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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (8508)	8/21/2009 12:28:28 AM
From: Archie Meeties	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

LJ, there is no actual data to support rejecting the CDC's infant mortality numbers. There is some references to different ways to define things in different countries. The author doesn't take the step that is needed, which to factor out those variations and come up with a revised more accurate infant mortality rate. Here's what would happen if they did. From the pajama article. "Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates. According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child." Given the rates of infants born in the US under 500g, this would account for less than 0.1% variance in mortality. IOW, the US infant mortality rate would change from 6.85 to 6.84 if we used the same statistics as Canada, Germany, and Australia and 100% of those born under 500g did not survive. The end result is that we'd still be ranked 29th. Everything else in those articles is just an overlap of this data. Facts brother, Facts! They persist after the noise goes away.