[Spridgets] California Ammunition Restrictions

Robert Evans b-evans at earthlink.net
Sat Sep 26 17:42:52 MDT 2009


Larry Daniels wrote:  " I noticed that you failed to mention that the U.S.
ranks 29th in infant mortality rates -- a major factor in ranking a
countries health."

I apologize, Larry, for I did not mean to sucker you in and then blind-side
you with *reality*.  I did not address the issue of infant mortality simply
because there is no *reliable* data when nations, the U.N.  AND the World
Health Organization use different and inconsistent standards to define
"infant mortality" and "live births".

The greatest problem is that people want something dumb-simple when it comes
to statistics.  They do not want to read the methodology or footnotes in
order to understand what is being presented.  Generally, they simply latch
on to a number that conveniently supports their position.

The difficulty is that there is no *reliable* data when nations use
different standards to define "infant mortality" and "live births".  France
simply uses the term "alive and viable", the Netherlands forbids
resuscitation of babies born prior to 25 weeks, and the UK does not count
any baby born prior to 24 weeks that dies whether they are initially
breathing and showing signs of life or not.  In Russia, a baby must be more
than 1,000 g, 28 weeks, 35 cm.  The U.S. criteria is that a live birth is
any baby born showing *any* signs of life.   It is therefore impossible to
come up with any realistic or reliable  "list" when it comes to infant
mortality.  Oh, the WHO has sought to establish four criteria on countries,
but admit it cannot be done with any reliability.  Carrying it further,
typically the findings of one of four agencies are used:  U.N., WHO, CIA and
national statistical organizations.  In comparing the four, they all have
different rankings.  Which of these is correct?

By some criteria my wife and I have no twins, for they would not have been
declared a live birth.

Larry Daniels wrote:  "Also note that a countries health ranking takes in
all health conditions not just mortality rates.  Just because a lot of
people are alive doesn't mean they are in good health..The last time the WHO
ranked the worlds health systems, we were at a solid 37th.  Statistically
speaking, of course.  ;-))

Oh, that hilariously outdated (2000) and ridiculous WHO report that
supposedly found the U.S. was behind even Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica?
Oops, you forgot to mention that, "The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no
longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the
task."  You could have just as well used the 2009 CIA World Factbook that
estimates the U.S. is 50th out of 224 nations in life expectancy.

There are two issues here.  Even the WHO admits it is an impossible task,
"The first challenge is lack of reliable data on mortality and morbidity,"
it wrote, "especially from low income countries. Other issues include lack
of *comparability of self reported data* from health interviews and the
measurement of health-state preferences for such self-reporting."  Now, even
the WHO uses "life expectancy" as its guideline.  Interestingly, the
just-released WHO "World Health Statistics 2009" does not even attempt a
ranking by country.

That, unfortunately, is the second complicating issue.  The WHO, U.N. and
even CIA use simple "life expectancy" as a measure.  However, there is a
vast  difference between "natural" and "unnatural" deaths in comparing life
expectancy.

When using simple life expectancy, many factors unique to America and
*totally unrelated to health care* are injected into the discussion that
skew the data.  The United States, rightly or wrongly, leads the world in
homicides and vehicular deaths.  These deaths usually take place in the 20's
and 30's, thus skewing the data even further.

In any discussion of health care and life expectancy, only "natural" deaths
can be legitimately considered.  In terms of "natural" deaths, like it or
not, America leads the world at 76.9 years.


More information about the Spridgets mailing list