Death rate by country

The connection is that we saw the list and immediately leapt into a discussion about suprise at Iraq's placing, given the relatively unpeaceful state of the country. Whereas in the 'Peace Index' they are dead last. Its not a 'hijacking', its the suggestion that perhaps the death rate is not an incredibly accurate depiction of the state of the country in question.

I would hardly call a study based entirely upon '2007 estimations' objective, especially when undertaken by the CIA, whose funding comes from Country #104, and to whom they owe a certain obligation to maintain the integrity of that country. On the other hand, the GPI, however subjective it may be, is determined by an international body who do not owe any such duty to any particular country, and thus may not necessarily base their 'estimations' in light of that duty.

 

I won't debate the point extensively because the answer that anyone comes up with will depend upon their preconceived ideas only but the fact is that the CIA in its intelligence gathering and analysis function attempts to be as objective as possible and does not just parrot what they think their boss (the administration) wants to hear. If they did that they would be of little use to the administration and could hardly justify the billions of dollars spent to gather and analyze data each year.
There is a difference between their role of advising the President on intelligence matters or conducting covert operations and the vast majority of what their task consists of which is gathering intelligence from a variety of sources and compiling reports (such as is available on that website) and analysis of that gathered data.
As far as being based on estimates goes virtually all such data is always based on estimates whether gathered by the CIA or a UN commission or whoever.

 

In regard to using estimates. This from the World Health Organization on methods of gathering/analyzing data to determine life expectancy at birth:

Code:

Methods of estimation

WHO has developed a model life table based on about 1800 life tables from vital registration judged to be of good quality. 

For countries with vital registration, the level of completeness of recorded mortality data in the population is assessed and mortality rates are adjusted accordingly. Where vital registration data for 2003 were available, these were used directly to construct the life table. For countries where the information system provided a time series of annual life tables, parameters from the life table were projected using a weighted regression model, giving more weight to recent years. Projected values of the two life table parameters were then applied to the modified logit life table model, where the most recent national data provided an age pattern, to predict the full life table for 2003. 

In case of inadequate sources of age-specific mortality rates, the life table is derived from estimated under-5 mortality rates and adult mortality rates that are applied to a global standard (defined as the average of all the 1800 life tables) using a modified logit model.

Disaggregation

By age and sex.

References

:: Modified logit life table system: principles, empirical validation and application 
Murray CJL, et al. Modified logit life table system: principles, empirical validation and application. Population Studies 2003, 57(2):1-18. 
:: World health report 2005 statistical annex 
The World Health Report 2005: make every mother and child count. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2005. 
Comments

and this:

 

Playing with statistics...

Comparing the 'overall deaths' by 'child deaths' throws up some interesting stats. For example, the UAE is estimated to have only 2.16 deaths per thousand people, but 13.52 deaths per thousand children.

I'm also puzzled about how they group the countries. For example, they have 'United Kingdom', but list the Isle of Man and the Channel islands seperately. And why is 'EU' a category? And why have a 'World' but not a continental breakdown? It just seems that in some cases they are not producing properly comparable (or geographically/politically accurate) statistics.

However, stats are always able to be manipulated, so, taking the findings at face value...

Why do many European Countries have an estimated higher death rate for 2007 than the USA? Well, you could link it in with the fact that most European countries have a lower estimated child death rate for 2007 than the USA, and conclude that our old people are dying faster. Why? Well, maybe they had a less than healthy start in life. Let's see, what major event happened across Europe about, oh, 50 or 60 years ago that might have affected people's health, but did not carry to the USA (or Canada, which is #114)? My 'let's start a debate' answer is, therefore, that it is all down to the effects of food shortages imposed by WW2 .

 

Moderator post:

Ok guys, break it up.

Grieg, Jens is correct that this topic was apparently started as an EU vs USA debate with first advantage going to the USA. Similar topics that start with the opposite slant often seem to cause much outrage to some of our American members, and typically now merit a cautionary word from us Moderators even before anybody else posts.

Jens,

Ok - first part good, second part bad.You've apologised for a personal attack and then made another one! No more. :angry:

 

I'm a little confused by this listing of death rates :-?

For one, it doesn't list the cause of death.

Secondly, the death rate in every country is the same, 100%

The only certainty in life is death

 

From all causes.

Eventually. However this particular death rate refers to deaths per year.

 

[edited by Moderator]

Yes Grieg you are correct I do still look at this site but I do not post because you have not put too much [that I disagree with] on recently.

However, using your source:

Death rate as defined by the CIA.

‘This entry gives the average annual number of deaths during a year per 1,000 population at midyear; also known as crude death rate. The death rate, while only a rough indicator of the mortality situation in a country, accurately indicates the current mortality impact on population growth. This indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining fertility results in an aging population.’

This in itself does not mean a great deal. Your quote about gun toting people can ce explained away.

US:

0-14 years: 20.2% (male 31,152,050/female 29,777,438)
15-64 years: 67.2% (male 100,995,752/female 101,365,035)
65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477/female 21,991,195) (2007 est.)

Germany:

0-14 years: 13.9% (male 5,894,724/female 5,590,373)
15-64 years: 66.3% (male 27,811,357/female 26,790,222)
65 years and over: 19.8% (male 6,771,972/female 9,542,348) (2007 est.)

UK:

0-14 years: 17.2% (male 5,349,053/female 5,095,837)
15-64 years: 67% (male 20,605,031/female 20,104,313)
65 years and over: 15.8% (male 4,123,464/female 5,498,540) (2007 est.)



Infant mortality rate:

‘This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.’

Where EU is 197 and US 180.

So the US has a higher infant mortality rate than the US.

Life expectancy at birth:

‘This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.’

Here the EU is 36 and the US is 45

So as a summary.

If you are born in the US and manage to survive your first year of life, then you will probably die before your European counterparts.

These are facts from your source.

 

Dammit. Am I going to have to lock this topic? I am going to get seriously peeved if every topic that dares compare US to Europe has to be throttled at birth because people can't just accept that other people hold different opinions, or even that in some areas one will be 'better'.

You may not like each other, that is fine with me - I have no authority over your opinions or feelings. But please don't go out of your way to actually point this out.

Just behave yourselves. :angry:

 

On-topic post.

No thoughts on my idea yet? GP's stats would seem to give credance to it.

I had another one. I would not be suprised if Europe had a higher proportion of road deaths than America - basically because European roads tend on average (I think! ) to be narrower, wigglier and more crowded than American roads.


And no response on the counter-issue of why the USA has a greater rate of infant mortality?

 

Possibly overall quality of hospital services for low-income families.

 

A number of posts which didn't add to the discussion of the topic of this thread has been removed. Additional posts in the removed argument will be deleted on sight, regardless of who posts them.

 

GP, I'm afraid I don't understand this.
Don't these numbers mean that an American is more likely to live longer (45 vs 36) than a European if they survive the first year of life? Or was the error in "you will probably die before your European conuterparts."?

 

No, it just means that European Union is at place 36 and USA at place 45 at that life expectancy list.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Life expectancy in EU is 78,70 years while in USA its mere 78 years.