Diss Family History Group

• Home
• Projects
• Lopham Project
• Returns

The Lophams Project

1921 Census & 1939 National Registration
Age Profiles Comparison

North and South Lopham 1921 Census ages in 5 year blocks by percentage compared to 1939 Registration for the same villages.
0 - 4	8.9% (89)
	2.3% (19)
5 - 9	9.7% (97)
	6.4% (53)
10 - 14	10.7% (106)
	5.9% (49)
15 - 19	7.3% (73)
	6.4% (53)
20 - 24	6.7% (67)
	6.5% (54)
25 - 29	5.0% (50)
	6.3% (52)
30 - 34	5.7% (57)
	7.7% (64)
35 - 39	7.3% (73)
	8.6% (71)
40 - 44	5.7% (57)
	6.5% (54)
45 - 49	5.0% (50)
	6.4% (53)
50 - 54	5.7% (57)
	8.1% (67)
55 - 59	5.8% (58)
	6.0% (50)
60 - 64	3.7% (37)
	5.7% (47)
65 - 69	4.1% (41)
	5.5% (46)
70 - 74	3.0% (30)
	5.2% (43)
75 - 79	3.3% (33)
	4.7% (39)
80 - 84	1.6% (16)
	1.1% (9)
85 - 89	0.1% (1)
	0.7% (6)
90 - 94	0.2% (2)
	0 or not available
95 - 99	0 or not available
	0 or not available
Totals entries: 995 : 829
Key: 1911 Census 1939 Registration

Having shown the above information to a statistician he had the following comments to make:

• The relative numbers in the datasets is small, making firm conclusions unreliable.
• In the time between 1921 and 1939, people are living on average about 2 years longer than they were. The slope of the trend lines: the one for the 1939 Registration being less steep shows the increase in life expectancy.
• Some significant data anomalies:
  • The peaks and troughs in the data cannot be seen as significant as the actual numbers in total and by category is statistically small.
• When dealing with populations it is always difficult for comparisons to be made as there are so many social and economical variants that are rapidly changing. Ignoring all of these it is still safe to say that the Lopham population was living longer in 1939 than in 1921.
• Population migration should always be factored in with analysis of this kind. This more appropriate and meaningful analysis would not be possible without major research. As the data stands, potential poor accuracy of Census Returns and it being a quite rural area, an expected error range in the order of ±10% would be an appropriate limitation.

Thank you to George for the statistical information, and I hope my simplified version of it is understandable.

Notes:

• .....