Dear Dr. Temple,

Having just downloaded your e-mail before going to bed and now looking at it
in the cool light of morning, and speaking as a biologist, I think you make
some useful and probably valid points. We need to explore these ideas. Just
a few comments:

1) Perhaps I uncritically accepted David Coleman's *demographers* view that
...."older population structure *for ever*".
2) We should expect a  global rise in infectious diseases through the
connection between increasing population density (itself a function of
population size) - and infection rate and because of increased international
migration (partly through globalisation of business but also because of
increased within- and between- nation migration caused by increased
environmental destruction and political instability -both functions of
population growth).
However, I wonder why you single out middle aged people ("I expect we will
see an increase in middle aged deaths from infectious diseases") . Are not
old people  more vulnerable to infectious diseases? And are not the very
young the most vulnerable of all age groups?
3) I am glad you mentioned Gaia (although without specifically naming the
Gaia hypothesis). Planetary self-regulation.  But here the awkward question
is whether or not we have introduced positive feed-back loops which will
push things too far - presumably  there are statisticians working on the
quantitative side of this.

And now for a question from me. There has been discussion in the media about
the possibility that immigration into the UK is/may in future cause a rise
in AIDS/HIV and tuberculosis. This is another debate overshadowed like most
debates, by 'political correctness'. Can anyone point me to any serious
statisitical analysis of this issue?
Of course, if there is any reason to doubt the objectivity of Government
sources (if it was not so serious I would find it amusing that no one seems
interested in my evidence of lack of objectivity in one Home Office
publication), one must be very careful of accepting evidence from Government
sources. Concerns over the census come in here.
But this in turn raises the more general point: how can anyone, who, not
withstanding a general knowledge of statistical procedures and limitations,
has not had a thorough training in statisitical method, actually ever with
complete confidence appraise any statistically based report?

Finally,
I still would like to here peoples views on the two basic points I raised in
my e-mail of the 8th of this month, which I now summarise. I cannot believe
that nobody else is concerned about these matters.

(i) I think that to give out Census results  to the last individual, bearing
in mid all the uncertainties about the census that have been raised is
rediculous. What do other members think? If they agree with me, is it
permissible on this discussion list to request people to take action? If so
may I request others to ask ONS to stop giving out results to the individual
level, and instead  speak of  "about x.y million" and use the word
'estimate' ?

(ii) Why, bearing in mid the  relatively long continued rise in net inward
migration, should projections give a levelling off  after a few years (I
write in terms of the pre-census estimates and analyses)? What are the
reasons for this approach?

Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Barker


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr Mark Temple" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: doubts about use of statistical procedures and presentation of
results


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <[log in to unmask]>, on Tue, 11
> Feb 2003, John Barker <[log in to unmask]> writes inter
> alia,
> >
> >(iii) The high 'potential support ratio' ( ratio of number of people in
the
> >working age groups to people who are 65 or over) experienced in the UK in
> >the last century is a temporary blip only in the long term demographic
scene
> >( just a feature of the latter half of what is termed the "demographic
> >transition" from an agricultural society with high mortality and
fertility
> >to an industrial society with low fertility and mortality). This can
never
> >return.  Globally, as Coleman says (General Population Conference
mentioned
> >earlier) "longer lives and fewer babies will eventually give all mankind
an
> >older population structure, forever"
> >
> In the interests of letting others join in this debate may I point out
> that one of the features of the last century that had a persistent
> effect on the population was the events that were triggered by an
> assassination in Sarajevo. This removed a very large proportion of young
> males from the population and the resulting growth in young populations,
> persisted throughout the century.
>
> I question your comment "This can never return" perhaps it may sooner
> than we hope (next month?).
>
> May I also point out that life span has fallen in Russia recently.
> Mortality rates may rise with the rapid spread of HIV/Aids, which
> selects out young people. This means that soon we may well be back to a
> pre-shift population unless there is a radical change in younger adults
> behaviour.
>
> Why do I say this, well the retrovirals do not achieve cure, they reduce
> speed of progression. So life span is extended (but still shortened as
> resistance emerges in due course).
>
> I expect we will see an increase in middle aged deaths from infectious
> diseases within the next 30 years. This will result in a reduction in
> OAPs in about 50 years. So perhaps the demographic time bomb is actually
> the blip, the natural state of human society is to have lots of young
> people supporting older people, and following safe childhood, Gaia is
> asserting her power by killing the adults instead.
>
> I have not seen any discussion of the effects of viral or resistant
> bacterial disease on the funding of social provision in developed(?)
> countries, but that may be because I was looking in the wrong place. Can
> anyone point me to such a discussion?
> Perhaps we should discuss this, as changes in behaviour would prevent
> disease, improve treatment and in the long term save money, but of
> course that would be politically hard to sell as it would require people
> to give up libertarian freedoms and require conforming to prescribed
> norms.......
>
> Just some rambling thoughts on political correctness in radical
> statistical mode.
> - --
> Mark Temple
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5
>
> iQA/AwUBPkq4hdNGNPOGsYShEQJxQQCgqYakl70mSgwv0WGUXQyoHVYy/7gAoO8V
> bGavMU9OqWvsTuKsqd8mcA82
> =6AHS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************
>

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************