Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby borjastick » 5 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:15 am)

Not sure what a 'pissing match' is.

14.7 million is more than 11m is it not? However that's not the point is it.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Thames Darwin
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby Thames Darwin » 5 years 1 month ago (Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:26 am)

My point was that you can't count Ukraine and Belarus separately from the USSR for the reasons I mentioned. That's all.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby Dresden » 4 years 11 months ago (Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:12 pm)

realitycheck said:

"Put simply, they take a population of 100,000 and to see how many are expected to survive to the next year (in other word, how many will die during each year)"

This sentence is void of meaning

""Life Expectancy" figures aren't used by them as such"

Of course they are; what else could they possibly use?

"The tables start at birth with the 100,000 population and show the number surviving until age 1, 2, 3 etc. The published tables are raw data for given populations and sub-groups"

That's how it's always been done; there is no other possible way to figure life expectancy.

"It is by using this data that life insurance premiums are calculated"

What are you suggesting "this data" represents, if it doesn't represent life expectancy?

Life insurance premiums are calculated on "LIFE EXPECTANCY"; it would make no sense to calculate it on anything else.

What are you suggesting insurance companies are using to calculate premiums, realitycheck?
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

ivam
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:08 am

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby ivam » 4 years 11 months ago (Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:22 am)

easy to say that during the national socialist era death rate for jews by natural causes AND reduce of birthrates ramped up mortality to 2 maybe even 3 or 4 %

and if we would take the 2% of the world jew population at the time (since this figure is used to establish the myth of 6 million missing) which i think wouldnt be far from the truth but thats just my opinion, we would arrive at 320.000 deaths per year without sufficent births or converts to fill that gap, after the roughly 13 years of nation socialist rule, we should see a net loss of 4.160.000 jews world wide so, just about the exact figure ( that supposedly has gone "missing" if we take into account the revised auschwitz figure which technicaly doesnt even include the additional deaths from the typhus outbreak.

its just a roughl play through but iam sure it could be of significance, properly calculated through with actual mortality rates from the time it would offer another easy answer to the "where did they go question"

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby borjastick » 4 years 11 months ago (Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:53 am)

In the search for death rates among the general population of jews it is worth considering or comparing the overall population of Germany before, after and during the war. I thought this would be a simple matter of record but once again finding the truth in the fog of war isn't so easy...

In one piece of data the figure for German population in 1939 is quoted at 80,600,000. That's 80.6m.

However another figure quoted on an alternative web site is 1939 - 69.6m and in 1945 - 69.6m. Which shows that over the entire period the German population remained the same. This allowed for births, deaths, warfare and movement. Interesting that the world jewish figures showed a flat line total pre and post war too.

But that's not the real story at all as I have found out. You see some figures quote the greater Germany including Austria, Sudetenland.

The population appears to have risen to a high in '42 to about 72m.

Here's a quote from one poster on one site;

When you are considering the population of Germany in 1939 there are two ways to think. It all depends on the key words. In history, there are two ways to consider the population of Germany. One way to think about it is by historical borders. If that is what you want to know then the population of Germany in 1939 was quoted at both 79.8 million and 87.1 million. The reason there are two numbers is because of the split between east and west Germany. At that time east Germany had a population of 16.7 million and west Germany had 43 million. The other way to think about it is the population with in the borders of 1871. If that is what you want to know then the answer is 69.5 million.


You'll see that the numbers don't quite make sense as 43 + 16.7 = 59.7m... However we get the point.

Someone here with a bigger brain than mine (Kingfisher) who is also good with figures and data will be able to extrapolate an answer here in terms of death rates and then make an assumption on the jewish death toll among the general population.

I would be interested in any comments or conclusions from other posters.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
realitycheck
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:22 am

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby realitycheck » 4 years 11 months ago (Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:15 am)

m-av99-1-04.pdf
(5.13 MiB) Downloaded 75 times
Steve F wrote:realitycheck said:

"Put simply, they take a population of 100,000 and to see how many are expected to survive to the next year (in other word, how many will die during each year)"

This sentence is void of meaning

""Life Expectancy" figures aren't used by them as such"

Of course they are; what else could they possibly use?

"The tables start at birth with the 100,000 population and show the number surviving until age 1, 2, 3 etc. The published tables are raw data for given populations and sub-groups"

That's how it's always been done; there is no other possible way to figure life expectancy.

"It is by using this data that life insurance premiums are calculated"

What are you suggesting "this data" represents, if it doesn't represent life expectancy?

Life insurance premiums are calculated on "LIFE EXPECTANCY"; it would make no sense to calculate it on anything else.

What are you suggesting insurance companies are using to calculate premiums, realitycheck?



I am afraid that Life Insurance premiums are definitely not calculated on "Life Expectancy" - See http://thismatter.com/money/insurance/t ... emiums.htm to see that they are in fact based on mortality tables/life tables. If you want further information on the Actuarial Calculation basis see:
m-av99-1-04.pdf
(5.13 MiB) Downloaded 75 times


As you will see, they are based on the rate of mortality, that is the number that die in each year.
It is human nature to question things. To make that illegal is to deny us of humanity.

User avatar
realitycheck
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:22 am

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby realitycheck » 4 years 11 months ago (Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:28 am)

Steve F wrote:realitycheck said:


"It is by using this data that life insurance premiums are calculated"

What are you suggesting "this data" represents, if it doesn't represent life expectancy?


This data represents exactly what it says - It shows the number of people that are still alive after 1 year, 2 years....... Most importantly, it therefore shows the mortality rate - which is of prime importance to Life Insurance companies which have to pay out when each insured person actually dies. The pay out is not made when they were "expected" to die. "Life Expectancy" is a by-product of life tables used by Governments and the public to gauge the overall health and wellbeing of a population.
It is human nature to question things. To make that illegal is to deny us of humanity.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby Dresden » 4 years 11 months ago (Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:52 pm)

realitycheck said:

"I am afraid that Life Insurance premiums are definitely not calculated on "Life Expectancy"

You didn't answer my questions.....you simply repeated yourself.

"See http://thismatter.com/money/insurance/t ... emiums.htm to see that they are in fact based on mortality tables/life tables"

The article you posted a link to is divided into two sections; the first section deals with the "special case" of "Yearly Renewable Term" life insurance, where the premium is calculated on the odds of the person living out the year.
But even this type of insurance is based on "life expectancy".

From the article:

"As you can see, the premiums rise steeply in the later ages. This is why the premium increases each year that the policy is renewed"

Exactly!.....that's because the life expectancy DECREASES in the later ages.

and especially this:

"Why bother classifying people as men or women, or as smokers and nonsmokers for calculating premiums? Because there is a significant difference in life expectancies for the groups"

That's as crystal clear as it gets; not only from the very article you linked to.....but from the "special" section dealing with "yearly renewable" life insurance.

It's clear that even "yearly renewable" life insurance is calculated on LIFE EXPECTANCY; anything more than this is simply "pun", "quibble", "wordplay", and hairsplitting!
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
realitycheck
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:22 am

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby realitycheck » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:18 am)

Steve F obviously has a much greater experience of Life Insurance than I.

I just thought that with this topic entitled "Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc." it might be more helpful to consider actual life/mortality tables when doing these calculations.

I therefore concede to Steve F's greater knowledge on these matters.
It is human nature to question things. To make that illegal is to deny us of humanity.

User avatar
realitycheck
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:22 am

Re: Jewish natural mortality without any Hitler, WW2, etc.

Postby realitycheck » 4 years 11 months ago (Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:50 am)

Here is a section from the English Life Tables No.12 which is based on the mortality of the male population of England and Wales in the year 1960. The figures are from the Registrar General, and the tables were prepared for the Industrial Life Offices Association.

The 1961 census of the UK showed a total population of 46,196,000 for England and Wales.

The section I have shown is that for the male population only. The female population is shown in a separate table, although the conclusions that I want to illustrate here would be, to all intents and purposes, the same, should they be included.

I am using the England and Wales data for 1960 because it should not be adversely affected by WWII which had concluded some 15 years previous. It also deals with a European population of over 20,000,000 males, and so, shouldn't differ greatly from any other European population of that period. The main reason for using this extract however, is that I still have it to hand, being the tables that I was using when sitting my Actuarial Exams.

To explain the columns, dx shows the number of deaths recorded at the age x. To formulate the table, the Registrar General has started at age 0 and has shown the number of deaths recorded in the year per 100,000 of the population aged less than 1 at the time of death. This value is shown as 2449. The population (lx) for age 1 then becomes; 100,000 – 2449 = 97551 and he records the number of deaths recorded in the year (where age at death was after the first birthday but before the second birthday) per 97551 for d1 and continues in this manner for each successive age. The columns headed px and qx show the probability of surviving or dying within that year – a simple 1-(dx/lx) and dx/lx respectively. These columns are just a small part of the full publication, but show the relevant parts that are required if we wish to make an informed estimate of natural mortality in a large population.

The table can therefore be viewed as a quite accurate cross section of the whole population, showing the relative numbers within that population at each age. Likewise, it also provides an accurate mortality rate across that population. Bear in mind that this is the entire population, and so will include smokers, non-smokers, murders, suicides, hazardous and non-hazardous occupations etc. It won't be affected by WWII, although the mortality rates here would, one would have to conclude, be slightly less than those that would have occurred 15 years earlier – (advances in medicine, better living conditions etc). It can however, be used to show the actual mortality rate experienced for the male population of England and Wales, and from that, an informed estimate of the mortality of any similar population, e.g. the Jewish population in Europe, had there been no Hitler, WWII etc..

English Life Table 12.pdf
(33.15 KiB) Downloaded 71 times


English Life Table 12.jpg


Just by adding all the values of lx we get a “population” of 6,859,878 comprised of; 100,000 still to reach their 1st birthday, 97,551 aged 1 but not yet at their 2nd birthday etc. Remember, the Registrar General has formulated the figures to show deaths for each age as a “per the lx “ value. That’s why the total is not 23,000,000 (the census (male) population). Likewise, if we add all the dx values we get a total of 99,995. This is as it should be, because we started with 100,000 at l0 and at the foot of the table we see 5 still alive for the l105 value, so 100,000 – 5 = 99,995.

So we can say, with a high degree of informed certainty that the male population of England and Wales experienced an overall mortality rate of 99,995/6,859,878 during the year which is 1.46%. If we had used the data for the female population, the result would be the same (to 3 significant figures). An overall mortality rate of 1.46% of the population per year.

I don’t know what the Jewish population was under German authority between 1933 and 1945 – but I would say that, had there been no Hitler, WWII etc, it would have experienced a similar but slightly higher mortality rate than this for the reasons I have already mentioned. If we take a value of 1.5%, then for every 1,000,000 of the Jewish population, they would have experienced around 15,000 deaths each year or 180,000 for the 12 years from 1933 to 1945.
It is human nature to question things. To make that illegal is to deny us of humanity.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 5 guests