Probably not quite, but I think people often get this calculation wrong. The chances for long-term damage seem to be as high for the young as for anyone (this is not certain, but these costs do not skew in the same way that chance of death does, and quite possibly they are distributed in accord with genetic mutations, not age).
If you are 70 years old, and incur long-term damage costs, that wrecks your life for only say ten or twelve years, on average. You will die or go senile anyway, and pretty soon.
If you are 30 and incur long-term damage costs, it could wreck your life for say fifty additional years, about five times more.
I am not sure how we should weight death costs vs. long-term damage costs, but in expected value terms it seems the latter are much worse for the relatively young, not for the old.