4 ms·

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 con

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.

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.