From my anecdotal evidence, it does seem that the average elderly person in NYC is way more active and social than an elderly person in the suburbs. But of course, it could be that people that live in cities self-select.
It is a difficult place for anyone, but especially for those with trouble climbing lots of stairs, handling icy surfaces, repeatedly shedding and putting on clothes, etc.
Or who are too old to sustain the illusion that their income is on an upward trajectory, and the current difficulties thus temporary.
With cancer, which is also more likely the older you get, studies show that the chances of dying from it are about 12% higher in the poorest counties than wealthier counties in the US. That is despite people in those counties having a shorter lifespan from all other things as well.
So my question in response to the parent's throwaway class warfare riff was: Given two people who survive to the same age, let's say 80, is one more likely to get Alzheimers than the other based on income? The article here would suggest otherwise, given that taxi drivers and ambulance drivers are among the least well compensated workers and yet strangely have 1/3rd the rate of Alzheimers.
[0] https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020...
So the difference between when you look 30 vs 80 year olds makes it important to define what you mean when you say more likely to get it.
I lived a couple years in a working class farm town in Spain where the old people were mostly not wealthy by but were really physically fit and mentally sharp. I think it was due to them having constant social interaction, every day walking around the plazas talking with their elderly friends. Some of these people were living alone in their mid-90s, and their diet mostly consisted of fried sardines, pork, olives, and cheap local wine. So living a good full life may be better protection against the ravages of dementia than living a wealthy one.
https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/wealthy-linked-red...