Posted by Jock on September 07, 2006 at 00:01:09 from 87.105.81.146 user Jock.
In Reply to: Re: Bob & his history posted by Adam Quinan on September 06, 2006 at 22:52:50:
Right class. Today we do demographics.
Adam tells us the UK population was 44 million in 1921.
We will try to see whether 700,000 military deaths
could have made a visible impact on males aged 20-30.
Male population roughly 22 million,
Say 20% below 20; 15% above 50
Gives us 65% in age range 20 - 50
That is 14 million.
Assume half lived outside towns
and cities = 7 million.
Prue was interested in the cohort
who were 30 - 40 in 1930, i.e.
20-30 in 1920. = 7/3 = 2.3 million
Military deaths (killed in action) 700,000
Double this to cover those dying from their wounds, say 1.5 million.
Assume more people with "reserved occupations" lived in towns.
Say 1 million war deaths took place in the group living in the country.
Assume that 3/4 of these deaths took place in the cohort who would have
been 20-30 in 1920, so we have 0.75 million of these males missing.
We expected to have 2.3 million.
So in the countryside in 1930 every third man aged 30-40 is missing.
Suppose my guestimates have combined to cause a cumulative error,
it's unlikely to be greater than 100%. That would still take out every
sixth man.
And I haven't even begun to take the flu epedemic into account.
I think Prue has a point.