binary solo said:
That's 13 year old data. And it seems to have some oddities, how come Aussie LE goes down? Does that mean it's ll the oldies having car accidents and criminal violence? I can see LE going up for many countries when being controlled for fatal injuries but how does Japan drop by over 2 years? "standardised" means there's been a bit of statistical data manipulation and you'd have to understand the manner and reason for manipulation to know whether those manipulations have created artifacts. I'm no statistician so I can drill down into the maths to know what's going on there. But seeing Japan drop by 2 years when taking our fatal injuries looks counter intuitive. It's also a progression since 1980, so there's no indication of whether countries have started lower than the USA then overtaken, but averaged out to the same / less. The data I'm referring to is the LE in 2009 But note I also mention infant / young child mortality and adult mortality (under 55) also being higher in the US compared to other countries. Adult mortality for each country is also split male/female (male always higher mortality) so this controls for the generally more violent and more accident prone men. The adult female mortality is higher in the USA. So across all 4 measures of mortality: LE, IM, AM (FM / MM) the USA comes out worse than all the countries with some level of UHC. If nothing else it means the huge expense that's happening in the USA on healthcare doesn't seem to be leading to the US keeping pace with comparable countries. |
I am a bit of a statitician having run a few expierments in my time. So i can explain it eaisly... (I actually did with the parenthesis but i guess i wasn't clear enough.) Japan drops so much because Japan has very few car accidents and violent crimes.
They are standardizing the amount of accidents and violent crimes among nations so that they are "even" taken it out of the equation. Countries who's life expectancy drops, are countrys that are way below the average accident/violent crime incident rates.
Japan's life expectency drops 2 years because their accidents and violence rate are increased to match that of an average country via statitical regression. No one really drives, and no one really is trying to kill other people. Compare that to the US where almost everybody HAS to drive, and has a violent crime problem higher then regular, espiecally among young gangs and well.... the results are obvious.
And no... female mortality rate doesn't control for violence and accidents. I can't imagine why you think it would... espiecally since violent crimes and accidents among women are increasing as time goes on... and there are gaps between violent crimes and accidents between different countries women... but like you said... you aren't a statician.
I mean even before, whenit was more diverse... it's worth pointing out, Men may be more likely to commit violent crimes, but that doesn't mean a woman isn't going to be on the other end of it.
There really isn't much difference from that data and the data your refrencing though.,
Outside the data I refrenced actually controlling for some nonhealthcare factors.
No offense, but your data is just horribly misused due to general ignorance of the issues and factors related behind such numbers.
Lets take Infant mortality. There are several factors uncontrolled for in Infant mortality numbers. Lets start with 2 basic ones.
A) What the country considers infant mortality. Many countries don't count an infant death as infant mortality unless they were born within specific parameters.
B) Teen Pregnancy. One of the biggest causes of premature birth and low infant weight, the largest cause of IM happens to be teen pregnancy. Using IM rate as an indicator is ridiculious unless you standardize for teen pregnancy rates... much like how the above standardized for violent crime and car accident rates.
To give you an idea about just how big a gap in teen pregnancy there is...
Teen Pregnancies in the US are > 10% of births in this country.
I mean, how could you remotely consider infant mortality worth comparing without controlling for those factors... or premature births in general, smoking/drinking during pregnancy, STDS and a huge host of other factors related to infant mortality?
Not to pile on with the statistial facts.... but..
"Teenage mothers are more likely to have preterm, low-birth-weight babies. The mortality rate for infants born to US teenage mothers is 1.5 to 3.5 times as high as the rate for infants born to mothers ages twenty-five to twenty-nine.[12] The US rate of births for teenage mothers is very high—2.8 times that of Canada and 7.0 times that of Sweden and Japan. If the United States had the same birth weights as Canada, its infant mortality rate—adjusting for this variable alone—would be slightly lower than Canada’s (5.4 versus 5.5 per one thousand births).[13]
Turning to gestational age, MacDorman and Mathews calculate that if the United States had the same distribution of gestational ages as Sweden, its recorded infant mortality rate would drop by 33 percent, tying it with France as the fifth lowest rate out of twenty-one developed countries."
(Note Gestational age means how old the fetus is when born, so in otherwords, when controlling for premature birth.)
More and more i get why some people are argueing that Algebra and geometry should be replaced in highschool with statistics and critical thinking statistics courses. Even if people didn't get it completely and be unable to do their own analysis with confidence intervals in the like... like is often the case with Algebra and Geometry it would be a LOT harder to fool people with stats... since people would be trained to initally look for confounding variables like people who take statistics classes are.
