Re: Lies, damn lies, and DS

On 30 Nov 2008, Mark Jackson said the following in
news:6pglbqF828seU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

J.D. Baldwin wrote:
In the previous article, Mark Jackson <mjackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
How about for once stop trying to cheat and actually compare
apples with apples. A big reason why US infant mortality is so
"high" relative to those paradisical countries you lefties drool
over is that the US makes rather more attempts to save preemies
that your enlightened Euro friends give up for dead, and that
inflates US infant mortality rates.


Uh, what? Are you saying that premature babies in European
countries are not counted as babies born, so they don't show
up in their infant mortality stats? Is that possible??
He's mischaracterizing the issues discussed in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortal
ity_rates

What I read at that link seems perfectly harmonious with the point he
made: births that are counted routinely as stillbirths in, say,
Austria are counted as live births in the U.S., even though roughly
100% of babies of a certain size will die within a few hours, or
maybe days. If you can't figure out how this would skew the
statistics, perhaps you shouldn't go around using tools you don't
comprehend.

If you actually read to the end of the third paragraph (as opposed the
simply accepting what it says up to that point) you will find the
following (footnoted) sentence: "However, all of the countries named
adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s."

Is this incorrect? If so, please provide a reference.


It is a bit late, so I'll beg for forgiveness for any inaccuracies.

I found this UN document on infant mortality:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241563206_eng.pdf

It includes the following definitions:

"The perinatal period commences at 22 completed weeks (154 days) of
gestation and ends seven completed days after birth.

The neonatal period begins with birth and ends 28 complete days after
birth. Neonatal deaths may be subdivided into early neonatal deaths,
occurring during the first seven days of life (0-6 days), and late
neonatal deaths, occurring after the seventh day but before the 28th day
of life (7-27 days)."

There is also this INSTRUCTION from WHO regarding inclusion of data:

"5.7.3 Statistics for international comparison

In statistics for international comparison, inclusion of the extremely
low-birth-weight group disrupts the validity of comparisons and is not
recommended. Countries should arrange registration and reporting
procedures so that the events and the criteria for their inclusion in the
statistics can be easily identified. Less mature fetuses and infants not
corresponding to these criteria (i.e. weighing less than 1000 g) should
be excluded from perinatal statistics unless there are legal or other
valid reasons to the contrary, in which case their inclusion must be
explicitly stated. Where birth weight, gestational age and crown-heel
length are not known, the event should be included in, rather than
excluded from, mortality statistics of the perinatal period."

Taking as fact your suggestion that all of the relevant comparable
countries have adopted the UN/WHO definitions for live birth, the above
would suggest that it is possible that some countries may be classifying
infant deaths as perinatal while the US may be classifying the same
deaths as neonatal.

If there is a disparity between the US and the rest of the OECD in both
perinatal and neonatal deaths [Nationmaster doesn't have perinatal data]
then perhaps there is something to the claim of data manipulation.

Please note that I'm not taking a side on this particular issue. I'm
just trying to shed a little more light and a little less heat.

I do support JD's contention that there are sociological factors that
affect the health results that each country achieves.

The only exception I take is to any comparisons with Cuba. Hard core
socialists are first class liars. When Cuba's heath data can be verified
by an independent organization, then I'll begin believing in the Cuban
miracle.

Until then, all I see is another bulletin from the Ministry of Truth.

--
Regards,
Dann

blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm

Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 2008 Pres
    ... Look at statistics for otherwise similar countries, ... pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, ... States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare!
    ... America has had a comparatively high infant mortality rate since we've ... the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave ... But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: weight
    ... America's low ranking on international comparisons of infant mortality proves other countries' socialist health care systems are better than ours. ... This was the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave welfare schemes and all while the U.S. was the wealthiest country on Earth. ... One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Human population evolving...
    ... due to the unreasonable fear that childhood vaccines are unsafe. ... politically empowered young girls and women in poorer countries. ... Reduction of infant mortality. ... and is a tax haven where wealthy people try to get ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human population evolving...
    ... due to the unreasonable fear that childhood vaccines are unsafe. ... politically empowered young girls and women in poorer countries. ... Reduction of infant mortality. ... and is a tax haven where wealthy people try to get ...
    (talk.origins)