<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Coyote Blog &#187; Numbers and Statistics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/category/numbers-and-statistics/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com</link>
	<description>Dispatches from a Small Business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:18:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality?</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/08/why-does-the-us.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/08/why-does-the-us.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Numbers and Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hong Kong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[survival rates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/08/why-does-the-us.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am sure you have seen various rankings where the US falls way behind other western nations in terms of infant mortality. This stat is jumped on by the left as justification for just how cold and heartless America is,...
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sure you have seen various rankings where the US falls way behind other western nations in terms of infant mortality.&nbsp; This stat is jumped on by the left as justification for just how cold and heartless America is, and just how enlightened socialized medicine must be.&nbsp; However, no one seems to bother to check the statistic itself (certainly the media is too incompetent to do so, particularly when it fits their narrative).&nbsp; Statistics like this that are measured across nations are notoriously unreliable, as individual nations may have different definitions or methods for gathering the data.</p>
<p>And, in fact, this turns out to be the case with infant mortality, a fact I first reported <a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/01/more_fun_with_s.html">here</a> (related post on medical definitions driving national statistics <a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/01/uncovering-some.html">here</a>).&nbsp; This week, Mark Perry links to an article further illuminating the issue:</p>
<blockquote><p>The main<br />
factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and<br />
prematurity. The way that these factors are reported â€” and how such<br />
babies are treated statistically â€” tells a different story than what<br />
the numbers reveal.&nbsp; Low<br />
birth weight infants are not counted against the â€œlive birthâ€<br />
statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.</p>
<p><strong>According<br />
to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a<br />
premature baby weighing less than 500 kg is not considered a living<br />
child. </strong><br />But<br />
in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live<br />
births. The mortality rate of such babies â€” <strong>considered â€œunsalvageableâ€<br />
outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive</strong> â€” is extraordinarily<br />
high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews<br />
U.S. infant mortality statistics.Norway<br />
boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when<br />
the main determinant of mortality â€” weight at birth â€” is factored in,<br />
Norway has no better survival rates than the United States&#8230;.</p>
<p>In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth<br />
(take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered<br />
alive.</p>
<p>If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the<br />
first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a â€œmiscarriageâ€ and<br />
does not affect the countryâ€™s reported infant mortality rates&#8230;.</p>
<p>Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since<br />
2000, 42 of the worldâ€™s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g<br />
(0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hmm, so in the US we actually try to save low-birthweight babies rather than label them unsalvageable.&nbsp; Wow, we sure have a cold and heartless system here.&nbsp; [disclosure:&nbsp; My nephew was a very pre-mature, very low-birthweight baby who could have fit in the palm of your hand at birth and survived by the full application of American medical technology.&nbsp; He is doing great today]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/08/why-does-the-us.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

