It's not really simple. Have a look at Mike Martin's comment on the Economist site, comparing Oz & US data. There's something odd about the proportion of premature births in the US, relative to Oz.
cb
· 2 years ago
The Economist did not get to the real meat of that article and grossly, very grossly misrepresents its argument. Presumably, the periodical was politically motivated. Total BS.
...and the fact that Slate failed to read the original. Come now!
speedmaster
· 2 years ago
Good points, I've read that before.
It's a bit like comparing the fielding % of two shortstops. SS A might have a much better fielding % than SS B. But B might be faster and getting to many more balls that turn out to be errors. Balls that SS A never even got close to.
Ray G
· 2 years ago
Thomas Sowell addresses this very well in several ways in articles and books. Probably the most complete is his "Vision of the Anointed."
M. Hodak
· 2 years ago
I remember overhearing a conversation years ago when these comparative infant mortality statistics began getting publicized over 10 years ago. The men were standing just behind me. They sounded like medical professionals.
Here is what the one doctor said: "These statistics will end up killing babies in the U.S. They say that Americans have higher infant mortality than that of most European countries. They blame it on the lack of socialized medicine here. I looked at the statistics, and you know what I found? That people of German descent here have lower infant mortality rates than Germans in Germany. Italian-Americans have lower infant mortality than Italians in Italy. Even Swedish-Americans born here have a lower mortality that Swedes in Sweden! (Apparently, Sweden had an unusually low IM rate.) African-Americans have a way lower infant mortality than Africans children in Africa. With data I could find, there were few exceptions: most demographics in the U.S. had a lower infant mortality than their counterpart in their home country."
So, why did U.S. infant mortality look lower overall than many European countries? He explained:
"Its the demographic mix. Blacks in general, for some reason, have much higher infant mortality than whites or Asians. That appears to be true in most countries, but the U.S. has a higher percentage of blacks than most countries outside of Africa."
His conclusion was stark.
"The people waving these overall statistics around are pushing an agenda of socialized medicine. If we accept their solution to this 'problem,' we'll end up with the same, second-rate medical systems of those other countries that, group-for-group, have higher infant mortalities than we do."
I turned around and asked them who they were. They were both professors at the University of Pennsylvania medical school. I don't know if the newer numbers control for that now.
colson
· 2 years ago
Popular Science had an article on statistics in the latest issue. It's a tad short but points to many of the things that have been discussed in the last two comment threads on stats
Paul
· 2 years ago
One thing to remember when comparing infant mortality rates is that the US is the only country which adheres to OECD criteria for reporting. In some countries, any birth where the infant is <30cm in length is considered a stillbirth and hence not counted. Canada counts births to Canadians in other countries (such as the US), but not births to non-Canadians in Canadian hospitals. So these stats wind up comapring apples to oranges, with the odd grapefruit thrown in for good measure.
There are some good reasons to criticize the US system of health insurance, but citing infant mortality is akin to using McDonald's as an excuse for government control of food distribution.
All Comments
It's not really simple. Have a look at Mike Martin's comment on the Economist site, comparing Oz & US data. There's something odd about the proportion of premature births in the US, relative to Oz.
The Economist did not get to the real meat of that article and grossly, very grossly misrepresents its argument. Presumably, the periodical was politically motivated. Total BS.
The link is: http://www.slate.com/id/2161899/fr/flyout</p>
...and the fact that Slate failed to read the original. Come now!
Good points, I've read that before.
It's a bit like comparing the fielding % of two shortstops. SS A might have a much better fielding % than SS B. But B might be faster and getting to many more balls that turn out to be errors. Balls that SS A never even got close to.
Thomas Sowell addresses this very well in several ways in articles and books. Probably the most complete is his "Vision of the Anointed."
I remember overhearing a conversation years ago when these comparative infant mortality statistics began getting publicized over 10 years ago. The men were standing just behind me. They sounded like medical professionals.
Here is what the one doctor said: "These statistics will end up killing babies in the U.S. They say that Americans have higher infant mortality than that of most European countries. They blame it on the lack of socialized medicine here. I looked at the statistics, and you know what I found? That people of German descent here have lower infant mortality rates than Germans in Germany. Italian-Americans have lower infant mortality than Italians in Italy. Even Swedish-Americans born here have a lower mortality that Swedes in Sweden! (Apparently, Sweden had an unusually low IM rate.) African-Americans have a way lower infant mortality than Africans children in Africa. With data I could find, there were few exceptions: most demographics in the U.S. had a lower infant mortality than their counterpart in their home country."
So, why did U.S. infant mortality look lower overall than many European countries? He explained:
"Its the demographic mix. Blacks in general, for some reason, have much higher infant mortality than whites or Asians. That appears to be true in most countries, but the U.S. has a higher percentage of blacks than most countries outside of Africa."
His conclusion was stark.
"The people waving these overall statistics around are pushing an agenda of socialized medicine. If we accept their solution to this 'problem,' we'll end up with the same, second-rate medical systems of those other countries that, group-for-group, have higher infant mortalities than we do."
I turned around and asked them who they were. They were both professors at the University of Pennsylvania medical school. I don't know if the newer numbers control for that now.
Popular Science had an article on statistics in the latest issue. It's a tad short but points to many of the things that have been discussed in the last two comment threads on stats
One thing to remember when comparing infant mortality rates is that the US is the only country which adheres to OECD criteria for reporting. In some countries, any birth where the infant is <30cm in length is considered a stillbirth and hence not counted. Canada counts births to Canadians in other countries (such as the US), but not births to non-Canadians in Canadian hospitals. So these stats wind up comapring apples to oranges, with the odd grapefruit thrown in for good measure.
There are some good reasons to criticize the US system of health insurance, but citing infant mortality is akin to using McDonald's as an excuse for government control of food distribution.