Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
|
First let me say that it is difficult to make comparisons country to country, because of different definitions of various situations. For example, here is an article from a British medical journal, in fact the BMJ, that talks about differences in infant mortality due to different definitions. Now one would think that dead is dead, but some countries, including some European countries, don't count an infant as a "live birth" unless it is of a certain birth weight and/or a certain gestational age, even it shows signs of life after delivery. Most English-speaking countries and some Scandinavian countries use the WHO definition which is "Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born."
Influence of definition based versus pragmatic birth registration on international comparisons of perinatal and infant mortality: population based retrospective study | The BMJ
WHO | Maternal mortality ratio (per 100 000 live births)
Likewise, the so-called "French Paradox", where the French have worse diets but lower heart disease is thought to be at least partly due to differences in coding deaths.
file:///C:/Users/home/Downloads/paper12.pdf
The first link is interesting. It's also 12 years old; don't know if it still holds today. NPR's health reporting is not something to write home about.
The second article stresses the need for more preventive care, and was written just as the ACA was getting going in the US. The ACA does give everyone a "free" (at point of service) physical exam every year.
The next article is a repeat of the second, from the same time frame.
The fourth has some errors. It says that the only "drinks tax" in a large US city was in Chicago, which has repealed it. That is untrue. That particular tax was in all of Cook County Illinois and the Cook County commissioners repealed it. However, there are drinks taxes in the large cities of Philadelphia; Berkeley, CA; San Francisco; Oakland, CA; and Seattle Washington. There are also drink taxes in the smaller cities of Albany, CA and Boulder, Colorado. Portland Oregon will vote on such a tax this coming May.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary...#United_States
The last article was more about poor eating habits of British kids. The American Academy of Pediatrics gives similar advice for American children.
https://www.healthychildren.org/Engl...-Children.aspx