3 ms·

The rise in maternal mortality rates in the US is due to a change in measurement

1 points by sohkamyung 2y ago

reify 2y ago
Here in Airstrip One. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has changed the way they calculate “excess deaths. Im not sure what to make of this! A new way to work out the excess deaths during covid actually reduced the mortality rate. This means that fewer people died from covid during the covid scamdemic. Maybe its about paying out less money to those injured by the jab. The NHS has been putting aside a few billion to pay out to those impacted by adverse effects and deaths from the jab. Looks dodgy to me. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/datasets/estimatingexcessdeathsintheukmethodologychanges https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
coldtea 2y ago
>This change wasn’t adopted at a national level in a single moment; that would have led to a single step-wise change in mortality rates. Instead, the measurement change was adopted state by state, which led to a gradual rise over 14 years. You know what else would also lead to a "gradual rise over 14 years"? Actual worsening poverty conditions and access to healthcare. If it's due to measurement change, a state by state adoption of new measurements indeed would not lead to a single step-wise change. But it would lead to multiple step-wise changes (the step points being after each new set of adopting states publishes their new numbers, especially for the larger states). Those would be hard to tell from a gradual organic change, and it would rather mask any gradual organic change (e.g. a 15% percent "organic" increase that would have been there even without new measurement applied, would be masked by a 80% measurement-change-related increase). So, it's not so clear whether there was a decline in actual numbers or not. Just that more deaths that were missed are now measured. And their plot conveniently stops at 2017 - if it didn't we'd have 6 years where the "measurement change" doesn't apply (as it's the year all states have already adopted the new measurement), and we could see if there's still an increase.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  It looks like the graphic at the top has 3 more years. It looks like "big down", "up", "up". The last point is 2020 and is slightly bigger than 2017, but it may be noise or some effect of covid-19. I agree that it would be interresting to see more data after all states use the new method, but the change of methodology is a possible explanation. In particular, because the new methodology includes death during one year, that are easy to be ignored if there is no checkbox. Is the data split state-by-state available? It may be interesting to analyze it.

1 points by sohkamyung 2y ago

Here in Airstrip One. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has changed the way they calculate “excess deaths. Im not sure what to make of this! A new way to work out the excess deaths during covid actually reduced the mortality rate. This means that fewer people died from covid during the covid scamdemic. Maybe its about paying out less money to those injured by the jab. The NHS has been putting aside a few billion to pay out to those impacted by adverse effects and deaths from the jab. Looks dodgy to me. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/datasets/estimatingexcessdeathsintheukmethodologychanges https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

coldtea 2y ago

>This change wasn’t adopted at a national level in a single moment; that would have led to a single step-wise change in mortality rates. Instead, the measurement change was adopted state by state, which led to a gradual rise over 14 years. You know what else would also lead to a "gradual rise over 14 years"? Actual worsening poverty conditions and access to healthcare. If it's due to measurement change, a state by state adoption of new measurements indeed would not lead to a single step-wise change. But it would lead to multiple step-wise changes (the step points being after each new set of adopting states publishes their new numbers, especially for the larger states). Those would be hard to tell from a gradual organic change, and it would rather mask any gradual organic change (e.g. a 15% percent "organic" increase that would have been there even without new measurement applied, would be masked by a 80% measurement-change-related increase). So, it's not so clear whether there was a decline in actual numbers or not. Just that more deaths that were missed are now measured. And their plot conveniently stops at 2017 - if it didn't we'd have 6 years where the "measurement change" doesn't apply (as it's the year all states have already adopted the new measurement), and we could see if there's still an increase.

gus_massa 2y ago
It looks like the graphic at the top has 3 more years. It looks like "big down", "up", "up". The last point is 2020 and is slightly bigger than 2017, but it may be noise or some effect of covid-19. I agree that it would be interresting to see more data after all states use the new method, but the change of methodology is a possible explanation. In particular, because the new methodology includes death during one year, that are easy to be ignored if there is no checkbox. Is the data split state-by-state available? It may be interesting to analyze it.