4 ms·

I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that a high rate of child mortality is not an issue in and of itself. But if you're going to claim that life

I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that a high rate of child mortality is not an issue in and of itself. But if you're going to claim that life expectancy in Afghanistan is very low vs. the West, therefore the Western diet is healthier than Afghanistan's, and in the process ignore child mortality as a factor then you're entirely disingenuous. As an example: if you take 2 groups of 10 people, 9 of which die at 70 of natural causes in group A while 1 dies at age 1 and 5 of which die at 90 of natural causes in group B while 5 die at age 1, the "life expectancy" of group A is 63.1 and group B is 45.5. But the average lifespan of adults is 70 in group A and 90 in group B. The health of adults is significantly higher in group B. The health of children is significantly higher in group A. When many children die, the often touted "life expectancy" number plummets. And subsequently gets used in comparisons of health/activity/environment/etc of adults when in fact that "life expectancy" number is completely misleading when applied to adults. Additionally, if one adult in group A lives to be 105, that outlier doesn't indicate a trending statistic.

electromagnetic 16y ago
Thank you for a lesson in basic averages. You're still completely clueless. You're attempting to measure health based on diet between two groups. One group regularly receives medical and dental care. One group does not. I don't care what bat-shit psycho crap you want, because if you find some hillfolk in the US who haven't seen a doctor in their lives, they're going to have a life expectancy in their mid 50's because most of them are likely to die from abscessed teeth or broken legs or a frigging cold. You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. You can't pick and choose who to factor in and out for health and get a useful result, it's idiotic. Total mortality figures is a better statistic than selected mortality statistic, because infant mortality is a golden example of the total capability of a countries health care. Basically, if you can't afford to wash your hands in alcohol before delivering a baby to make it hygienic, then you're fucked. I don't care if my diet isn't causing me longevity, I have a doctor. He's called a Cardiac Surgeon and he performs heart surgeries. This is why I live in the west and did not die as a 7 year old of sepsis from a broken leg.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. No, I'm not. Mainly because I'd have needed to use the words "dog" and "wolf" to literally be talking about them. Literally, Joe Biden. But also because I'm not even figuratively speaking of them. But since you created the analogy: The "wolves" that don't die young live far longer than the "dogs" that don't die young due to the "wolves" better diet and in spite of the "dogs" having access to vets and living in houses. When you're comparing the health of adults you can't use information pertaining to the health of children. The factor is itself defined in the equation.

electromagnetic 16y ago

Thank you for a lesson in basic averages. You're still completely clueless. You're attempting to measure health based on diet between two groups. One group regularly receives medical and dental care. One group does not. I don't care what bat-shit psycho crap you want, because if you find some hillfolk in the US who haven't seen a doctor in their lives, they're going to have a life expectancy in their mid 50's because most of them are likely to die from abscessed teeth or broken legs or a frigging cold. You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. You can't pick and choose who to factor in and out for health and get a useful result, it's idiotic. Total mortality figures is a better statistic than selected mortality statistic, because infant mortality is a golden example of the total capability of a countries health care. Basically, if you can't afford to wash your hands in alcohol before delivering a baby to make it hygienic, then you're fucked. I don't care if my diet isn't causing me longevity, I have a doctor. He's called a Cardiac Surgeon and he performs heart surgeries. This is why I live in the west and did not die as a 7 year old of sepsis from a broken leg.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young. No, I'm not. Mainly because I'd have needed to use the words "dog" and "wolf" to literally be talking about them. Literally, Joe Biden. But also because I'm not even figuratively speaking of them. But since you created the analogy: The "wolves" that don't die young live far longer than the "dogs" that don't die young due to the "wolves" better diet and in spite of the "dogs" having access to vets and living in houses. When you're comparing the health of adults you can't use information pertaining to the health of children. The factor is itself defined in the equation.