Except that……

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/

The stats have been skewed for some time.

To what degree the WHO standardizations are flexed for the propagandistic joy of various nations’ sales pitches is of much debate. As is the overall effect. But to say there is no effect on the very categorization differences on what constitutes a “live birth” is absurdist.

What is the statisically significant digit we can distill here?

I have no idea. But the author above suggests it might be substantial.

NOBODY can nail down for you what overall effect this has on the core numbers.

How the hell could we, since no one can even agree to what level other nations are not abiding by these lofty alleged WHO numbers and standardizations for counting “live births?”

Not sufficiently acknowledged here is the other fact–which I consider heroic and not a failure(if being on the “Good Side” of the Force is our colletive societal goal here–is that in the US we try our damndest to save EVERY tiny life once born. Not so in other hamlets and in those of socialized medicine across the globe.

NOW, granted:

Even allowing for this, and for what is a very suspect comparison in the first place between what are generally homogenous Euro societies (and a more mixed bag of apples and oranges in the US), of course there’d still be some differences.

And?

Well, to what end are we to take this? For example, other articles have pointed out that in some communities even with TWICE (or more) the health care spending increases for government sponsored clinics, preemie prevention efforts, and similar community outreach programs, some groups are STILL faring worse that their Euro counterparts when the stats regard premature births (and this is also at the heart of much of the cultural reason for infant mortality).

The problems appear to be multiple, societal, cultural, and have probably far more to do with the remains of paternalistic care leftovers from the Great Society’s destruction of minority and inner city family units, supplanting the father figures and other structures with government presence, etc. One could take the ugly and cynical tack–regardless of feelings on the matter overall–that just aborting all less than prime babies upon ultrasound discover of any and all abnormalities and/or if the mother is less than 18 years of age would also improve the stats.

No question it would. But that’s not fairy dust. (in fact, it MIGHT oddly enough be the ideal for some folks), and neither are the stats skewed for b abies less than “X” number of centimeters whose deaths are kept off the official charts.

Happy Kwanzaa. Or Solstace. Or whatever.

> Yes, and quite often they DON’T.

Again (and for the last time), I accept this may be true. Without a specific, critical analysis of a particular study what you’re doing here is blowing hot air. You’re accusing scientists of bad science without offering any evidence of such. Repeating your existing allegation is not necessary, providing specific analysis is. Or you’re just trolling…

> Thus for example longevity in the US would be 1st in the world
> possibly if we had a homogenous society where the mix of
> gunshots from gangbangers don’t get plunked in.

This is another repeat. Longevity in the US would be first in the world possibly if we all had magic fairy dust that protected us from harm. Longevity in the US would be first in the world possibly if we started counting age at birth -9 months. You can claim whatever you wish, sir… but you need to start providing some… you know… evidence. Crunch numbers and show me that your proposal at least has some statistical merit instead of providing unsubstantiated claims. On the face of it, I find this highly implausible given the number of gunshot deaths vs. the overall fatality rate in the U.S., but if you want to take the time to look at the numbers more rigorously to illustrate your point effectively I welcome the analysis. Otherwise you’re complaining that studies don’t have statistical rigor by… failing to provide a statistically rigorous analysis. Pot, meet kettle!

Too sweeping a generalisation Wakefield. For example cancer survival rates for four specific cancers the top 3 nations are the US, France and Japan. Australia and Canada also rank highly. Quite a mix of countries with a mix of socialised and fully private servicing.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

Not that this necessarily has anything at all to do with the capitalism vs. socialism argument that’s popped up, but just thought I’d throw it in there.

Absolutely, and heart ailments hit Americans like no other nation. Bad health care?

Possibly some screenings need to be refined.

What about diet and sedantary lifestyle?

Since fatty meats and richer diets are symptomatic of sumptious living and wealth (gout and related ailments used to be the province of kings and sultans, for example, but not the peasant), it seems a better explanation than:

“we just don’t have a good health care system or support network, etc” is warranted.

No health care system in the world can hold down costs, treat millions successfully, and have fantastic cure rates for diets and lifestyles that stuff the guts with meat and don’t have excercise. Not even a technologicallly advanced one.

It’s the equivalent of saying that the US military is just so lackluster compared to others (!?)

Until you find out we’re head to head with both the Red Chinese and Russians all at once and we wonder why we’re not winning FASTER, compared to the army, of say, a Swiss canton, fighting local tribesmen.

Socialized medicine is fine, for example, in wiping runny noses in the local clinic, but not for getting faster MRIs and open heart surgery waiting lists (of which the US has plenty need, unfortunately)

Yes, and quite often they DON’T.

Numbers are just numbers on some of these tables.

Thus for example longevity in the US would be 1st in the world possibly if we had a homogenous society where the mix of gunshots from gangbangers don’t get plunked in.

Infant mortality stats are made WORSE for the fact that many preemies are placed in the “try and save” category, whereas this is not done accross the board.

It’s like tossing out the chaff (those who, in the judgement of some physicians, will NOT make it) from the wheat (those who probably will).

If this is not accounted for then we have no better stats than the wonderful people’s democracy of……….Malta.

AS the article indicated.