Obama Goes to Cuba

[Forty Two]

Those were WHO stats.

You think the WHO goes to Cuba and collects stats independently? What the fucking hell, dude?

I don't know, dude, do have evidence that their stats are wrong?

You don't know how the WHO collects its data? Do I -- yes. Example cited above.

And what about life expectancy? How do they fudge that? Keep otherwise dead people alive for years on respirators?

Issues of life expectancy are highly impacted by fucking infant mortality. So, a country like the US, which takes great measures to try to save risky pregnancies and expends extra effort on premature babies and such is going to lose more babies than countries that fucking abort a higher percentage of them, or throw the premies in the trash. Some countries don't even count many premies as live births, if they die quick enough after being born. If a newborn doesn't live more than 24 hours, it often doesn't show up in infant mortality statistics in Cuba, but in the US, if the baby lives even for a moment, it's counted as live birth. And, Cuba does not count its suicide rates as deaths for life expectancy purposes, and they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Evidence for any of this?

You need evidence that a low infant mortality number reduces the life expectancy number? Dude - when you're calculating life expectancy from birth, then babies that die in the first day are part of those numbers, driving the numbers down. High risk babies that are either not born, or born but not counted as live births, drive that number down. That's just a function of the way numbers work.

80% of surviving babies born at weights under 400g were born in the United States. That's an example of the US being at the forefront of efforts to save newborns. Some of the countries do not count babies that die within the first 24 hours as live births, they count them as either "stillborn" or "miscarriage" and therefore do not affect mortality rates. In the States, if you have a heartbeat when you are born then you are considered alive (40% of all infant deaths occur within 24 hours). Surely you see how the numbers are effected by that?

The WHO does NOT control for these kinds of differences in recordkeeping.

[Forty Two]

Or you you could get a grip.

[pErvinalia]

So basically your evidence is a PowerPoint presentation without the presentation, by some random student(?). Where did he get his data from?

Regarding the claim about infant mortality affecting life expectancy, it should be reasonably easy for you to calculate the change. So what is it?

[pErvinalia]

Those were WHO stats.

You think the WHO goes to Cuba and collects stats independently? What the fucking hell, dude?

I don't know, dude, do have evidence that their stats are wrong?

You don't know how the WHO collects its data? Do I -- yes. Example cited above.

And what about life expectancy? How do they fudge that? Keep otherwise dead people alive for years on respirators?

Issues of life expectancy are highly impacted by fucking infant mortality. So, a country like the US, which takes great measures to try to save risky pregnancies and expends extra effort on premature babies and such is going to lose more babies than countries that fucking abort a higher percentage of them, or throw the premies in the trash. Some countries don't even count many premies as live births, if they die quick enough after being born. If a newborn doesn't live more than 24 hours, it often doesn't show up in infant mortality statistics in Cuba, but in the US, if the baby lives even for a moment, it's counted as live birth. And, Cuba does not count its suicide rates as deaths for life expectancy purposes, and they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Evidence for any of this?

You need evidence that a low infant mortality number reduces the life expectancy number? Dude - when you're calculating life expectancy from birth, then babies that die in the first day are part of those numbers, driving the numbers down. High risk babies that are either not born, or born but not counted as live births, drive that number down. That's just a function of the way numbers work.

80% of surviving babies born at weights under 400g were born in the United States. That's an example of the US being at the forefront of efforts to save newborns. Some of the countries do not count babies that die within the first 24 hours as live births, they count them as either "stillborn" or "miscarriage" and therefore do not affect mortality rates. In the States, if you have a heartbeat when you are born then you are considered alive (40% of all infant deaths occur within 24 hours). Surely you see how the numbers are effected by that?

The WHO does NOT control for these kinds of differences in recordkeeping.

Your evidence that Cuba doesn't count premies (or those who live less than 24hrs) as live births.

[Forty Two]

So basically your evidence is a PowerPoint presentation without the presentation, by some random student(?). Where did he get his data from?

Professor/researcher - and the citations are included. The presentation is a summary of the data.

Would 'twere you asked such questions about the WHO's reports.... What do you want me to have? Buckets with dead premies to show you? Look at the numbers.

Regarding the claim about infant mortality affecting life expectancy, it should be reasonably easy for you to calculate the change. So what is it?

It's not relatively easy, when one country judges infant mortality different than another country. Look at the numbers of late fetal death and early neonatal death in the study I linked. The infant mortality rate in Cuba is demonstrably contrived based on those numbers. And, the effect on life expectancy was noted in the study I cited and linked to -- in Cuba, their infant mortality rate is probably double what they report.

higher life expectancy is as much about lower mortality rates among infants as achieving the ability to live longer

. http://priceonomics.com/why-life-expect ... isleading/ - as noted therein, if you fuck with the infant mortality statistics, you fuck with the life expectancy statistics.

I don't have a calculation of a specific number for Cuba, but if they are machinating a halving of their infant mortality rate, then they are significantly raising their life expectancy from birth.

[pErvinalia]

So basically your evidence is a PowerPoint presentation without the presentation, by some random student(?). Where did he get his data from?

Professor/researcher - and the citations are included. The presentation is a summary of the data.

There are no references to any data in that slideshow.

Would 'twere you asked such questions about the WHO's reports.... What do you want me to have? Buckets with dead premies to show you? Look at the numbers.

What numbers? There's no references to any data in that slideshow. And the graphs don't have units on their y-axes.

Regarding the claim about infant mortality affecting life expectancy, it should be reasonably easy for you to calculate the change. So what is it?

It's not relatively easy, when one country judges infant mortality different than another country. Look at the numbers of late fetal death and early neonatal death in the study I linked. The infant mortality rate in Cuba is demonstrably contrived based on those numbers. And, the effect on life expectancy was noted in the study I cited and linked to -- in Cuba, their infant mortality rate is probably double what they report.

It's absolutely easy if there are raw numbers/data as you suggest. You can get the number of deaths in a year, and therefore the total sum of death ages, then divide by n + whatever number of unreported infant deaths. I suspect the effect on average life expectancy would be small. But you are claiming it would be large enough to distinguish itself from the US's figure. So it's up to you to provide evidence for that point.

I don't have a calculation of a specific number for Cuba, but if they are machinating a halving of their infant mortality rate, then they are significantly raising their life expectancy from birth.

Provide some maths (even sample numbers) to back this point up.

[laklak]

They're building a huge new marina and upgrading many of the existing ones. Not long now till we set off from the Keys and anchor in Havana next morning. Fucking ace.

http://fishmonster.com/recent-news/mari ... ing-world/

[Tero]

Cuban life expectancy is the same as US, and infant mortality is lower. I thought Merca had the greatest health care system in the universe.

It only amounts to keeping you alive 2 weeks longer by extraodinary means and sending you a bill for 500 000.

[laklak]

More fool you then.

[tattuchu]

They're building a huge new marina and upgrading many of the existing ones. Not long now till we set off from the Keys and anchor in Havana next morning. Fucking ace.

http://fishmonster.com/recent-news/mari ... ing-world/

Ceegars for everyone!

[Forty Two]

Cuban life expectancy is the same as US, and infant mortality is lower. I thought Merca had the greatest health care system in the universe.

It only amounts to keeping you alive 2 weeks longer by extraodinary means and sending you a bill for 500 000.

Assuming that to be true arguendo, it doesn't change the fact that there is a different standard as to what "born alive" means.

[Forty Two]

They're building a huge new marina and upgrading many of the existing ones. Not long now till we set off from the Keys and anchor in Havana next morning. Fucking ace.

http://fishmonster.com/recent-news/mari ... ing-world/

Ceegars for everyone!

Castro ruined Cuban cigars too.

[pErvinalia]

They're building a huge new marina and upgrading many of the existing ones. Not long now till we set off from the Keys and anchor in Havana next morning. Fucking ace.

http://fishmonster.com/recent-news/mari ... ing-world/

[Hermit]

As if in Cuba everybody gets a decent education, health care, security and old age support...lol. The myth sold about the Cuban health care system was embarrassing. They have a three tiered system (a) cash paying foreigners (medical tourism) is the top, (b) elite Cubans and party members also very good, and (c) shit for everyone else - for the common Cuban hospitals and clinics are crumbling, conditions are unsanitary, and if people have to go to the hospital, they must often bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce, finding an aspirin and antibiotics is difficult.

The ordinary Cuban survives on rations of rice and beans -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_Cuba - that's the security and basic needs being met.

Over 65 years of United States embargoes do that to a country.

Bollocks. You mean, Cuba couldn't trade with the rest of the world? With US business and industry conveniently out of the way, there's 100 other countries with a wide-open market devoid of US competition.

If the US economic blockade only involved the US, that might be so. However, the US administration keeps telling non-US companies words to the effect of "If you trade with Cuba we'll make it very difficult for you to trade elsewhere, and particularly with us." So, for example (among many) BP was very keen on drilling for oil in Cuban waters, but found itself persuaded not to do so." Can you guess why?

LOL - "dictate to Cuba how they should govern themselves." What joke. Cubans don't govern themselves.

Of course not. That's what the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 are for.

Or, perhaps the Castro dictatorship? That might have something to do with it, I think. Jailing of political dissidents, assassinations, executions.....

The 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act is a problem? Funny, it's been British law for 100s of years that trading and commerce with enemies of the Crown are prohibited, unless permission is granted by the Crown government. It's, of course, only bad if the US does it. The US should allow trade with enemies.

The Cuban Democracy Act? You mean....sanctions on a dictatorship to try to effect change to a democratic society is bad? LOL.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961? That law reorganized the structure of then existing foreign aid, separating military from non-military aid. And, it created the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to administer non-military, economic assistance programs..... so, this is a problem, how? The US should not give aid? Should not have mechanisms to control who gets aid? We should give equal aid to all countries, even enemy countries? What's your issue here?

Cuban Asset Control Regulations? Those are the US Treasury regulations that control the embargo. Again, so what? This doesn't "govern" Cuba. These regulations did not compel Castro to set up a dictatorship, rule with an iron fist for 65 years, and starve his people.

Your rationalisations for the raft of laws that constitute the economic blockade against Cuba cannot be taken seriously precisely because it applied to one dictator only. The US has been enthusiastically trading with many others at the same time. For crying out loud, the US even looked happily on as ITT gave Cuba's previous dictator - who killed somewhere between 1000 and 20,000 political opponents - the famous golden telephone as an expression of gratitude for the excessive telephone rate increase that Batista granted at the urging of the U.S. government. Please get off your moral high horse. It's been shot dead by US policies a long time ago.

[Forty Two]

I'm not on the moral high horse - you are.

Also, I've been in favor of lifting the sanctions and embargo for the last thirty years. That doesn't mean that Cuba's economic state is the fault of the US.

Plenty of countries had no problem trading with Cuba. Canada and the Netherlands, for example, have no problem trading with Cuba. Cuba even allows direct acceptance of the Euro in tourist areas, and they waived conversion charges for Canadian dollars and British pounds. Heck, the US dollar has so easily gotten into Cuba, that it was legal tender in Cuba for over a decade, until the Castros rescinded that and imposed a 20% surcharge.

Also, in 1992, all Cuba had to do was adopt a democratic system (allow elections) and convert to a regulated free market, and the embargo would have gone away. The Castros would not budge. And, lifting the embargo is more complicated than just doing away with it. As has been pointed out by Representative Diaz (a Cuban born former member of the US House of Representatives) -- lifting the embargo would enrich the Castros - t the tune of billions of dollars.