Oh look what popped up today!
Further validation of Mr. Meurant’s ridicule of ARBIRTARY age limits, try this:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/120822283/no-one-is-immune-broadcaster-sela-alos-stark-virus-warning-to-pasifika-maori

And as for ARBIRTARY prohibition from job applications? Even the police now accept recruits with convictions – including dishonesty wraps!

So applying an arbitrary age limit to health – is facile.
Apply a health test! That makes more sense.

Just as an arbitrary, “No Job if a Conviction” , is unrealistic- denying thousands of young people who made a mistake, opportunity.

Certainly; apply a ‘severity test’ for example as parliament does. One can be an MP with a conviction provided the penalty for the crime is les than 3 years imprisonment.

Employing people with sex convictions, as teachers- not a good idea, But a conviction for disorderly behaviour or even one off dangerous driving or one off drink drive, is hardly relevant to suitability for most employment.

Bush and Meurant are the evidence of that.

Arbitrary limits suggests to me; ill informed or lazy policy makers. Take the simplistic option’; get the papers signed off and collect the “committee” allowances on the rush to catch the bus.

Poor comparison, there is more to the recommendation than can be ascertained by apparent “better health”. An appearance of health does not alter the data on how the immune system changes with advancing years.
Call it arbitrary if you want to, but it’s based on the data.