Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
An unprecedented study mapping child deaths over almost two decades finds that nearly half of the 5.4 million under-5 deaths in 2017 can be attributed to differences in child death rates within and across countries.
The study is the first of its kind, mapping child deaths in 99 low- and middle-income countries at the level of individual districts. Published today in the journal Nature, the findings include precision maps illuminating health disparities within countries and regions often obscured by national-level analyses. An interactive visualization accompanying the research compares child death rates from year to year.
The research, conducted by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington's School of Medicine, looks at countries where more than 90% of child deaths occurred in 2017. Mortality rates varied as much as 10-fold between districts within a country. Across all countries studied, the likelihood of a child dying before age 5 varied more than 40-fold at the district level.
"It is as reprehensible as it is tragic that, on average, nearly 15,000 children under age 5 die every day," said Dr. Simon I. Hay, the senior author on the study and Director of the Local Burden of Disease (LBD) group at IHME. "Why are some areas doing so well, while others struggle? In order to make progress, we need to enable precise targeting of interventions, such as vaccines. Our findings provide a platform for nations' health ministers, clinicians, and others to make focused improvements in health systems."
Globally, approximately 5.4 million children died before their fifth birthdays in 2017, as compared to 9.7 million in 2000. Researchers estimated that if every district in the low- and middle-income countries studied had met the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of at least as low as 25 child deaths per 1,000 live births, 2.6 million fewer children would have died. If every district within a country rose to the level of the best-performing district in that country, the estimated number of deaths averted rises to 2.7 million.
The vast majority of the 17,554 districts among the 99 nations studied saw improvement in lowering child deaths, but levels of inequality between districts were more variable over the study period. Despite major gains in reducing child deaths over the past 20 years, the highest rates of death in 2017 were still largely concentrated where rates were highest in 2000.
The study, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, reveals areas of success where strategies could be replicated across and within countries, according to Dr. Hay.
[...] In this press release, we use the term "district" to refer to second administrative subdivisions within a country. This does not align perfectly with naming conventions in every country mapped.
Journal Reference:
Roy Burstein et al. Mapping 123 million neonatal, infant and child deaths between 2000 and 2017. Nature, 2019; 574 (7778): 353 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1545-0
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @11:39AM (6 children)
Meh... 50% of them would have been below average anyhow.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Friday October 18 2019, @01:47PM (4 children)
Yes, but there's probably a couple of Einsteins lost forever as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:50PM
All the squirrels in my yard have disappeared. Could it be that the force of gravity disappeared and flung them into outer space?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @07:57PM
They can't really be that smart if they stay lost for that long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @12:44AM (1 child)
And 200,000 Mohammed al-Jihadis, so it comes out even in the end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @07:08AM
Try 20,000,000
There are a billion of them breeding away right now you know
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:53PM
Sociopath or idiot?
Porque no los dos?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @12:56PM (9 children)
They're going to abolish Planned Parenthood?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:00PM (3 children)
Abortions preferentially remove the poorest and weakest children from the stats. More abortions -> lower child death rates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:16PM (1 child)
A Modest Proposal: Post-natal abortions can save humanity.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:29PM
All the claimed increases in lifespan since the 1970s are actually attributable to leaving out abortion as a cause of death.
Erik Meidl (2009) Effect of Abortion, In Vitro Fertilization, and Other Causes of Prenatal Death on Life Expectancy in the United States from 1925 to 2005, The Linacre Quarterly, 76:4, 374-389, DOI: 10.1179/002436309803889043 .
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:56PM
A total idiot, like unimaginably dumb. Queue "why do you hate facts bro???"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:08PM (2 children)
You do realize that *most* of Planned Parenthood work is reproductive health, like cancer screenings and shit like that? Just because you don't agree with the choices of some people, doesn't mean you tell them to fuck off. We otherwise could just tell the red states to fuck off and stop mooching off the tax dollars of the blue states.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 19 2019, @02:52PM (1 child)
Why does this lie continue to be posted? PP makes it's living by killing babies. PP will not give a woman prenatal care. PP will not take a cancer patient. PP doesn't do shit, except to kill babies. Planned Parenthood is the brain child of a eugenicist who admired Adolph Hitler, and hated those weeds of society, ie, black people.
You may tell the lie as often as you wish, but every time I see the lie, I'll dispute it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @04:23PM
Friend of mine went to Planned Parenthood for a pap smear.
They did one.
There was something off about the results (not catastrophic, as it turned out, just needed review). She went back to Planned Parenthood to get it seen to.
"Oh, we don't do that, you need to find an ob/gyn."
She never wants to go to them again. They don't give a shit about reproductive health.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 18 2019, @05:32PM (1 child)
Planned Parenthood is the reason we have the lowest abortion rate ever.
The U.S. abortion rate is continuing a long-term downward trend [npr.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @05:28AM
Which should matter to people who claim to oppose abortion, but for some reason, doesn't.
I don't believe abortion is morally bad at all, though, so the abortion rate doesn't matter much to me.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Webweasel on Friday October 18 2019, @01:17PM (4 children)
Yes, but I believe that children are the future and therefore must be stopped at all costs.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @01:35PM
Hilarious!
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday October 18 2019, @02:28PM (2 children)
Every 5 minutes a woman gives birth.
She must be found and stopped.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 18 2019, @03:06PM
We might expect that she would stop some day. She must be worn to a frazzle!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @11:20PM
Replace her Monistat with JBWeld.
That oughta do it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday October 18 2019, @03:03PM (20 children)
Here's an unpopular opinion: You don't actually want to do anything about this until you've raised the educational and social standards of the countries. Raised them enough that women are in control of their own reproduction, with full access to birth control. Otherwise you wind up with a population explosion that fuels famine and warfare.
I'm somewhat familiar with the situation in Africa, where we've already "helped" a lot. Many areas had stable or slowly growing populations, until well meaning people went in and reduced mortality rates (especially childhood mortality). Sounds wonderful, right? But without both access to birth control and the educational/cultural change to want to use it, well, the obvious happens. In only two to three generations the population of the continent has quintupled. Much of the current misery in Africa can be laid at the feet of the aid provided in past decades.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 18 2019, @03:10PM (2 children)
Salutes. You have risked the ire of every bleeding heart - both liberal and not-so-liberal - by stating what should be obvious to all. Predominantly Euro and wealthy people created much of the overpopulation in the world, by ensuring that most children DO survive to sexual maturity. Funny how do-gooders manage to screw things up so often.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:24PM (1 child)
Congratulations be being a dumbass. You should actually find the reasons for kids surviving, not coming up with your BS explanation.
1. antibiotics
2. vaccines
Those are the reasons. Nothing to do with anything else. What the article doesn't say is tackling inequality also fixes the birth rate issue. People with shit to do don't have 10 kids. And the marginal increase in kids survival is not material in the grand scheme of things anyway.
5m/year less deaths is only about 400m in lifetime. But population doubled in lifetime.... tackling inequality would probably reduce population growth by 10x that amount.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 18 2019, @10:48PM
No, not so. It is the DISTRIBUTION and AVAILABILITY of those antibiotics and vaccines that has saved those children. Who is paying for this distribution?
As I stated, parent poster risked the ire of all bleeding hearts with his post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:15PM (12 children)
Don't you understand that
1. road to hell is paved with good intentions
2. capitalism needs consumers!
The problem is stupid people have good intentions and so do stupid things that destroy balance of things. But also, child mortality is lowered mostly because of antibiotics and better hygiene. So actually, the education thing you were talking about making your comment kind of moot.
If you want less kids, just give people access to birth control. It should be available for free in poor nations. This is actually what is starting to happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:19PM (11 children)
Have these things ever occurred without increasing birth control as well?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:31PM (6 children)
Birth control is about *education*. You need to *educate* people to
1. plan ahead
2. know about their options
You would be surprised that in many of the warmer nations, where food grows all the time, no one plans ahead. Maybe 3 days? After that, no one brings up a question of "how will the child go to school? eat?". You teach people to think ahead and teach them about their reproduction and they will have less kids.
I know from first hand experience that people do not want to have many kids because it's difficult. But very often, they don't know any better. And they are taught in the churches how birth control is a sin -- most ignore this "advice", but still.... Even if today women have only 2 kids, like in India, there are lots of kids that still are to be born and the population will increase even if people reproduce at less than replacement rate.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:34PM (4 children)
I'm sorry but it isn't clear if that answered my question. Are you saying that in India antibiotics and better hygiene have occurred without an increase in birth control usage?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:37PM (3 children)
Because, you see, all the Earth is India.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:46PM (2 children)
So you have failed to give an example, all you do is parrot talking points and then get snarky when asked for more. See Colo below for how a human poster would behave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @05:06PM (1 child)
Who is to say it wasn't c0lo snarking at you for picking an unverified example and extrapolating it to the whole world?
Ask if you need to ask, but it's contrary to critical thinking to cherry pick one single data point and imply it is valid everytime and about everything.*//
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @07:13PM
There is no cherry picking involved. Your evasion of the question means to me that you don't have a single example where antibiotic and sanitation situation was improved without also an increase in birth control. All I wanted was an example of this existing.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 19 2019, @02:59PM
Christ on a crutch - did NO ONE actually read that, except me? Insightful? WTF?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 18 2019, @03:35PM (3 children)
Yes, between WWII (when antibiotics arrived in full swing) and the early '60 (when the contraceptive pill arrived).
You know? The Baby Boomers [wikipedia.org] happened then, do you think the name was chosen just because of its fanciness?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:43PM (2 children)
In Figure 4 of this paper [sci-hub.tw] it shows life expectancy rising from WWII until 1955, flattening until 1970, then dropping back down to just above pre-WWII levels and staying there. That is life expectancy from moment of conception so it takes into account abortions, etc.
Post-Conception life expectancy rose from 1925-1955, was flat until ~1970, then started rising again. So the first phase is probably sanitation and antibiotics, the second is due to preferentially aborting the unwell and unwanted.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 18 2019, @05:42PM (1 child)
Oh, come on. We were talking child mortality (number of children that have died) and landed in the life expectancy (average duration of life, no info about the number of people in the cohort)? How can you determine the number of deaths from the life expectancy? Why would it be even relevant?
Have you read how life expectancy from moment of conception was determined? See the Methods section. The only numbers for the entire period not obtained by extrapolating from limited studies or previous years are the number of stillbirths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @06:42PM
Do you agree that poor, unwanted, or diseased fetuses are more likely to be aborted? Ie, babies who would have a harder time surviving for very long?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @03:27PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @04:27PM
I am not merely somewhat, but very familiar with the situation in subsaharan Africa.
And you're right on the money.
I would also add that it doesn't matter what resources you pour in like a gigantic glacier of money - if you don't have stable regimes, the kleptocrats will suck it all up and wipe their butts with the rest.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 19 2019, @12:06AM
Eeee-yup. You're describing the "pig in the python" scenario, the second phase of demographic shift where birth rates remain high but death rates drop.
Essentially, we're going to have to help these nations skip over all the stupid, horrible, senselessly awful bits of industrialization corresponding roughly to the years 1850 through 1935 in the US and get them straight into wind/solar power, widespread mass communications, and sustainable agriculture and tech. Once women are educated and safe enough to control their own reproductive destiny, we can do this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @07:10AM
Did someone say... Africa?
https://www.odditycentral.com/news/ugandas-most-fertile-woman-has-given-birth-to-44-children-by-age-40.html [odditycentral.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @04:22PM
We could tackle inequality!
... mind you, not do anything substantive about it, but totally tackle it like a boss ...
... and that could save millions of children! From drugs! Or something!
Wait, no, this appears to be about how some areas are richer than others and richer areas have better infant survival rates ... or wait, was it that they have better resources or are in a better position to make life decisions? Or access to better medical care? Or ...
But Bill and Melinda want to spend a fuckton on it! It must be important! Why aren't you spending a fuckton on it, asshole? Because of inequality, shoulda seen that coming ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @06:12PM (1 child)
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 18 2019, @08:51PM
"We won't let anything bad happen to you! again"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @10:16AM
Don't breed 'em
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @06:41PM
We have more than enough Homo Erectus hybrids robbing, raping, and killing around the world thanks to the Jews that still ship them everywhere.