Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> if the US was trying much harder to save babies than other developed nations (which doesn't pass the smell test IMO), that should only result in a lower infant mortality rate, not a higher one, unless their efforts were somehow having a negative impact on survival.

Think about it some more - it will result in a higher rate because others would classify it as a miscarriage. Your own cite says:

"variations in recording of births and deaths at the limits of viability compromises international comparisons."

Depreciation is a legitimate business expense. You're arguing that corporations really have two sets of books - one for the IRS and then one where we use your definition of profits. They didn't make profits according to the IRS accounting rules. IRS accounting rules on what profits are are the only rules that matter.




My source supports me attempting to steelman your claim by suggesting you mistakenly are referring to live births gestational age thresholds. That's not at all the same as a difference driven by how aggressive attempts to save premee lives are across countries.


Do you have a source Walter, or are you just repeating something you remember reading a while ago?


I read it about 10 or 15 years ago. I'd google various things like "Canadian definition of miscarriage". I did this for a sampling of various countries. There was wide variation.

At the time America tried to save preemies earlier than anyone else. Of course, this had a high failure rate, and they were classified as infant mortality. Developing techniques to save them can only happen if you're pushing the envelope.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: