why birthdays might raise the risk of death are still unclear."

Putting that in line with "He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it." suggests an
alternative explanation. He didn't know either, but he was using it to
wind you up.

Bull**** Baffles Brains.



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

Try asking "More or Less"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00msxfl

It might be in their archive already or you could Tweet them.

What is the probability that a person will die on their birthday?

https://stats.stackexchange.com/ques...their-birthday

On 12/06/2021 16:46, MB wrote:
What is the probability that a person will die on their birthday?

https://stats.stackexchange.com/ques...their-birthday


Interesting. I still stand by my inductive hypothesis that the cnut was
winding people up with a problem *no one* knows the real answer to.


--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 16:46, MB wrote:
What is the probability that a person will die on their birthday?

https://stats.stackexchange.com/ques...their-birthday
Interesting. I still stand by my inductive hypothesis that the cnut was
winding people up with a problem *no one* knows the real answer to.

Yes, I wondered about a wind-up, but wanted to check there wasn't some
factor (apart from neonatal deaths and birthday-related accidents *) that I
hadn't thought of..

The guy was a prankster and a bit unpredictable. He was a devout Catholic.
Apparently at his wedding, with all his Catholic relatives as "audience" at
the reception, he scandalised them all by playing Tom Lehrer's ****-take
"Vatican Rag", to which he and his new wife danced.



(*) For example, getting blind drunk and then thinking you can swim across
the River Ouse in York - there have been a number of tragic deaths of that
form in the last ten years.

On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to
lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that
make murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and
involving people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of
sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

I recall a change to death duties in either Australia or New Zealand
where dying after the implementation of a change in death duties was
beneficial to their family.

My understanding is that there was quite a significant skew of the death
rate around this date, where the death rate peaked significantly after
the date of implementation. I can't find a link any article with a quick
google.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
I recall a change to death duties in either Australia or New Zealand where
dying after the implementation of a change in death duties was beneficial
to their family.

My understanding is that there was quite a significant skew of the death
rate around this date, where the death rate peaked significantly after the
date of implementation. I can't find a link any article with a quick
google.

"Oh bugger! Uncle Bruce has died too soon. Stick him in the deep freeze for
a few weeks!"

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 17:46:43, NY wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
I recall a change to death duties in either Australia or New Zealand
where dying after the implementation of a change in death duties was
beneficial to their family.

My understanding is that there was quite a significant skew of the
death rate around this date, where the death rate peaked
significantly after the date of implementation. I can't find a link
any article with a quick google.

"Oh bugger! Uncle Bruce has died too soon. Stick him in the deep freeze
for a few weeks!"

Similar effects are observable in the UK - not duties I think, but
fines; civil registration of births and deaths started (England -
Scotland later) mid-1837. You have to register within X days of the
event, or pay a fine of Y; births, in particular, tended to be
registered as having happened later than the truth when families for
whatever reason didn't get round to it in time - and there was a
noticeable distortion to the flow around any date when X or Y was
changed. (IIRR, although registration was compulsory from mid-1837,
there wasn't an actual fine set down for not doing so for the first few
years, for example.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If something works, thank an engineer. (Reported seen on a bumper sticker.)

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to
lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that make
murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and
involving people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of
sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the answer"
and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

I recall a change to death duties in either Australia or New Zealand where
dying after the implementation of a change in death duties was beneficial
to their family.

There havent been any death dutys in Australia for decades now.

My understanding is that there was quite a significant skew of the death
rate around this date, where the death rate peaked significantly after the
date of implementation. I can't find a link any article with a quick
google.

On 12/06/2021 20:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation
turned (as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been
consumed) to lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying
is ways that make murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look
like murder, and involving people of restricted stature, failed tape
recordings, piles of sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other
day. Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no
way of knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before
Wkipedia and articles such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which describe the
effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that
are born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their
birthday party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem
and over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The
question became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some
of my mates were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the
teacher had asked the question when he was a lad at school; although
he'd never been asked it before or even thought about it, he got the
answer immediately. He was amazed than none of us could work it out.
"Is this true in all cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know
the date and therefore whether today is your birthday?" He just
smiled smugly and repeated that we were thinking far too deeply and
analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than
I was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a
ten-year-old at school?

I recall a change to death duties in either Australia or New Zealand
where dying after the implementation of a change in death duties was
beneficial to their family.

There havent been any death dutys in Australia for decades now.

Yes 1979. Although no MSM articles exists on the net from this time this
makes the point:
http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/DeathAndTaxes_BEP.pdf

"In 1979, Australia abolished federal inheritance taxes. Using daily
deaths data, we show that approximately 50 deaths were shifted from the
week before the abolition to the week after. This amounts to over half
of those who would have been eligible to pay the tax"

My understanding is that there was quite a significant skew of the
death rate around this date, where the death rate peaked significantly
after the date of implementation. I can't find a link any article with
a quick google.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 05:14:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



There havent been any death dutys in Australia for decades now.

Did you talk to your psychiatrists yet about your idiotic refusal to adopt
the correct spelling for the plural of words ending in -y, senile sociopath?

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:56:46 +0100, NY wrote:

Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to
lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that
make murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and
involving people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of
sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

Not only more, but all people who die on their birthday, will not die on
any other day.

"jon" wrote in message ...
Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

Not only more, but all people who die on their birthday, will not die on
any other day.

Yes, but that argument applies to death on *any* day of the year: having
once died, they will not be able to die on any other day - apart from by
resurrection.

On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to
lateral thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that
make murder look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and
involving people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of
sawdust or puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day.
Why is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had
asked the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been
asked it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately.
He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all
cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore
whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that
we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you
think about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the
answer" and I never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

The trick is often a nuance in the way the question is asked. If you
don't spot the trick you may reproduce the question wrongly. In which
case people won't be able to answer.

An example might be that we have one birth day, which is often a
traumatic event, compared to the other 30,000 days in an average life.

So perhaps he was tricking you on the difference between a birthday
anniversary and the actual date of your birth.

"Pancho" wrote in message
...

The trick is often a nuance in the way the question is asked. If you don't
spot the trick you may reproduce the question wrongly. In which case
people won't be able to answer.

An example might be that we have one birth day, which is often a traumatic
event, compared to the other 30,000 days in an average life.

So perhaps he was tricking you on the difference between a birthday
anniversary and the actual date of your birth.

By saying that we were "overcomplicating things" by trying to eliminate the
effect of neonatal death, he seemed to imply that what he was saying related
only to anniversaries of the date of birth. I got the impression (though I
never clarified it) that he meant "of the adults in this room now, there is
a higher chance of each person dying on the anniversary of his birth than on
any other day" and it sounded as if it was a natural-causes effect which was
outside the person's control ie not accidents while drunk at your birthday
party, and not suicide on your birthday or the "desperately staying alive
till it's my birthday" effect. And it was "so very obvious". Either a
wind-up or some very weird factor that even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect doesn't mention.

On 12/06/2021 18:54, NY wrote:
"Pancho" wrote in message
...

The trick is often a nuance in the way the question is asked. If you
don't spot the trick you may reproduce the question wrongly. In which
case people won't be able to answer.

An example might be that we have one birth day, which is often a
traumatic event, compared to the other 30,000 days in an average life.

So perhaps he was tricking you on the difference between a birthday
anniversary and the actual date of your birth.

By saying that we were "overcomplicating things" by trying to eliminate
the effect of neonatal death, he seemed to imply that what he was saying
related only to anniversaries of the date of birth. I got the impression
(though I never clarified it) that he meant "of the adults in this room
now, there is a higher chance of each person dying on the anniversary of
his birth than on any other day" and it sounded as if it was a
natural-causes effect which was outside the person's control ie not
accidents while drunk at your birthday party, and not suicide on your
birthday or the "desperately staying alive till it's my birthday"
effect. And it was "so very obvious". Either a wind-up or some very
weird factor that even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect
doesn't mention.

As I said the nuance is in the specific words used in the question.
These questions are slight of hand. Often when asked by a poor
questioner, the actual question is mangled, incorrect. Which often
happened when we were ten, or was asked by a none to bright teacher. The
smug comment about "overthinking" was also a standard part of the shtick.

But in this case the obvious gimmick is the actual day you were born
rather than anniversary of that day. Even if risk of death were the same
for every day lived (Poisson distribution), the day of birth would be
the most likely stopping time. The probability of surviving to
subsequent dates is monotonically declining, and hence the risk of dying
on the subsequent date is declining.

So without the exact phraseology of the question, and confidence it was
asked correctly, pursuing the problem any further is a fool's errand.

Even mathematicians sometime chase silly/improbable remarks such as
Fermat's last theorem ("The proof was too large to fit in the margin").

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 19:32:37 +0100, Pancho wrote:
But in this case the obvious gimmick is the actual day you were born
rather than anniversary of that day. Even if risk of death were the same
for every day lived (Poisson distribution), the day of birth would be
the most likely stopping time. The probability of surviving to
subsequent dates is monotonically declining, and hence the risk of dying
on the subsequent date is declining.

I think that's possibly what they were getting at. Assuming the chance of
death is constant (which is rather an oversimplification, as it certainly
isn't in real life), the chance of dying on each day declines
monotonically (as you can only die on a day if you didn't die on any of
the preceding days). Which leads to the rather surprising statement that,
assuming you are alive right now, you're always more likely to die today
than any later day (the probability of dying on any past day being zero,
of course).

Given this assumption, the day someone is most likely to die is the first
one, which is technically their zeroth birthday even if most people
wouldn't consider it so. Each of the following 364 days has a lower
chance of death. So of the people who die before their first birthday,
more die on the day they were born than any other day of the year.

However, the same is true of the following year - assuming they made it
to their first birthday, they either die that day or have a lower chance
of dying on each of the subsequent 364 days. So of the people who made it
to the start of their 1st birthday, more die on that birthday than on any
other day of that year.

The same applies to the year beginning on the second birthday, and each
subsequent year. Since each birthday has more deaths than the following
364 unbirthdays, when you total the deaths on each day of the year the
birthday must be the highest.

Note that I've ignored leap years, though. People who were born on
February 29th are rather unlikely to die on their birthday - which may or
may not be enough to throw the above argument. I've also assumed that the
first day of a baby's life is 24 hours long (which usually isn't the
case), and the constant chance of death each day. So actually this
probably isn't true in real life, as there's too many complications that
mean the simple mathematical model can't apply.

Mike

"Mike Humphrey" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 19:32:37 +0100, Pancho wrote:
But in this case the obvious gimmick is the actual day you were born
rather than anniversary of that day. Even if risk of death were the same
for every day lived (Poisson distribution), the day of birth would be
the most likely stopping time. The probability of surviving to
subsequent dates is monotonically declining, and hence the risk of dying
on the subsequent date is declining.

I think that's possibly what they were getting at. Assuming the chance of
death is constant (which is rather an oversimplification, as it certainly
isn't in real life), the chance of dying on each day declines
monotonically (as you can only die on a day if you didn't die on any of
the preceding days). Which leads to the rather surprising statement that,
assuming you are alive right now, you're always more likely to die today
than any later day (the probability of dying on any past day being zero,
of course).

Given this assumption, the day someone is most likely to die is the first
one, which is technically their zeroth birthday even if most people
wouldn't consider it so. Each of the following 364 days has a lower
chance of death. So of the people who die before their first birthday,
more die on the day they were born than any other day of the year.

However, the same is true of the following year - assuming they made it
to their first birthday, they either die that day or have a lower chance
of dying on each of the subsequent 364 days. So of the people who made it
to the start of their 1st birthday, more die on that birthday than on any
other day of that year.

The same applies to the year beginning on the second birthday, and each
subsequent year. Since each birthday has more deaths than the following
364 unbirthdays, when you total the deaths on each day of the year the
birthday must be the highest.

Note that I've ignored leap years, though. People who were born on
February 29th are rather unlikely to die on their birthday - which may or
may not be enough to throw the above argument. I've also assumed that the
first day of a baby's life is 24 hours long (which usually isn't the
case), and the constant chance of death each day. So actually this
probably isn't true in real life, as there's too many complications that
mean the simple mathematical model can't apply.

"Which leads to the rather surprising statement that, assuming you are alive
right now, you're always more likely to die today than any later day (the
probability of dying on any past day being zero, of course)."

Could you go over that bit again. I don't really follow your reasoning. I
would have thought the probability of dying on any given day will *increase*
for each successive day, once you get past a certain age. And even before
that age-related effect kicks in, why is your chance of dying today always
greater than the chance of dying tomorrow. Is there something that I'm not
quite understanding?

You allude to neonatal mortality in your paragraph that refers to the
"zeroth birthday". Very true. But assuming you survive this "boundary
effect", won't the chance of dying stabilise to more or less the same chance
on every date, maybe with a gradual decreasing (the theory you mention) or a
gradual increasing (for elderly people) probability as each day passes. I
don't see what is special about exactly n calendar years from your date of
birth which makes the probability of death increase on that date and
decrease again after it.

Also, in your "rather surprising statement", is that increased probability
of dying today rather than tomorrow masked by factors such a seasonal
variation in death date?

And would you expect a 10-year-old to find any of this "blindingly obvious"
to offer it as an explanation? Or anyone except a statistician to know much
about it? I *think* the guy that proposed the question was a geographer, but
I could be wrong.


In the wiki article about The Birthday Effect, it mentions that
statistically males tend to die at a greater rate just before their birthday
and females just after it. I wonder what causes that difference?

On 12/06/2021 21:05, Mike Humphrey wrote:

The same applies to the year beginning on the second birthday, and each
subsequent year. Since each birthday has more deaths than the following
364 unbirthdays, when you total the deaths on each day of the year the
birthday must be the highest.


lol, cool argument.

No harm in adding a few more eggs to the pudding :-)

On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

snip

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

There are many billions of days when you didn't die before you even had
a birthday.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 12/06/2021 19:15, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

snip

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a
ten-year-old at school?

There are many billions of days when you didn't die before you even had
a birthday.

If you're going there, you never die, you just change a bit.

"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

snip

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

There are many billions of days when you didn't die before you even had a
birthday.

I tended to assume that the original question meant "that any other day of
the same year", as anything else would not make sense - and also would tend
to disprove the very assertion that he was making if you included a
denominator of (every date in the past that has ever existed).

On 12/06/2021 20:06, NY wrote:
"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

snip

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than
I was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a
ten-year-old at school?

There are many billions of days when you didn't die before you even
had a birthday.

I tended to assume that the original question meant "that any other day
of the same year", as anything else would not make sense - and also
would tend to disprove the very assertion that he was making if you
included a denominator of (every date in the past that has ever existed).

When you die, there's something like a 1 in 365 chance of it being your
birthday. There's something like a 1 in loadsabillions chance of it not
being your birthday, because you can't have a birthday before you're born.

So the chances of you dying on your birthday are much higher than on any
other day. Of course, the chances of you dying during your lifetime are
even higher :-)

But if you take it that the question only refers to your lifetime, then,
all other things being equal, people born on 29th Feb would surely skew
the result in the opposite way to that claimed.

--
Cheers
Clive

"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 20:06, NY wrote:
"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

snip

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a
ten-year-old at school?

There are many billions of days when you didn't die before you even had
a birthday.

I tended to assume that the original question meant "that any other day
of the same year", as anything else would not make sense - and also would
tend to disprove the very assertion that he was making if you included a
denominator of (every date in the past that has ever existed).

When you die, there's something like a 1 in 365 chance of it being your
birthday. There's something like a 1 in loadsabillions chance of it not
being your birthday, because you can't have a birthday before you're born.

So the chances of you dying on your birthday are much higher than on any
other day. Of course, the chances of you dying during your lifetime are
even higher :-)

But if you take it that the question only refers to your lifetime, then,
all other things being equal, people born on 29th Feb would surely skew
the result in the opposite way to that claimed.

Yes, I think we take it that the question is limited to your lifetime. ;-)

"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 20:06, NY wrote:
"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2021 14:56, NY wrote:

snip

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a
ten-year-old at school?

There are many billions of days when you didn't die before you even had
a birthday.

I tended to assume that the original question meant "that any other day
of the same year", as anything else would not make sense - and also would
tend to disprove the very assertion that he was making if you included a
denominator of (every date in the past that has ever existed).

When you die, there's something like a 1 in 365 chance of it being your
birthday. There's something like a 1 in loadsabillions chance of it not
being your birthday, because you can't have a birthday before you're born.

So the chances of you dying on your birthday are much higher than on any
other day. Of course, the chances of you dying during your lifetime are
even higher :-)

But if you take it that the question only refers to your lifetime, then,
all other things being equal, people born on 29th Feb would surely skew
the result in the opposite way to that claimed.

Yes, but that’s a much smaller factor than the spikiness in the birth days.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 20:31:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Saturday, 12 June 2021 at 14:56:54 UTC+1, NY wrote:
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned (as
it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to lateral
thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that make murder
look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and involving people
of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of sawdust or puddles
of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day. Why
is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of knowing
whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and articles
such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which describe the
effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are born
dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include alcohol-related
accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday party". No, we were
told. We were over-thinking the problem and over-complicating it. The reason
was blindingly obvious. The question became really quite smug (to the point
that I could see some of my mates were itching to punch his lights out!) and
said that the teacher had asked the question when he was a lad at school;
although he'd never been asked it before or even thought about it, he got
the answer immediately. He was amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is
this true in all cultures?" "Is it true even if you don't know the date and
therefore whether today is your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and
repeated that we were thinking far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you think
about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the answer" and I
never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve alcohol-related
accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out until their next
birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I was" etc? Something
which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old at school?

Edward de Bono died the other day.

Was it his birthday?

"NY" wrote in message
...
Years ago, at a party while I was at university, the conversation turned
(as it sometimes does after a lot of alcohol has been consumed) to lateral
thinking puzzles, mostly involving people dying is ways that make murder
look like suicide - or indeed suicide look like murder, and involving
people of restricted stature, failed tape recordings, piles of sawdust or
puddles of water.

One person said "More people die on their birthday than any other day. Why
is this?" This was presented as if it were a fact. We had no way of
knowing whether it was indeed the case - it was long before Wkipedia and
articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_effect which
describe the effect and give various medical reasons.

We tried all the obvious things like "does this include babies that are
born dead or who die within a few hours" and "does it include
alcohol-related accidents when people do stupid things at their birthday
party". No, we were told. We were over-thinking the problem and
over-complicating it. The reason was blindingly obvious. The question
became really quite smug (to the point that I could see some of my mates
were itching to punch his lights out!) and said that the teacher had asked
the question when he was a lad at school; although he'd never been asked
it before or even thought about it, he got the answer immediately. He was
amazed than none of us could work it out. "Is this true in all cultures?"
"Is it true even if you don't know the date and therefore whether today is
your birthday?" He just smiled smugly and repeated that we were thinking
far too deeply and analytically about it.

Sadly we never did find out the answer: it was left as "I'll let you think
about it. Come and tell me when you eventually work out the answer" and I
never saw him again.

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out until
their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I was" etc?
Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old at school?

He's right. The reason is that the day of the year that people are born
on isnt evenly distributed over the year, so it is considerably more likely
that you will die on the same day of the year for that reason.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

He's right. The reason is that the day of the year that people are born
on isnt evenly distributed over the year, so it is considerably more
likely
that you will die on the same day of the year for that reason.

I can accept that the dates when people are born are not uniformly
distributed throughout the year. They will be skewed partly by working
forwards 9 months from key dates (eg Christmas period, summer holidays,
birthdays of parents) when it is *maybe* more likely that parents had sex.
And maybe there are more births in the autumn to correspond with sex in the
winter months when people have "nothing better to do". There may even be a
tendency for more babies to be born on weekdays when there are more
maternity staff around, if babies are induced or born by caesarian. And
maybe, just maybe, there will be more neonatal deaths in the winter, so
those people who survive that will be slightly skewed towards non-winter
births. I can imagine seasonal neonatal deaths are less of an issue now than
they used to be before medical science improved.

There will be more deaths in colder, winter months - or in excessively hot
times. Of course Covid will have completely messed with those statistics for
the past 18 months and maybe smoothed out any normal troughs. But that is
(hopefully) an exceptional situation. I'm not actually sure what proportion
the Covid deaths have been of the total number deaths ("normal" plus Covid).

But will there necessarily be any correlation between these two events.
Because there are more babies born during a certain time of year, will there
necessarily be more deaths at that *same* time of year?

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old
at school?

He's right. The reason is that the day of the year that people are born
on isnt evenly distributed over the year, so it is considerably more
likely
that you will die on the same day of the year for that reason.

I can accept that the dates when people are born are not uniformly
distributed throughout the year. They will be skewed partly by working
forwards 9 months from key dates (eg Christmas period, summer holidays,
birthdays of parents) when it is *maybe* more likely that parents had sex.
And maybe there are more births in the autumn to correspond with sex in
the winter months when people have "nothing better to do". There may even
be a tendency for more babies to be born on weekdays when there are more
maternity staff around, if babies are induced or born by caesarian. And
maybe, just maybe, there will be more neonatal deaths in the winter, so
those people who survive that will be slightly skewed towards non-winter
births. I can imagine seasonal neonatal deaths are less of an issue now
than they used to be before medical science improved.

There will be more deaths in colder, winter months - or in excessively hot
times. Of course Covid will have completely messed with those statistics
for the past 18 months and maybe smoothed out any normal troughs. But that
is (hopefully) an exceptional situation. I'm not actually sure what
proportion the Covid deaths have been of the total number deaths ("normal"
plus Covid).

But will there necessarily be any correlation between these two events.

There doesn’t need to be. The fact that birthdays arent even distributed is
all you need.

That should be "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old at school.

But then you clearly are a slow learner :-(

Because there are more babies born during a certain time of year, will
there necessarily be more deaths at that *same* time of year?

Not the same time of year, the same DAY. Basic statistics.

Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Can anyone think of a logical reason, which doesn't involve
alcohol-related accidents, people who are terminally ill holding out
until their next birthday, depression/suicide "I'm a year older than I
was" etc? Something which is "blindingly obvious" even to a
ten-year-old at school?

He's right. The reason is that the day of the year that people are born
on isnt evenly distributed over the year, so it is considerably more
likely
that you will die on the same day of the year for that reason.

I can accept that the dates when people are born are not uniformly
distributed throughout the year. They will be skewed partly by working
forwards 9 months from key dates (eg Christmas period, summer holidays,
birthdays of parents) when it is *maybe* more likely that parents had
sex. And maybe there are more births in the autumn to correspond with sex
in the winter months when people have "nothing better to do". There may
even be a tendency for more babies to be born on weekdays when there are
more maternity staff around, if babies are induced or born by caesarian.
And maybe, just maybe, there will be more neonatal deaths in the winter,
so those people who survive that will be slightly skewed towards
non-winter births. I can imagine seasonal neonatal deaths are less of an
issue now than they used to be before medical science improved.

There will be more deaths in colder, winter months - or in excessively
hot times. Of course Covid will have completely messed with those
statistics for the past 18 months and maybe smoothed out any normal
troughs. But that is (hopefully) an exceptional situation. I'm not
actually sure what proportion the Covid deaths have been of the total
number deaths ("normal" plus Covid).

But will there necessarily be any correlation between these two events.

There doesn’t need to be. The fact that birthdays arent even distributed
is all you need.

That should be "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old at school.

But then you clearly are a slow learner :-(

Because there are more babies born during a certain time of year, will
there necessarily be more deaths at that *same* time of year?

Not the same time of year, the same DAY. Basic statistics.

Maybe I should spell that out more explicitly.

Given that some specific days of the year have more births than
others, just the fact that they have more is enough to skew the
stats with the death occurring on the same day of the year.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
But will there necessarily be any correlation between these two events.
[birth and death]?

There doesn’t need to be. The fact that birthdays arent even distributed
is all you need.

That should be "blindingly obvious" even to a ten-year-old at school.

But then you clearly are a slow learner :-(

Because there are more babies born during a certain time of year, will
there necessarily be more deaths at that *same* time of year?

Not the same time of year, the same DAY. Basic statistics.

Maybe I should spell that out more explicitly.

Given that some specific days of the year have more births than
others, just the fact that they have more is enough to skew the
stats with the death occurring on the same day of the year.

I can see that [highly fictitious example] if there are 10 births on January
(of any year) and 1 birth each of all the other days (of any year), then 1
January will be the birthday of lots of people whereas any other date will
be the birthday of just one person.

But why does that mean that a person who is born on 1 January will be any
more likely also to die on 1 January of a subsequent (*) year than on any
other day of that same subsequent year, just because lots of *other* people
were born on that day? Is there some biological property that makes a person
more likely to die n*365.25 days from their birth, for various integer
values of n, than on any other day? It's probably very obvious to you, but
it's not to me. Your statement "Given that some specific days of the year
have more births than others, just the fact that they have more is enough to
skew the stats with the death occurring on the same day of the year." *Why*
is it enough to skew the stats?

The problem with something being "very obvious" is that it's sometimes
difficult to explain to someone else *why* it is obvious.


(*) I'm excluding neonatal deaths.