They're both supposed to be in good health though, we have Biden's public yearly checkup report. I don't think many old people get scans and full-body checkups every year and then die of something catastrophic with no warning?
I thought there would be more around neuro in there. Interesting that both recent presidents are (purportedly) non drinkers.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Health...
Even with scans and checkups, at that age, a bad case of the flu can kill you, or start you on that path. And I don't think we have any reliable non-invasive ways of detecting heart attack risk, or aneurism risk, those kinds of things.
Not sure, but don't ECGs find cases of severe plaques or narrowed arteries? Or most cases of heart disease.
> aneurism risk
An angiography should find most cases, from some quick research. "The CTA sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was 80%, 43% and 73%, respectively. The CTA sensitivity for aneurysms < 3 mm and 3 mm – 5 mm in size was 30% and 81.5%, respectively (p = 0.024)." [1]
Agree on the rest though.
It’s literally the best possible outcome of old age: being energetic and in full capacity, declining quickly and passing on.
The alternatives are dying early, or a long period of dependency.
But yeah, that’s how old people die.
That being said saying odds are one of them dies before the election is uncomfortably high isn't something I'd subscribe to. Quick check here, using N=age-google-told-me and N+1, gets 1 in 18 and 1 in 13, 6% and 8%. If they were 60 it'd be 1%, 70, 2%.
https://www.candidmoney.com/calculators/death-probability-ca...
The usual 70-year-old is probably a risky bet, but surely 10 specialists plus a team of generalists would make a more predictive yearly checkup. I think he's going to lose through normal politics and not by way of a heart attack.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Health...