UKC

NEWS: Older climbers three times as likely to die on Everest

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Michael Ryan 15 Aug 2007
"For the retired businessman bored with zero gravity flights, heli-skiing, flying ex-military Russian Mig fighter jets and swimming with sharks, climbing Everest can be the perfect next date on the adventure calendar."

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
 David Bowler 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Read more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6944821.stm
 JLS 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

They were old and would have died anyway.
 Nic 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Pope declares "I am a Catholic" shock...

...next up, bears - do they really do their business in the woods?
 Alex1 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Is this article meant to be saying there are a worrying number of people dying on everest due to climbing it when 'too old' or just saying that 60s year olds have a worse chance than younger climbers...
 Al Evans 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Oh my god, I can remember when White Slabs Bunt was hard and people were impressed when I did it, now its being used by girlies as training
 Al Evans 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Al Evans: Sorry that the news letter next to the subject one.
 Al Evans 15 Aug 2007
In reply to necromancer85: When Bonington did Everest in his late 50's as I remember, wasn't he the oldest to have done it to that date?
 Burns 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

No news is good news.
hugedyno 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

What a load of bollox! I bet there's loads of Nepalese octagenarians who could run up the bugger in sandals, whilst carrying a small Yak in a burgen!

HD.
 Al Evans 15 Aug 2007
In reply to hugedyno: True!
 Mystery Toad 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The title of the piece and where it appeared (the Guardian "Science" section) are misleading don't you think?
I mean Bonnington aint no spring chicken.
If older climbers are dying in greater numbers it's because greater numbers of people who never should have attempted the mountain in the first place are doing so.
Witkacy 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

If 85 people over 60 have attempted Everest and 4 of those died, there is nowhere near enough statistical power to make generalisations like “those over 60 are three times as likely to die”. Also, there aren’t enough data to conclude that “despite the increased risks . . . they could be managed” – i.e. if you pay Dr Grocott enough you’ll be safe.
 Tom Briggs 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Witkacy:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> If 85 people over 60 have attempted Everest and 4 of those died, there is nowhere near enough statistical power to make generalisations like “those over 60 are three times as likely to die”.

Er, I believe that's what I told Mr Randerson. Terrible article. Sigh.

Witkacy 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

> Terrible article.

Couldn't even get your name right. I wonder if he read the original report or just quoted the soundbites that appear with almost identical wording in other media sources.

 Paz 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

> Terrible article. Sigh.

But still, 1 in 20 versus 1 in 60. I wouldn't play Russian roulette at either of those odds so what do people tell
themselves? Do they do what I do in normal climbing and put down the deaths to other people's inexperience compared to me or weather/conditions or their use of guiding agencies less scrupulous than Jagged Globe??
 cas smerdon 15 Aug 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Since you can prove anything with statistics why not just say older people are 3 times as likely to die. In fact I'm sure the odds on older people dying must be much higher than this. Surely older people are more than 3 times as likely to die in their own homes so perhaps they would be safer on Everest?
Witkacy 16 Aug 2007
In reply to Paz:

> But still, 1 in 20 versus 1 in 60. I wouldn't play Russian roulette at either of those odds so what do people tell
> themselves?

We can ignore the 1 in 20 as it’s based on only 4 deaths. But faced with a 1 in 60 death risk? Perhaps they tell themselves it’s a one-off risk so is acceptable for the experience. But it’s nearly twice the lifetime risk of dying in a car accident, and to me they’re unacceptably bleak odds, especially since for most people it’s basically an expensive, exhausting plod in dicey conditions. Nor would I feel comfortable marketing it to frustrated middle-aged businesspeople.

Rosie A 16 Aug 2007
In reply to cas smerdon:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Since you can prove anything with statistics why not just say older people are 3 times as likely to die. In fact I'm sure the odds on older people dying must be much higher than this. Surely older people are more than 3 times as likely to die in their own homes so perhaps they would be safer on Everest?

HA! Brilliant! x


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...