The death rate for US children has surged by 25 percent over the past decade, according to a study published last month by pediatrician Dr. Christopher Forrest and colleagues in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even as the child mortality rate has slowly fallen in other developed countries, it has surged in the US, along with every other indicator of chronic illness.
Okay… I didn’t realize we’re talking about your personal tolerance of it, as long as you’re okay with it I guess the numbers aren’t staggering.
We aren’t talking about overall life expectancy, we’re talking about excess child mortality. COVID affected children the least, remember.
You can have multiple concerns, you really don’t have to champion just one issue and attack all others. Recall your objections and the whole argument we’re having is because you’re insisting the article is editorializing 54 excess child deaths a day by calling it staggering. Would you complain the same way about an article describing the average annual increase of global temperature as staggering?
I would like to know whether the excess child mortality is something to actually worry about, let’s say if I had kids. There is a chance of my kid being eaten by a leopard but here in the urban US, it’s unlikely enough that it’s not one of the hazards I take special precautions against. Again, it comes down to the likelihood, which means what is N. If you don’t know N, then describing a related number as “staggering” is just a bluff. Let’s presume “child” means age < 18, and my kid is currently 8. What is the likelihood of his not surviving childhood, compared to other countries? To find that, you need N, or something computed using N, such as life insurance premiums.
It’s editorialization but less of a bluff to describe global warming as staggering, since it can be backed up with evidence of real impact that it has on everyone, where it is going, and that it needs interventions if it isn’t too late for those.
By comparison, look at the freakouts about kids being abducted by strangers. It happens and it makes headlines, but it’s very rare compared to abductions by relatives, for example. I’m very glad to have not been overprotected from this when I was a kid. Being able to go out by myself when I wanted made me independent in a good way, imho.
The child mortality difference sounds to me like a consequence of the well known suckage of the US healthcare system, but wrapped in “think of the children!”[0] breathlessness. If it’s disproportionate I’d like to see data indicating this.
And yes, COVID affects children[1,2], another example of crazy US COVID policy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
[1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242894/covid-19-leading-cause-death-children-young/
[2] https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/long-covid-is-now-the-number-one
You’re being obtuse. The article just said the numbers are staggering, which they are. It didn’t attempt to manipulate your emotions to think of the children.
Yes, the suckage of healthcare system, let’s agree that it’s the root cause of all other problems (poor mental health + no support systems + education system that allows bullying + people self medicating with synthetic drugs, etc etc) all contribute greatly to child morality, and the result is staggering and needs to be addressed.
You’re so offended by the word staggering that despite listing a reason for it yourself, you’re still complaining about the words instead of the actual problem you yourself identified.
Why does the richest country in the world have a healthcare system that sucks so bad it causes staggering excess child deaths? Don’t think of the children brother, think of their parents, friend, society at large. Don’t be okay with being SO MUCH WORSE than your fellow developed nations while tax dollars fund genocide and universal healthcare for another nation.
To this day I don’t know whether the numbers are staggering. Maybe they are, but your unsupported assertion (and the article’s) doesn’t make it true. I can be staggered by a number if I can understand what it means in the context of other risks we are all exposed to. Data like “your 8yo kid has 10% lower chance of surviving childhood than an 8yo in Sweden” or something like that would be cause for concern (an understatement, since it means that the likelihood of US 8yos surviving childhood is at most 90%).
You instead use charged adjectives on numbers with no context, a classic manipulation technique. Maybe not on purpose since you don’t seem like much of a critical thinker, but it doesn’t matter. That you haven’t recognized the importance of N suggests that you don’t understand the base rate fallacy (look it up).
Anyway, I don’t see any reason to continue this discussion, so have fun.
I’ve repeatedly explained the context, you’re being obtuse.
You haven’t given any numbers. What is N? You don’t know. Without it, you can’t contextualize the excess death number. So you are the one who is obtuse.