3 ms·

What's the point of using OECD data anymore when countries like India, China, MENAPT and Indonesia are excluded? Any study that uses OECD data should be disqual

What's the point of using OECD data anymore when countries like India, China, MENAPT and Indonesia are excluded? Any study that uses OECD data should be disqualified as a shit study outright.

insane_dreamer 1y ago
Because it's more useful to compare wealthier countries with other wealthier countries (not by total size of the economy), for these types of metrics. But yes, I agree it would have been interesting to see India and China for comparison (and in fact, they are listed in the OECD report that was linked to in the article). Update: I noticed that in the linked to OECD report, only the OECD countries, plus Romania, report the same 22-week threshold. That may be why those countries were picked (for a proper comparison with the same IVs.)
kspacewalk2 1y ago
Seems to me that data quality and consistency is much more important than the number of countries. If China or Indonesia collect data of similar quality and consistency - by all means, OECD + these countries will make for a better dataset. If not, mixing shit data with good data is a better indicator of a "shit study".
- fakedang 1y ago
  Then the title of the article ought to be "Where in the developed world are babies at the lowest risk of death?". Straight up ignoring more than 50% of the world's population in one go, lmao. For the record, I'm pretty sure most of the world has caught up on methods to gather mortality data, especially all of the countries I had mentioned.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    >"Where in the developed world are babies at the lowest risk of death? Where there are fewer black people or native americans. In the US it almost follows to a T a heat map of where black people and reservations are. Except the places where there are enough hispanics to counter balance them, because for whatever reason hispanic identifying populations do comparatively quite well even with lower incomes.
    - fakedang 1y ago
      It said world. The US isn't the world. And even in the developed world, without including oil rich Middle Eastern countries, the study is flawed. Heck, for all we know, the lowest risk might be in the theocratic monarchic state of Brunei.
  - jltsiren 1y ago
    The rest of the world has caught up on methods, but each country uses its own definitions. International comparisons often use OECD data, because it's the best data source that exists. The organization has spent decades collecting data based on consistent definitions across its member states. Even the same data collected directly from the national authorities of OECD members is often worse. The data released for domestic uses often uses national definitions, which vary subtly from country to country.

What's the point of using OECD data anymore when countries like India, China, MENAPT and Indonesia are excluded? Any study that uses OECD data should be disqualified as a shit study outright.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Because it's more useful to compare wealthier countries with other wealthier countries (not by total size of the economy), for these types of metrics. But yes, I agree it would have been interesting to see India and China for comparison (and in fact, they are listed in the OECD report that was linked to in the article). Update: I noticed that in the linked to OECD report, only the OECD countries, plus Romania, report the same 22-week threshold. That may be why those countries were picked (for a proper comparison with the same IVs.)

kspacewalk2 1y ago

Seems to me that data quality and consistency is much more important than the number of countries. If China or Indonesia collect data of similar quality and consistency - by all means, OECD + these countries will make for a better dataset. If not, mixing shit data with good data is a better indicator of a "shit study".

fakedang 1y ago
Then the title of the article ought to be "Where in the developed world are babies at the lowest risk of death?". Straight up ignoring more than 50% of the world's population in one go, lmao. For the record, I'm pretty sure most of the world has caught up on methods to gather mortality data, especially all of the countries I had mentioned.
- ty6853 1y ago
  >"Where in the developed world are babies at the lowest risk of death? Where there are fewer black people or native americans. In the US it almost follows to a T a heat map of where black people and reservations are. Except the places where there are enough hispanics to counter balance them, because for whatever reason hispanic identifying populations do comparatively quite well even with lower incomes.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    It said world. The US isn't the world. And even in the developed world, without including oil rich Middle Eastern countries, the study is flawed. Heck, for all we know, the lowest risk might be in the theocratic monarchic state of Brunei.
- jltsiren 1y ago
  The rest of the world has caught up on methods, but each country uses its own definitions. International comparisons often use OECD data, because it's the best data source that exists. The organization has spent decades collecting data based on consistent definitions across its member states. Even the same data collected directly from the national authorities of OECD members is often worse. The data released for domestic uses often uses national definitions, which vary subtly from country to country.