SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Severe infections leading to hospitalizations during childhood are associated with lower school achievement in adolescence,reports a study in the July issue of The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (PIDJ).
In the nationwide study of nearly 600,000 Danish children, higher numbers of hospitalizations for infections were associated with a reduced probability of completing ninth grade, as well as with lower test scores, according to the new research by Ole Köhler-Fosberg, MD, of Aarhus University Hospital and colleagues. An expert commentary discusses the role of vaccination in the relationship between investment in health and protecting and improving "human capital."
The study included nationwide data of 598,553 children born in Denmark between 1987 and 1997. The researchers looked at two measures of childhood infections: hospital admission for infections, an indicator of moderate to severe infections; and prescriptions for anti-infective drugs (such as antibiotics) in primary care, reflecting less-severe infections.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:22PM (12 children)
Well, for starters we're talking Denmark - so hospital stays probably correspond to "this is serious enough to have experts keep an eye on them for a while", rather than the USAian standard of "this is serious enough to spend at least several months wages on".
Also, even in a tiny country like Denmark you're talking about 60,000+ births per year - if even 1% of children get an infection severe enough for hospitalization before growing up, you're talking over 600 kids per year. More than enough to look at the consequences in a culture that actually cares about not leaving the least-fortunate behind.
Not to mention - hey, a topic people might actually care about to write a graduate thesis on! Woohoo! You know how hard those are to come up with?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 17 2018, @01:07PM (11 children)
I don't really care for either. If the infection warrants continued, constant, professional observation rather than "bring him back in if it gets any worse or you start to see <blah>", it's because the child is in significant danger of dying before he can be returned to the hospital. Doing so for anything less is astonishingly wasteful of medical resources. Having to spend several months wages on an overnight stay is equally ludicrous but that's another discussion entirely.
I've been asked to read and critique several. I wasn't particularly impressed with the utility or even potential future utility of any of them. So I expect it's either quite difficult or we're giving graduate degrees to people who have no business possessing one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday July 17 2018, @02:02PM (8 children)
Let's think about that. It doesn't look like you did, but let's do it now.
There are many outcomes of an illness. Brain damage, loss of hearing or vision, or other permanent injury due to mismanagement of high fever. Loss of body parts, especially extremities, from mismanagement of infection. Things like that. Medical doctors (specially trained people who look after the health of humans) are trained to know more often than not when an illness needs watching to avoid such things.
Under the "TMB system" you have outlined above, it is "astonishingly wasteful" to prevent easily preventable permanent, serious impairment in children--only death itself might warrant preventing, and that not unless it meets the "TMB standard" of statistical likelihood.
Therefore, it is a bad system and if someone genuinely believes in it, he is probably a bad person.
Yes, but.... If you live in one of the advanced nations such that seeking proper medical care for a condition inherently involves such an expenditure, then often it's the same discussion, weighing "can I afford it" vs. "should the child receive medical care." I know how you would decide it (avoiding astonishing waste and all), but for many people, it's a genuine conundrum.
Yeah, that one's pretty good.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 17 2018, @03:16PM (3 children)
High fever also carries a significant risk of death with it, as a general rule. Significant risk of loss of body part or senses would also be a perfectly acceptable, though even that's something that's more likely to be able to be monitored at home. It's not usually something that's going to run out of control before you can make it to the nearest hospital unless you live pretty far out in the sticks.
You really don't. I have no problem with legitimate medical needs being taken care of but I absolutely have a problem with pointless hand-holding at extreme expense.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday July 17 2018, @08:33PM (2 children)
Fair enough. I should have said "I know how you are saying that you would decide it". I only know what you said, not what you probably should have said.
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Tuesday July 17 2018, @09:47PM
You sure that's what you meant? You're on the Internet, you know.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:18AM
I thought I was fairly clear. There's a distinct possibility you're seeing what you want to argue with rather than what's there. It's a common failing among us human types.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 17 2018, @06:32PM (3 children)
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” -- Benjamin Franklin
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 17 2018, @08:40PM (1 child)
S'true but prevention almost never requires a hospital stay.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday July 17 2018, @11:58PM
Indeed, if you've been admitted to hospital for something, whether illness or injury, at that point we must acknowledge that we've failed to prevent the illness or injury, and now we are down to treating it, in search of our particular pound of cure.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 18 2018, @12:02AM
An ounce of prevention every day makes 22 pounds of prevention/year - William Shatner.
This is what those vitamin/supplement peddlers won't throw it in your face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 17 2018, @04:15PM
True, that. But - I clicked the link to try to learn something here. I'm not sure if I'm learning anything at all. In summary, US Citizens can't afford a hospital stay for any reason that isn't life threatening, but other countries don't mind checking into a hospital to be on the safe side. Ehhhh . . .
What I haven't learned yet: Do the infections impair learning ability, or do the hospitals impair learning ability, or is it the antibiotics that impair learning ability? Or - alternatively - do only idiot children contract infections?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday July 18 2018, @02:31PM
>Doing so for anything less is astonishingly wasteful of medical resources.
How, exactly? Unless there's a large-scale crisis, there's usually going to be a lot of beds sitting empty in a well-equipped hospital. Putting a kid in one of those has a very low incremental cost - a little more work for the cleaning crew mostly. Similarly, having a nurse swing by for a couple minutes every hour to make sure there's no problems developing unrecognized by completely untrained patients and family doesn't cost much - looks like an hour of nurse's pay only costs around $30-$60 in Denmark. You might want to have a doctor come by for a couple quick evaluations during the course of the day as well, but really you're just looking for observation by someone with medical experience, and to have experts immediately at hand if there's a problem.
So, maybe $100-$200 a day in actual costs if you're pessimistic, assuming medical intervention isn't needed, for patients who are already recognized to have a dangerous infection.