Re: Disney Deaths--An Analysis

>Brett Weiss wrote:
>> [Caution--Math Follows]
>>
>> According to the Life Tables (National Vital Statistics Report, Vol.
>> 50, No. 6, March 21, 2002), in a population of 100,000, 378 children
>> between ages 1 and 16 would be expected to die each year from all
>> causes. (The tables are below.) (FWIW, as of July 2005, the US
>> population is estimated to be 295,734,134 [CIA World Factbook], which
>> would reflect over 1,000,000 total deaths for children in this age
>> group.)
>>
>> The four parks at Walt Disney World have an annual attendance of
>> about 40 million (2003 figures). It's difficult to do the math
>> because people attend multiple parks for multiple days. If, however,
>> you assume that each visitor visits each park once over a 4-day
>> vacation (which may or may not be an accurate reflection of actual
>> visits), that works out to about 10 million unique guests. Since the
>> life tables reflect deaths over a 365 day year, you would take 4/365
>> to adjust the figures for the time people are at the parks, or a
>> factor of 0.0109589.
>>
>> As I figure it, the formula is 378 deaths per 100,000 adjusted to a
>> population of 10,000,000 = 37,800, and reduced by the attendance
>> factor of 0.0109589 = 414 expected deaths of children between ages 1
>> and 16 each year at Disney World.
>>
>> I understand that the visitors to Disney World are somewhat
>> self-selecting--the people who visit generally aren't the sickest and
>> would probably be in somewhat better physical shape than the general
>> population. The Life Tables also include, particularly in the 1-2 age
>> group, infants with birth difficulties that result in death. This
>> would reduce the 414 figure, perhaps significantly. There are also
>> strong reasons why I became an attorney instead of a statistician, so
>> I may be completely off in my analysis. I would welcome input from
>> those who do this sort of work more than I do. Even if a magnitude
>> off, however, these figures suggest that the deaths this summer are
>> not out of the ordinary.

There does need to be one additional correction. You are mixing total
population (10M unique guests) of all ages with an expectancy of
people in ages 1 thru 16.. You would have to correct the 10M down to
the number of people 1 thru 16.

However, even if only 10% of the attendees were age 1 to 16 there
would still be an expectancy of 41 but nowhere near the 414 you
stated.
mike at tuchman dot org
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sticking a Needle in Alternative Medicine
    ... a longer life, why are 30 year olds expected to live to 74 while ... life expectancy numbers were a simple matter of conditional ... Of course a general figure for the entire country is not going to ... which our 30 million illegal immigrants came (YES i SAID 30 MILLION, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Inequality
    ... Infant mortality is hugely reduced in both countries and life ... the inequality is much reduced. ... Life expectancy in the poorest in our societies is falling as you should ... levels in the UK, but still, the health gap isn't as large because ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: For Des
    ... One life is one life is one life. ... for 120 Arab deaths get less chest-beating here than do ... Look, it's not fucking illegal to hate Arabs, and you don't deny it. ... _possibly_ have been written by the famous infinite number of monkeys ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Man lives to 112 despite sausage-and-waffles diet
    ... SB non sequitUr. ... Your life expectancy math is equally faulty. ... causes of death have shifted from infectious diseases with a short ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: The True Cost Of Meat
    ... From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised ... > over 500 servings of meat. ... > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals ... a large male chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and "dispatched it with ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
Loading