Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read the thread. It is simply a fact that diffrrent countries use different criteria for determining infant mortality. Therefore comparisons between countries has no value. There simply isn't a fact that you have a better chance of living longer in Switzerland. If you don't count deaths at the low end of the spectrum (infant mortality) you necessarily skew life expectancy.
I assume the OP is suggesting that pregnant woman in the United States should seek care in Cuba. The OP must never have seen a roach infested Cuban medical facility. EEEEEEEW.
Read the thread. It is simply a fact that diffrrent countries use different criteria for determining infant mortality. Therefore comparisons between countries has no value. There simply isn't a fact that you have a better chance of living longer in Switzerland. If you don't count deaths at the low end of the spectrum (infant mortality) you necessarily skew life expectancy.
Given the low rate of infant mortality in the developed world (yep, even in the USA), the extent of it is insufficient to skew average life expectancy across countries in any meaningful way. The same is true for under 5 mortality. The USA is 50% worse than Switzerland for under 5 mortality. That difference is simply too big to be accounted for by statistical error alone.
I assume the OP is suggesting that pregnant woman in the United States should seek care in Cuba. The OP must never have seen a roach infested Cuban medical facility. EEEEEEEW.
Ever been in a rural southern facility? The use the roaches to clean the floors...
Ever been in a rural southern facility? The use the roaches to clean the floors...
No, but none of those rural southern medical facilities ever had Michael Moore tout their superiority to other US medical facilities via a "documentary film".
Actually the American Thinker provided the standard right wing analysis and at the end observed that we probably were not on the top even after correction. A little honesty on the right.
My assessment would be that the numbers are roughly comparable and if you think not you get to do the analysis to show what the answer should be. I believe these statistics have enough detail to be correctable if needed.
It does not happen because those who dislike the present statistics know the answer is not the one desired.
You assessment is worth exactly nothing, it is based on exactly nothing.
Who said we were on top? No one knows where we rank. This study comes closest to providing a sensible analysis.
"international comparisons are often criticized on measurement grounds. The IMR is a very crude measure, capturing both too much and too little. When all deaths up to 1 year of age are combined, some critics argue that the measure captures too many different problems and further disaggregation is appropriate. However, infant mortality statistics also leave out some vital information, such as ignoring fetal deaths before birth, that may distort the picture in another way. This debate over which of several measures to use illustrates the complexity of factors surrounding infant mortality.
In addition, measurement problems arise in international comparisons because the data are not consistently gathered or reported. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has a formal definition of what should be included in the infant mortality statistics, anecdotal evidence suggests that countries do not use consistent practices in measuring these data (Haub and Yanagi****a, 1991; Hartford, 1992).
Whatever the reason for these measurement differences, they can bias the resulting international rankings and comparisons. Thus, international data need to be viewed with caution, recognizing that at least some of the differences may be statistical artifacts."
I understand no amount of data will satisfy those who desperately want to believe the US is horrible. But the facts are the facts.
Given the low rate of infant mortality in the developed world (yep, even in the USA), the extent of it is insufficient to skew average life expectancy across countries in any meaningful way. The same is true for under 5 mortality. The USA is 50% worse than Switzerland for under 5 mortality. That difference is simply too big to be accounted for by statistical error alone.
It's easy to have a low infant mortality rate when you don't count still births and low birth rate babies. It isn't statistical error. It is difference in data collection.
Results. Countries with the lowest infant mortality rates tended to have the lowest incidence of births <500 g (correlation coefficient, r = 0.73) and of births 500–999 g (correlation coefficient, r = 0.81). When white and black newborns in the US were reported separately, the correlation coefficients were 0.96 and 0.97 for these weights. Furthermore, the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates registered the fewest number of deaths in the first 24 hours after birth, correlation coefficient, r = 0.78; when white and black newborns were reported separately, r = 0.95. In addition, the International rankings of the US, 1969–1988, when correlated with the annual birth rate of white infants <500 g registered in this country was r = 0.78.
Conclusion. Differences in birth registration practices for infants weighing <1500 g are primarity responsible for the poor, deteriorating performance by the US in the International rankings of neonatal mortality rates.
It's easy to have a low infant mortality rate when you don't count still births and low birth rate babies. It isn't statistical error. It is difference in data collection.
Read my post. I am not talking about infant mortality but about average life expectancy and under 5 mortality. I am willing to concede differences in data collection for infant mortality but the USA doesn't do too well in the other areas either.
Maybe it has something to do with the large number of drug addicted women in the US who give birth to children and then leave the children alone for hours on end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
