Ok, thanks, that does make it easier to follow the argument.
Whatever one’s goals, I’d caution against taking quick micromort estimates literally. E.g. I think the “walking on public roads is bad for you” data only includes your risk of getting hit by a car, and doesn’t include the health benefits of walking, nor that pedestrian deaths are disproportionately at night and the victims are often intoxicated. Daytime walking while sober is overall good for longevity.
David and Mike do not say what is included in the risk of death from walking on public roads in the UK. I guess it does not include health benefits.
The reductions in life expectancy apply to random exposure covered in the estimation of the risk. For example, a random 1 km of walking on public roads in the UK considered in David and Mike’s estimations, which should include walking at night and intoxicated. However, I agree it makes sense to assume a lower risk if one’s exposure avoids the conditions where the risk is concentrated.
Ok, thanks, that does make it easier to follow the argument.
Whatever one’s goals, I’d caution against taking quick micromort estimates literally. E.g. I think the “walking on public roads is bad for you” data only includes your risk of getting hit by a car, and doesn’t include the health benefits of walking, nor that pedestrian deaths are disproportionately at night and the victims are often intoxicated. Daytime walking while sober is overall good for longevity.
Thanks for the good points, Julia.
David and Mike do not say what is included in the risk of death from walking on public roads in the UK. I guess it does not include health benefits.
The reductions in life expectancy apply to random exposure covered in the estimation of the risk. For example, a random 1 km of walking on public roads in the UK considered in David and Mike’s estimations, which should include walking at night and intoxicated. However, I agree it makes sense to assume a lower risk if one’s exposure avoids the conditions where the risk is concentrated.