Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (109658)	4/16/2005 1:06:36 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793639

John, The rate is the number of deaths per thousand live births. So if you take the deaths/births*1000 you get the rate. So for the gross # we take 4,026,036 births divide by 27,253 deaths multiply by 1000 and get 6.8 (rounded up) For the rest consider that the rate of death for sub 500 gram babies is 855.1 per thousand! So you can see how counting sub-1,000 babies can skew the stats, even a relative few at an 85% death rate will seriously skew the data. So in my analysis I deduct the 29,378 births below 1,000 grams and the 12,624 deaths multiply by 1,000 and get the new rate of 3.7 (rounded up). Births Deaths Rate Overall 4026036 27253 6.77 < 500 grams 6450 5515 855.04 500 - 749 11081 5283 476.76 750 - 1000 11847 1826 154.13 < 1000 29378 12624 429.71 Total above 1,000 3996658 14629 3.66 As for citations - the data is from the CDC. Too many pundits like Krugman (and Limbaugh) look for stats to prove something, but don't really examine the data. As for literature addressing the relative quality of data in this area - I haven't seen much - too many people accept foreign data as gospel and don't have a clue on how to rationalize different systems. Carnell has done the best job to date, but its been politicized. John