SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: damainman who wrote (68537)9/4/2007 12:21:41 PM
From: KyrosL  Read Replies (1) of 116555
 
OT [edit] I agree that infant mortality definitions vary and the US has probably the most strident definition of what a "live" birth is, although Canada comes pretty close.

However, don't be fooled by the argument that differences in infant mortality measurement affect much life expectancy numbers. That's because even though the differences are great in terms of percentage, they are very small in terms of absolute numbers per thousand, so the effect on overall life expectancy is very small.

Let's do some basic arithmetic.

France reports 3.41 infant deaths per 1000 and 80.59 yr life expectancy.

US reports 6.37 infant deaths per 1000 and 78 yr life expectancy.

Let's be extremely generous to the US and claim that if France counted the same way as the US, it would have 3 extra infant deaths. Therefore, its life expectancy would change from 80.59 years to:

997*80.59/1000 = 80.35 years (three less people make it to 80.59 years old)

So, forcing US and French infant mortalities to be equal only lowers French life expectancy by 0.24 years. They still outlive us by almost two and a half years.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext