QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaJust so that we're on the same page: censoring occurs when you lose track of a study participant due to attrition or the study termination. I think it's not such a big problem here, because all you want to do is compare the mortality rate of a specific group with that of the general population at a certain age.The mortality rate in developed countries starts to incline rapidly at the age of 65. Crudely, at the age of 70 it crosses 20 (per 1000 per year, using the UK population as a proxy), while at the age of 83 it's already ~120.Using very crude approximations based on your numbers (averages, the small sample, ...), the absolute mortality among ~70-year old rockstars would be ~100 (rounding down since January is a particularly deadly month) and among ~80-year old filmmakers it is 170. Hence, there would need to live (or die) 5000 renown rock musicians at the age you specified not to exceed the standard mortality rate and similarly 1500 filmmakers. The employment statistics for the motion picture and the music industries in the UK suggests that they are of a similar size (about 400,000). It seems that rockstars indeed kick the drum/rock their clogs earlier than average, but then again, there's Keith Richards...What seems more surprising to me is that 7 out of 11 guys on the musicians list are British (if I'm not mistaken).BTW, http://theconversation.com/music-to-die ... ancy-36660
("The chart plots genres over time (oldest to youngest genres), showing the average age of death of popular musicians by genre and gender against life expectancy (LE) for US males and females born in the same year.")Thanks for the analysis! So can we conclude that Keith Richard's apparent immortality is the black swan event here?