9 ms·

It's good to see tax money spent on such a comforting program. I think it lends to a sense of national pride when policies like this lead to good feelings in th

It's good to see tax money spent on such a comforting program. I think it lends to a sense of national pride when policies like this lead to good feelings in the citizenry. That said, I think articles like this contribute to science illiteracy and innumeracy. A layman could easily come to the conclusion that the baby box caused the drop in infant mortality after reading this article, but infant mortality has been dropping everywhere over the the same time period, regardless of policy.[0] While the article does briefly mention the Finnish government's broader support for new families, like the free health checks early in pregnancy that is actually incentivized by the box, it doesn't include the overarching worldwide, postwar technological and economic trends that have been driving infant mortality down everywhere. The whole piece reads like a very literal endorsement of the nanny state, rather than a celebration of human flourishing that it could have been if written in the proper context of broader trends. Edit: Almost all the replies (and I suspect the downvotes) to my comment are making my point. I wasn't disparaging the box or Finnland's broader policies to combat infant mortality. I'm disparaging the article's failure to paint Finnland's progress in the context of a wider trend of lowering infant mortality AND Finnland's broader efforts to do so. That failure leads to overly simplistic conclusions that contribute to scientific illiteracy and innumeracy, exactly like the conclusions below. Does anyone believe Finnland could provide these services without the broader technological and economic progress? [0]https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

ptah 7y ago
according to that site, Finland's infant mortality has dropped a lot more than US (as control where there is no nannystate)
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  The US has medical & food programs for impoverished families and children. You might have to find a different non-nanny state.
  - ptah 7y ago
    any suggestions?
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    According to the US Department of Agriculture[1] - 6.0 million children lived in food-insecure households in which children, along with adults, were food insecure. - 540,000 children (0.7 percent of the Nation's children) lived in households in which one or more child(sic) experienced very low food security. According to the CDC[2] - 1.6% of women received no [prenatel] care at all. - 15.0% of women received inadequate prenatal care. You may want to use a non-US definition of "nanny state" ... [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_03.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_03.pdf
    - michael_j_ward 7y ago
      It seems like the USDA includes people on federal food assistance programs as being "food insecure. From your first link defining "Low Food Security"[1]: """ These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries. """ Since you seemed to have these ready, do you have these same numbers but for people without access to any (federal / state/ local) food assistance programs? [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        > Since you seemed to have these ready Not at the ready, I found those links in a couple of minutes buy searching for "US children food insecurity" and "US prenatal care". I remembered reading a study that the increase in US infant mortality was related to lack of prenatal care and food insecurity so I just googled those.
wmeredith 7y ago
Do you have evidence to suggest that it isn’t exactly programs like this that responsible for dropping the infant mortality rate worldwide? Your argument is an odd one.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  The evidence is that almost all other countries don't have the boxes while infant mortality dropped nearly everywhere. Your attack is an odd one.
  - knightofmars 7y ago
    Just because infant mortality dropped nearly everywhere doesn't mean that this "baby box" didn't help reduce infant mortality _specifically in Finland_. The infant mortality rate dropped from 7% in 1935 (already extremely low compared with the global rate in 1935) to .02% (much lower than the global rate now).
  - devnonymous 7y ago
    If not for 'programs /like/ this', how else has 'infant mortality dropped nearly everywhere' ?? Just because Finland introduced boxes and other countries didn't does not mean that the Finland's contribution to the overall decrease to infant mortality was not due to boxes. Also, for gp comment -- nanny is a odd way to spell welfare.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      > Just because Finland introduced boxes and other countries didn't does not mean that the Finland's contribution to the overall decrease to infant mortality was not due to boxes. You're arguing against a straw man. The article implies that the boxes are driving the decrease in infant mortality. The OP points out that this is ignoring the global decrease in infant mortality. The OP did not assert that the boxes made no contribution to the decrease in infant mortality. > Also, for gp comment -- nanny is a odd way to spell welfare. I genuinely don't understand your point. "Nanny state" and "welfare state" are synonymous, at least in the U.S.
lr 7y ago
Here are some infant mortality numbers from your link: 1947: Finland: 6.5% US: 4.3% 2013 (when the article was written): Finland: 0.3% US: 0.7% How can the tiny country of Finland be so much better at this than the US? It's because of what they talk about in the article, i.e., a government actually caring for its citizens (read, "welfare state").
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Always take cross-nation comparisons of statistics like this with a grain of salt. It's rarely a guarantee that each country tabulates statistics using exactly the same parameters and methodology.
- pkaye 7y ago
  Not sure about Finland but some countries have different criteria for a viable baby. Basically if a baby is born too early or too low a weight they are not counted in the statistics. So you you need to also count for these differences.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 7y ago
  See other thread that the Netherlands has one of the worst infant mortalities in Europe. It's not due to these gov't programs (or lack thereof), but rather the demographics of the population.
8bitsrule 7y ago
>It's good to see tax money spent on such a comforting program. I think that 'comforting program' is what might be called a sense of community. And the wisdom of investing in a future. Something which, in many so-called 'advanced' countries, has been under attack (by ignorance or deliberation) for generations.

ptah 7y ago

according to that site, Finland's infant mortality has dropped a lot more than US (as control where there is no nannystate)

not_a_cop75 7y ago
The US has medical & food programs for impoverished families and children. You might have to find a different non-nanny state.
- ptah 7y ago
  any suggestions?
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  According to the US Department of Agriculture[1] - 6.0 million children lived in food-insecure households in which children, along with adults, were food insecure. - 540,000 children (0.7 percent of the Nation's children) lived in households in which one or more child(sic) experienced very low food security. According to the CDC[2] - 1.6% of women received no [prenatel] care at all. - 15.0% of women received inadequate prenatal care. You may want to use a non-US definition of "nanny state" ... [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_03.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_03.pdf
  - michael_j_ward 7y ago
    It seems like the USDA includes people on federal food assistance programs as being "food insecure. From your first link defining "Low Food Security"[1]: """ These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries. """ Since you seemed to have these ready, do you have these same numbers but for people without access to any (federal / state/ local) food assistance programs? [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      > Since you seemed to have these ready Not at the ready, I found those links in a couple of minutes buy searching for "US children food insecurity" and "US prenatal care". I remembered reading a study that the increase in US infant mortality was related to lack of prenatal care and food insecurity so I just googled those.

wmeredith 7y ago

Do you have evidence to suggest that it isn’t exactly programs like this that responsible for dropping the infant mortality rate worldwide? Your argument is an odd one.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MagnumOpus 7y ago
The evidence is that almost all other countries don't have the boxes while infant mortality dropped nearly everywhere. Your attack is an odd one.
- knightofmars 7y ago
  Just because infant mortality dropped nearly everywhere doesn't mean that this "baby box" didn't help reduce infant mortality _specifically in Finland_. The infant mortality rate dropped from 7% in 1935 (already extremely low compared with the global rate in 1935) to .02% (much lower than the global rate now).
- devnonymous 7y ago
  If not for 'programs /like/ this', how else has 'infant mortality dropped nearly everywhere' ?? Just because Finland introduced boxes and other countries didn't does not mean that the Finland's contribution to the overall decrease to infant mortality was not due to boxes. Also, for gp comment -- nanny is a odd way to spell welfare.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    > Just because Finland introduced boxes and other countries didn't does not mean that the Finland's contribution to the overall decrease to infant mortality was not due to boxes. You're arguing against a straw man. The article implies that the boxes are driving the decrease in infant mortality. The OP points out that this is ignoring the global decrease in infant mortality. The OP did not assert that the boxes made no contribution to the decrease in infant mortality. > Also, for gp comment -- nanny is a odd way to spell welfare. I genuinely don't understand your point. "Nanny state" and "welfare state" are synonymous, at least in the U.S.

lr 7y ago

Here are some infant mortality numbers from your link: 1947: Finland: 6.5% US: 4.3% 2013 (when the article was written): Finland: 0.3% US: 0.7% How can the tiny country of Finland be so much better at this than the US? It's because of what they talk about in the article, i.e., a government actually caring for its citizens (read, "welfare state").

rootusrootus 7y ago
Always take cross-nation comparisons of statistics like this with a grain of salt. It's rarely a guarantee that each country tabulates statistics using exactly the same parameters and methodology.
pkaye 7y ago
Not sure about Finland but some countries have different criteria for a viable baby. Basically if a baby is born too early or too low a weight they are not counted in the statistics. So you you need to also count for these differences.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
refurb 7y ago
See other thread that the Netherlands has one of the worst infant mortalities in Europe. It's not due to these gov't programs (or lack thereof), but rather the demographics of the population.

8bitsrule 7y ago

>It's good to see tax money spent on such a comforting program. I think that 'comforting program' is what might be called a sense of community. And the wisdom of investing in a future. Something which, in many so-called 'advanced' countries, has been under attack (by ignorance or deliberation) for generations.