Talking about aging without mentioning the Gompertz–Makeham law is like talking about physics without mentioning the law of conservation of energy, impossible to take seriously.
I often talk about physics without talking about the law of conservation of energy. My guess is 99% of physics discussions don’t happen to mention that law, important as it is. This is meant to be an informal overview, not an introductory textbook on longevity.
One example where you make factually false statements:
health declines exponentially in old age.
No, it does not. The rate of decline is exponential. The heath decline rate is an exponent of that.
Again this is clearly meant to be a non-technical overview. The intent is clearly the informal meaning of exponential, i.e. getting faster with time, not the technical meaning of c^x.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me you’ve reacted negatively to this post for some reason, and are justifying it with what are clearly not particularly strong reasons. I think it’s worth analysing why that is.
I often talk about physics without talking about the law of conservation of energy. My guess is 99% of physics discussions don’t happen to mention that law, important as it is. This is meant to be an informal overview, not an introductory textbook on longevity.
Again this is clearly meant to be a non-technical overview. The intent is clearly the informal meaning of exponential, i.e. getting faster with time, not the technical meaning of c^x.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me you’ve reacted negatively to this post for some reason, and are justifying it with what are clearly not particularly strong reasons. I think it’s worth analysing why that is.