3 ms·

I remember when this got posted before. It's core message is in fact misinformation. They discovered more preventable maternal deaths by looking at a wider ti

I remember when this got posted before. It's core message is in fact misinformation. They discovered more preventable maternal deaths by looking at a wider time period. That's important new information. It's like getting a detailed bug report of a problem you weren't aware of by a new approach like fuzzing and saying "well even though we just learned about this bug we know the bug existed before you filed the issue so I'm not going to do anything about it".

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. The linked article on maternal mortality refers to headlines such as "U.S. maternal deaths keep rising" and "Why Maternal Mortality Rates Are Getting Worse across the U.S.", which are misleading at best if the change is solely due to looking at a wider time period. If you introduce a new fuzzing technique, and it discovers a bunch of bugs, I would also call it misinformation to send a memo asking why there are so many bugs without mentioning the fuzzing.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  The guy they specifically called out wrote a big piece on it with the headline: Despite New Manuscript, Incontrovertible Evidence Proves the Unacceptably High U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate And the content mentions exactly what happened: > The authors have created discrete categories to discredit the pregnancy checkbox, which, while somewhat flawed in its implementation, was not created to fabricate a problem. It was created to address an existing one. It is one of multiple sources of data we have—each with its own pros and cons, showing different aspects of maternal health outcomes—that help to provide information so that we can create actionable solutions. > “For instance, data that come from maternal mortality review committees are broader and more in depth and reflect a longer period of time. These multidisciplinary committees examine maternal deaths well beyond 42 days postpartum and instead look up to a year after pregnancy—a critical time. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, approximately 30% of pregnancy-related deaths from 2017 to 2019 occurred from 43 to 365 days postpartum because of several factors, including ones that the authors have discounted, such as mental health conditions, which include suicide and substance use disorder. So their claim of unapologetic misinformation from a specific named elite is actually a couple of shitty headlines written by other people?
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    I would categorize the last paragraph as misinformation. I understand why it's not as simple as "pregnancy-related == cause of death is directly due to pregnancy", and the 42 day period they describe makes sense to me. If a woman dies 320 days postpartum due to a mental health condition, that is not a pregnancy-related death as any normal person would understand the term.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

I'm not sure what you mean. The linked article on maternal mortality refers to headlines such as "U.S. maternal deaths keep rising" and "Why Maternal Mortality Rates Are Getting Worse across the U.S.", which are misleading at best if the change is solely due to looking at a wider time period. If you introduce a new fuzzing technique, and it discovers a bunch of bugs, I would also call it misinformation to send a memo asking why there are so many bugs without mentioning the fuzzing.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
The guy they specifically called out wrote a big piece on it with the headline: Despite New Manuscript, Incontrovertible Evidence Proves the Unacceptably High U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate And the content mentions exactly what happened: > The authors have created discrete categories to discredit the pregnancy checkbox, which, while somewhat flawed in its implementation, was not created to fabricate a problem. It was created to address an existing one. It is one of multiple sources of data we have—each with its own pros and cons, showing different aspects of maternal health outcomes—that help to provide information so that we can create actionable solutions. > “For instance, data that come from maternal mortality review committees are broader and more in depth and reflect a longer period of time. These multidisciplinary committees examine maternal deaths well beyond 42 days postpartum and instead look up to a year after pregnancy—a critical time. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, approximately 30% of pregnancy-related deaths from 2017 to 2019 occurred from 43 to 365 days postpartum because of several factors, including ones that the authors have discounted, such as mental health conditions, which include suicide and substance use disorder. So their claim of unapologetic misinformation from a specific named elite is actually a couple of shitty headlines written by other people?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I would categorize the last paragraph as misinformation. I understand why it's not as simple as "pregnancy-related == cause of death is directly due to pregnancy", and the 42 day period they describe makes sense to me. If a woman dies 320 days postpartum due to a mental health condition, that is not a pregnancy-related death as any normal person would understand the term.