Interesting question, @adancho, I do imagine it is indeed likely WWI had an impact in supercentenarian numbers, we should compare the numbers of supercentenarians born in 1914 and 1915 to those born in earlier years (of course, we would have to wait regarding the 1916 (June-December)-1918 cohorts, as those potential supercentenarians are still "only" 107-109). 🤔 (Tangentially, I have also wondered how the Spanish flu might affect numbers of future supercentenarians born between 1918 and 1920.)

A lot of young men who would have potentially become supercentenarians (or fathered them) died during World War I. To add to that, a large proportion of young men who were born during or just after World War I died in World War II.

So I think that there will be an impact on the amount of male supercentenarians in particular, not so much from Latin America though. I think Latin America will dominate SC rankings a decade or 2 in the future, not just because of advances in research of the region, but also because they weren't as heavily involved in the 2 world wars.

Worth mentioning that WW2 differed somewhat in that 60 to 65% of those that died were civilians - hence that portion of the death toll would be spread more evenly across the sexes and ages.

WW1 civilian deaths were supposedly nearer 35%.

Both wars would impact male supercentenarians; though proportionally one may argue that the impacts of WW1 may be greater.

I took a look at the numbers of LQ-validated (and pending) supercentenarians born in 1914 and 1915, and also those born earlier in the same decade for comparison, and at the moment there are:

• 170 SCs born in 1910 (+59 pending)
• 174 SCs born in 1911 (+52 pending)
• 172 SCs born in 1912 (+47 pending)
• 184 SCs born in 1913 (+59 pending)
• 227 SCs born in 1914 (+73 pending)
• 152 SCs born in 1915 (+53 pending)

I am not sure we can take definitive conclusions from these numbers alone, but it's interesting to see the similar numbers between 1910-1913, then a marked increase in numbers in 1914 and a decrease in 1915 (at least regarding validated SCs, the numbers of those pending for 1915 are quite similar to those of 1910-1913-born SCs). 🤔 

From my own, personal lists, including anonymous SCs without a known DOB or DOD - meaning, undoubtedly there will be a few duplicate entries in there.

1910: 341 SCs

1911: 358 SCs

1912: 335 SCs

1913: 325 SCs

1914: 410 SCs

1915: 291 SCs

1916: 115 SCs so far (latest birth = 25 May 1916)

Remember, the First World War began in early August 1914, so the entirety of 1914 births is not influenced by WWI - a shame, because if 1914 is a precedent, I reckon 1915 and 1916 would have had similar numbers.

Correct - we probably shouldn’t see a dip in 1914 numbers give WW1 didn’t start until H2 of 1914.

By then all 1914 births would either have happened or else be at least 4 months beyond conception.

Makes sense for numbers to tail off from say the second quarter of 1915.

So Marco’s early numbers seem to fit that type

of scenario.