Hacker News Reader

Comment by netizen-936824 | Hacker News Reader

Why should we believe this biased source?

>Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

So he sees the data for non elderly people, because those are the people who have his company's plans. So he doesn't have the data to compare against to say elderly people aren't dying at higher rates because they aren't his customers

View on HN

What claim do you believe is being made that utilizes this source in a biased way? It seems to me that in his remarks he was pretty clear about this data applying to the vertical of participants in employer plans, in a specific age group.

I don’t think it’s any secret that the last two years have been poor for people’s mental & physical health. It stands to reason that we’re going to be feeling the consequences of the pandemic & pandemic mitigation efforts for quite some time.

>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”

He's literally claiming that elderly are not dying at the same rates, based on his internal customer data

Are we reading the same sentence?

So how do you interpret it?

My interpretation is that this guy runs an insurance company who insures working age people through their employers. That is the source of the data, so he is missing data on elderly people

Yet he makes a claim that the people he does not have data on are dying at a lower rate than the people he does have data on. This makes no sense, as you can't make a comparison when you simply don't have data on the group you're comparing against

Can you share the quote from the article that you're referring to? Not saying it's not there, but I'm just not finding it.

I have it quoted in multiple comments here, including my top comment. Here it is again:

Here is the specific part I take issue with:

>it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people

I think you’re misinterpreting his statement. He isn’t making a claim about elderly death rates. He’s saying the pandemic (both the disease and other effects) is affecting a younger, working cohort as well, based on their available data.

I am saying that comparison is wrong, because he is missing data for the age group that he is comparing against.

I believe where you are interpreting it one way and the rest of us are interpreting it another is perhaps due to missing the quotation marks.

...deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18...

Davidson, the CEO in question, directly said "huge, huge numbers" and "primarily working-age people 18..." in his address. However the author of the article, Margaret Menge, added the "that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying" piece.

Essentially Margaret, as explained in another comment, used a literary construction to tie the quotes together. The sentence is being used to convey that contrary to the popular narrative that the pandemic is only killing the elderly, here we have evidence that it's affecting other cohorts as well.

If that is true, them this changes the meaning of the quotes. In my opinion this is just as bad because the entire article centers around these claims and she is adding claims that her source did not make.

Horrible reporting

Why must it be a comparison? A 40% increase in deaths for any population is mind boggling

It really isn't if you are starting from an extremely low baseline.

So we should just ignore these numbers? Does this not warrant more information about what is causing these deaths?

I suspect you misunderstood the parent's point. Not being mind-boggling doesn't imply we should ignore it.

Depends on historical variance, no? The baseline was half a percent of hundreds of millions of people. It’s a lot of additional deaths.

Because the quoted source is literally making the comparison, which I am saying is incorrect because his data is biased. Please reread the piece I quoted to see the comparison

>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”

You're being oddly pedanti? He could mean any number of things with that mention of elderly people.

Because he is making claims of fact based on his available data. I am saying the statement is incorrect

He also, in the article, mentions that he is looking at other companies in the market. "We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica".

Anywho without more info about what access to data he is making his observations on, we're just speculating. Definitely can't say he is factually wrong with the vague and open bits of info from the article. It's just quotes that could mean almost anything.

He is not saying that elderly people aren’t dying. He’s saying elderly people are not in his sample set. In other words, you read this incorrectly. Also, you do not justify your claim of bias.

>that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”

"that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying"

Am I missing something? Is this not a comparison?

It's a literary construction, emphasizing that the 40% increase is not an observation about elderly people.

It's not intended to be taken alone as a statement about the elderly.

He is making a statement on his data and saying that elderly aren't dying at the same rate. How is it possible to take that any way besides literally?

I dunno what the disconnect is but you may be the only one struggling with the meaning behind the words. I don't see him referring to the death rate of people outside 18-64 at all.

You could say his information is biased because it is limited to folks that have insurance through his company, but he's up front about that.

>it’s not elderly people who are dying

Quoted verbatim from the source article. This is a plain statement on the death rate of that specific age group.

Do you think he's saying elderly people aren't dying? Because that's what those precise words would mean when you take them out of context. In context, it's clear that he's not talking about elderly people at all.

I've had to chop up the quote to point out the exact part I take issue with. The entire quote is a comparison of age groups, of which he does not appear to have data for.

Also as others have mentioned, this part may have been added by the reporter who definitely doesn't cite Amy source for the comparison. Either option equates to poor reporting.

As others point out here, this is a literary construction flagging that in his specific context, he is not referencing old people. He is making the very point that he is above accused of not making. Just as if I were to chop the quote in your sentence “this part may have been added by a reporter” (which is not a self-reference to your own quote possibly having been edited by a reporter), the context is important. The reporting here is causal but being able to interpret such statements is part of basic reading comprehension.

It is a literary construction that makes the sentence contain incorrect information. A correct statement would have not mentioned elderly people at all because they are not included in the data:

"There has been an increase in deaths of working age 18-64 year olds."

Full stop. No need to mention the elderly.

Sure. Is this true: (WHERE 18 <= age <= 64) is the same as (WHERE 18 <= age <= 64 AND NOT 64 < AGE) ? This is what he's saying. It's emphatic, not pedantic to make such a point.

Humans are not programs or computers and language is inherently fuzzy. Having the added statement about the elderly implies they are making a statement about elderly deaths. There is no reason to include the statement as it makes the reporting unclear. This is a problem with reporting on data and science, through the game of telephone things are added and removed and meaning is added or lost.

Simply stating that deaths are up for working age people is more than sufficient and avoids adding unclear information. There is no reason to make any statement about any group that is not included in the data.

If I have data on goose deaths in Florida, I wouldn't say "goose deaths are up in Florida, but not because they're dying in New Jersey!"

I simply cannot make a statement on New Jersey goose mortality because my data says nothing about New Jersey

No, he's making a statement saying that his data shows working age people dying at a higher rate. It says nothing about elderly people.

The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

...

Davison said the increase in deaths (that his company sees) represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying (to account for this increase), but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

Plus, he actually could say "that elderly people aren't dying at the same rate" in his dataset and be technically correct. The elderly are not part of his dataset, so it's vacuously true.

Yes, he is making a comment on his data and as an insurer this data only includes working age people, not the elderly.

So of course he doesn't see elderly deaths because they aren't in his data set

But since his data set is limited, we just can't draw this conclusion

You are simply reading this wrong. If you want to prove that to yourself, call up this guy and talk to him. He will tell you you're stating something totally obvious and making a very silly distinction. You're agreeing with him violently. Come back in a couple of years and re-read this, you'll realize your interpretation is wrong.

Yes, you miss the context of the conversation. No, it is not a comparison.

If elderly people are not in the data set, why are they mentioned at all?

How many new young customers do they have? Maybe more people than before think about getting a life insurance and for whatever reason the more "fragile" ones are getting one.

Big employers in the US offer group life insurance to their employees without the need to opt in. Of course they have opt in add ons to increase the coverage, but in any case if you are employed and you die (knock wood) the insurance company’s phone will ring.

These are most likely group life policies where the employer pays the premiums for a base amount for all employees. Since there is no charge to the employee for the base coverage, most would accept the coverage.

If the employee base changed it could end up being unrepresentative of the broader population, but it's hard to imagine what that might be. Healthier people quit? Healthier people left Indiana? A competitor insurance company signed all the healthier groups?

Also this is a $100 billion company that is private and with only 2400 employees? Something doesn’t smell right.

Life insurance is mostly a passthrough from the living to the families of the dead Most people never use the product.

Probably this is assets under management, not yearly sales or net income.

I think the $100bn number does not refer to the company revenue. According to the company, in 2016 revenue was close to $2bn [1]. It may instead refer to total assets under administration (which was $74bn in 2016, according to the same source).

-------

[1] https://www.oneamerica.com/newsroom/news-releases/oneamerica...

Roblox has a market cap of 60 billion and less than 1500 employees(it was private until less than a year ago)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com