Where did that come from? Are there studies showing that to be true or is it just an arbitrary number? You know how it goes. They're talking on the news about some illness, or air quality or extreme heat or extreme cold or some food additive or overexposure to something or underexposure to something, and the tag line is always "Especially vulnerable are the very young and those over 65". Not 64, not 66, always precisely 65.
Like all those age 65 are the same. Not vulnerable to anything at 64; subject to die from anything a year later. Who decided 65 was the line in the sand past which you become more susceptible to dying just by waking up?
I think I'll stay in bed until someone explains this to me.
5 comments:
Back before we were able to pinpoint those '65 and over,' another phrase was used for some period of time: "Children and the Elderly" were the catch words. I'm not sure if that's a journalistic phrase or a medicalistic (naw)term.
I got an email joke the other day talking about an elderly man----at age 65. I think they need to revamp the old age guidelines.
I never have gotten a flu shot and I never get sick because I am a man. Seriously, I don't think that I've had the dreaded "flu-like symptoms" in 15 years.
Sinus infections and allergy attacks prove that I am mortal though.
I have never gotten a flu shot, but I am not as old as you, so I have 14 years of stress free living. Don't you get senior citizen discounts at age 65 too? Does that make it a wash? (HA).
i guess because social secuirity (usually) starts at 65, that makes you old. I am a regular flu shot recipient. I really don't know if it helps, but I've been extremely lucky. I had to take my wife to the emergency room a few weeks ago because of high blood pressure, took one look at the slew of flu cases shivering in the lobby in blankets, called the cardiologist and told him my wife's going home. he agreed.
Post a Comment