Christian Kent   𝘊𝘒 :＼﹥<p>Got a good <a href="https://ioc.exchange/tags/statistician" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>statistician</span></a> challenge for a fan of <a href="https://ioc.exchange/tags/actuary" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>actuary</span></a> <a href="https://ioc.exchange/tags/actuarial" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>actuarial</span></a> studies, <a href="https://ioc.exchange/tags/age" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>age</span></a> and <a href="https://ioc.exchange/tags/aging" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>aging</span></a> — how is this line best described?</p><p>It&#39;s all about a funny inverse relationship to &quot;risk of death&quot; (within a year) to the &quot;added life expectancy&quot; (bonus days of life) you can expect as you make it to your next birthday — while others around you do not.</p><p>Congratulations, you made through the Filter — you&#39;re one of the stronger ones, on principle.</p><p>There&#39;s clearly a well-known thing of &quot;it&#39;s great to be 10&quot;, where the lifelong measurement of risk-of-dying is at its all-time lowest.</p><p>But, so, what&#39;s this flattening at age 20 through 30? Only seen easily in logarithmic scale … but in fact, if looking at women only, it goes *DOWN* slightly — what!?</p><p>I need help translating this into plain English too: Does it mean a 30-year-old woman is more sensible than a 21-year-old woman?</p><p>I can see how the teenage years filter very quickly, and the years after 30+ are normal. But how would you describe it?</p>