Good News and Newborns
There are about a million questions you could ask about this study and the way it's being reported in USA Today, and I couldn't find the study itself. It doesn't seem to be online yet. But all political spin and typical bad science journalism aside, this part, if true, is wonderful news:
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine also participated in the study, which covers all 193 WHO member countries over 20 years.
It shows that from 1990 to 2009, annual newborn deaths decreased from 4.6 million to 3.3 million. But the study's authors say progress is too slow, especially in Africa.
Yes, progress is always too slow. Yes, the number to look at, if you want to measure progress, is not total deaths, but deaths as a percentage of births, so it's not clear what this number means. (After all, if there were zero births, there would be zero deaths.) But as I understand it the population in question is growing, not declining, so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that a lot of babies who would have died had they been born in 1990 have a much better chance of survival now.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Good News and Newborns
Good news indeed! There is obviously still much work to be done - 3.3 million is still a number that is hard to get a grasp on - but it is a step in the right direction.
Edited on Aug 31, 2011 at 6:23amRe: Good News and Newborns
Exactly! The late great Julian Simon used to say, we are living in an epidemic of life. And it should be cheered.
May '11
Re: Good News and Newborns
Claire, you were being way too kind to say "all political spin and typical bad science journalism aside" but you nailed the only important information in the whole dreadful article. It is surprisingly good news and we don't get enough of that.