London Marathon Woman dies

I get what speedfreak is trying to say, he's assuming that at least one of the people in that 35k a year group is living their 30,000th day.

But it's completely and utterly wrong in the way he's trying to make that claim.
 
Martini1991 said:
I get what speedfreak is trying to say, he's assuming that at least one of the people in that 35k a year group is living their 30,000th day.
Click to expand...

I get it too, but that's not how statistics work.

It's like saying "If you flip a coin 10 times and it's heads every time, it's more likely that it'll be tails the 11th time".
 
SpeedFreak said:
There were 35000 runners and the average person lives for around 30,000 days therefore on average one runner of the marathon will die on the day they run it (assuming an average demographic)
Click to expand...

Not sure why people are having issues with is. SpeedFreak is right, get 35,000 people together for a day and statistically speaking one is likely to die. The important thing is, as SpeedFreak pointed out, is the demographic. Clearly the marathon runners are not an average demographic - not many over 70, but also none under 16. Very few people die under 16 so that make the marathon cohort more likely to produce a death, however, the under representation at old age makes it less likely to produce a death. With the proviso though, SpeedFreak is right.
 
I think the OP is highly sensible but I don't think he takes the thought far enough, why not ban all sport in case someone, somewhere, has a heart defect they are unaware of? That could save a life.
 
clv101 said:
Not sure why people are having issues with is. SpeedFreak is right, get 35,000 people together for a day and statistically speaking one is likely to die. The important thing is, as SpeedFreak pointed out, is the demographic. Clearly the marathon runners are not an average demographic - not many over 70, but also none under 16. Very few people die under 16 so that make the marathon cohort more likely to produce a death, however, the under representation at old age makes it less likely to produce a death. With the proviso though, SpeedFreak is right.
Click to expand...

What we can conclude from this is both you and SpeedFreak are wrong :)
 
UK Population 62,200,000
UK Deaths per day 2,000

Therefore blanket chance of death per day ignoring circumstances is:

1 : 31,100

Which isn't too far from your statistic, however, once you factor in the majority of deaths are related to old age and most of the runners are in peak physical fitness and relatively young then the chances are lowered. Based on historical stats form the marathon there is a 1 in 3 chance of a runner dying any year. Which based on the number of runs says that there is 1 : 100,000 chance of a runner dying. Which ties in with the above stat once circumstance is applied.
 
MickeyFinns said:
UK Population 62,200,000
UK Deaths per day 2,000

Therefore blanket chance of death per day ignoring circumstances is:

1 : 31,100

Which isn't too far from your statistic, however, once you factor in the majority of deaths are related to old age and most of the runners are in peak physical fitness and relatively young then the chances are lowered. Based on historical stats form the marathon there is a 1 in 3 chance of a runner dying any year. Which based on the number of runs says that there is 1 : 100,000 chance of a runner dying. Which ties in with the above stat once circumstance is applied.
Click to expand...

Thanks MickeyFinns, I was just about the post the UK population numbers myself. :cool:
 
Zefan said:
What you said still isn't right. Saying people on average live for 30,000 days isn't the same as stating that one in 30,000 die each day.
Click to expand...

At least somebody here is willing do discuss the logic, sorry for the OP for slight derailement but you were comparing horses to people.

Zefan, educate me here. I am aware that we are dealing with a demographic that doesn't represent that of the wider population however I feel the basic premise of my point is valid (and I pointed out this flaw in my argument initially).

I have stated that if you took a group 30,000 people that represents the demographic of the populus and the average person lives for 30,000 days then it is hardly surprising that on a given day someone in that group dies. I agree that there are limitations to this argument but you haven't explained why it is inherently incorrect. I'm happy for friendly discussion as stats are not my strong point so appreciate any education.
 
Last edited:
SpeedFreak, By saying life expectancy is roughly 30,000, you then assume that it is equally likely that a person will die on any one of these days.

If that is true, with 35,000 runners, the expected death count I think is actually greater than one, as 35,000>30,000.

1/30000 * 35000 = 1.17

People are having a hard time accepting that death is equally likely death on any day, but I don't think it's actually too much of a stretch. Yes more people die after 15,000 days of life than before, but given the stresses of the race, it isn't too bad an assumption to make if you ask me.

Add in the fact that 35000 is actually a bit bigger than 30000, and I'm starting to think we're quite lucky that only 10 have died in 32 years of the race. Actually, there would have been a lot, lot fewer participants in the earlier days.

The fact that you are a previous OcUK Poker Champion inclines me further to agree with your statistical reasoning.
 
Last edited:
dl8860 said:
By saying life expectancy is roughly 30,000, you then assume that it is equally likely that a person will die on any one of these days.
Click to expand...
No, that's not quite the same as saying that one person will die from a group of 30,000. SpeedFreak is not assuming that the distribution is uniform, but that is is the average.
 
I have nothing to add to this tread, I did do but its already been stated that no one forced a marathon runner into the event.

RIP runner btw :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom