Castro has passed on

[caveman1917]

Biased, moi? Panam Post?

Trump Is the Only World Leader to Recognize Fidel Castro’s Failed, Violent Dictatorship
BY: PANAM POST STAFF - NOV 27, 2016, 3:43 PM​

That Panam Post article. It is written by a libertarian (in its American meaning) who, after making a couple unverifiable first-person-narrative claims, starts to bemoan that Cuba doesn't privatize its healthcare. Business opportunities, you know... Yeah, I'm going to call that biased.

It seems reasonable that they'd also print that about Trump, he's also a true patriot, like the Cuban organization the Argentinian libertarian politician who wrote the hospital story works with.

 

[Ziggurat]

One measure of the health care system is infant mortality rate. Cuba's is considerably better than the US.

The source I have is the CIA not likely to be advocating on behalf of Cuba.
https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html#cu

Your source is not the CIA. The CIA doesn't measure Cuba's infant mortality rate. It merely publishes a number from a different source. I'll give you one guess as to the actual source of that data.

 

[Craig B]

Your source is not the CIA ... I'll give you one guess as to the actual source of that data.

Why not simply tell us?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why not simply tell us?

The source of the data is the Cuban government. Seriously, who else would it be? This is a communist dictatorship we're talking about. Information control is the lifeblood of dictatorships.

Why wasn't the answer obvious to you? Because it should have been.

 

[Craig B]

The source of the data is the Cuban government. Seriously, who else would it be? This is a communist dictatorship we're talking about. Information control is the lifeblood of dictatorships.

Why wasn't the answer obvious to you? Because it should have been.

You have produced evidence that the Cuban government is the source of information published in the http://ahtribune.com/world/americas/321-cuba-infant-mortality-rate.html American Herald Tribune. You have not shown that it is the CIA's source, although it may well be. Also that the CIA didn't check or verify it in any way. Although that may be true as well.

ETA A comment published in your source suggests this

If you have an ultrasound in Cuba and they believe there is any problem with the baby you are forced to have an abortion. If you have a premature baby the child does not receive care or is placed in a plastic bag to die and is then labeled a stillbirth. Both of these are common practices and it is all in an effort to keep the propaganda going about Cuba's infant mortality rate. Doctors are monitored carefully and intimidated and threatened to go along with these practices in order to prop up this false infant mortality rate. Cuba also has one of the highest abortion rates in the world because people don't want to have kids there and they use abortion as birth control, the abortion rate is over 60%!​

Now this is the sort of thing I expect to be elucidated, confirmed or refuted, from public comment in Cuba following Castro's demise. Is the real rate of abortion in Cuba over 60%? We may be able to find that out soon.

More unrestrained internal evidence will be the test, as it was in the case of Stalin sixty years ago. Doctors will tell us what is happening in their wards and practices. Up to then I will treat both the Cuban government and the CIA with reserve, as sources that require, on account of political influences, to be approached with caution.

 

[qayak]

The source of the data is the Cuban government. Seriously, who else would it be? This is a communist dictatorship we're talking about. Information control is the lifeblood of dictatorships.

Why wasn't the answer obvious to you? Because it should have been.

No.

In-depth analysis of Cuban health care by internationally recognized scholars and researchers have concluded that Cuba rates high worldwide in health outcomes. Two of the most prestigious American medical journals — New England Journal of Medicine and International Journal of Epidemiology — have carried comprehensive articles on Cuban health care.

Here are some facts:

● Cuba was the first country to eliminate polio in 1962 and measles in 1996.

● Cuba has the lowest HIV/​AIDS rate and has the most effective control of dengue fever in Latin America.

● Cuba has reduced cardiovascular deaths by 45 percent.

● Cuba has achieved the highest levels of vaccination in the world.

The most startling statistics, however, are about the infant and maternal mortality rates. The infant mortality in Cuba is the same as in the United States and Canada: 5 deaths per 1,000 live births.

In addition, the country has robust pharmaceutical and research enterprises. Cuba spends $320 per person per year on health care, whereas the United States spends $9,255 per person per year.

http://www.toledoblade.com/World/2016/05/02/Cuban-health-care-system-draws-global-praise.html

 

[Beerina]

No.



http://www.toledoblade.com/World/2016/05/02/Cuban-health-care-system-draws-global-praise.html

In any other context, a scientist would laugh out the door any info produced in a dictatorship.

But confirmation bias in mass murderer lovers who can freely return to safe nations they bemoan for not being dictator-like, well...

Again, mathematically zero weight of validity. Shame on you "skeptics".

I hope demons are splitting his arms up to the shoulders right next to Saddam.

 

[Craig B]

I hope demons are splitting his arms up to the shoulders right next to Saddam.

I must admit I've never understood this. We deplore mass murdering dictators - but we worship an infinitely dictatorial supernatural personnage, and revel in the imaginary tortures we envisage him permitting to be inflicted.

 

[Ziggurat]

No.



http://www.toledoblade.com/World/2016/05/02/Cuban-health-care-system-draws-global-praise.html

No.

My link pointed out the source of the data. Your link... doesn't. Seriously. Read it again. At no point does it identify the actual source of the data itself. It says that there are scholarly articles about Cuba's health care system, but it doesn't identify what those articles are, nor how they got the data they used. And yet, it still gives the same data for infant mortality that my link gives. So, again, what was the source of that data? It was the Department of Medical Records and Health Statistics. Which is part of...

(drumroll, please)

... the Cuban government.

Anyone who ever thought otherwise is a rube.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have produced evidence that the Cuban government is the source of information published in the http://ahtribune.com/world/americas/321-cuba-infant-mortality-rate.html American Herald Tribune. You have not shown that it is the CIA's source, although it may well be. Also that the CIA didn't check or verify it in any way. Although that may be true as well.

Of course it's true. Again, who else can measure the infant mortality rate in Cuba? Nobody. Cuba won't let anyone else measure the infant mortality rate. Why would they? That's not how dictatorships operate. You will search in vain for any data other than the official Cuban government numbers.

And the CIA World Factbook is an open source. They don't have some massive team of agents measuring all that stuff on their own, they just compile that stuff from all the standard publicly available sources. So if there's only one source for infant mortality rate in Cuba, then that's what they use. They aren't going to send in spies to try to find out if it's accurate.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Even apart from the source, given what we know of Cuba it would be amazingly unlikely that accurately recorded infant mortality is that low. When supplies are scarce, the extreme case being a famine, infant mortality tend to make up the bulk of increased fatalities.

 

[Craig B]

Of course it's true. Again, who else can measure the infant mortality rate in Cuba? Nobody. Cuba won't let anyone else measure the infant mortality rate. Why would they? That's not how dictatorships operate. You will search in vain for any data other than the official Cuban government numbers.

And the CIA World Factbook is an open source. They don't have some massive team of agents measuring all that stuff on their own, they just compile that stuff from all the standard publicly available sources. So if there's only one source for infant mortality rate in Cuba, then that's what they use. They aren't going to send in spies to try to find out if it's accurate.

So you're stating that the facts about dictatorial countries produced by the CIA are all valueless? Maybe so. Do you think that the situation in Cuba is instead as suggested by the source I reproduced in #85? You will therefore understand why I approach both the CIS and the Cuban government with caution as sources of data.

The CIA was famous for reanalysing Soviet economic data and plans. In no way did the CIA accept these at face value, but published its own estimates. You're saying it doesn't do this in the Cuban health case? Why ever not?

 

[Craig B]

Even apart from the source, given what we know of Cuba it would be amazingly unlikely that accurately recorded infant mortality is that low. When supplies are scarce, the extreme case being a famine, infant mortality tend to make up the bulk of increased fatalities.

That depends. Has there been famine in Cuba? Shortages don't always reduce health. Wartime rationing in the U.K. had a very beneficial effect on health in the previously very poor city where I live. People had a sufficiency of necessary supplies, and the shortage was mainly of non-essentials. Also the war ended mass unemployment, and consequently the diet of the very poorest consumers approached closer to the (adequate but not generous) median.

ETA

John Boyd Orr's "Food, Health and Income" (1935) had shown that the Scottish diet was insufficient to maintain health. The continued existence of squalid housing in urban areas of Scotland and the overcrowding it promoted still had to be addressed ... Due to higher War-time nutritional standards and easier access to medical treatment, the infant mortality rate fell during the Second World War to a fifth of the 1901 level​

http://www.scran.ac.uk/scotland/pdf/SP2_3Health.pdf

 

[Ziggurat]

So you're stating that the facts about dictatorial countries produced by the CIA are all valueless?

I didn't say they were ALL valueless. But the numbers aren't produced by the CIA. That's the point.

The CIA was famous for reanalysing Soviet economic data and plans. In no way did the CIA accept these at face value, but published its own estimates. You're saying it doesn't do this in the Cuban health case? Why ever not?

Again, the answer should be obvious.

It doesn't really matter to the CIA what the infant mortality rate in Cuba is. Seriously, what difference does it make? Does it affect US security in any way, shape, or form? No, it does not. In contrast, the economic strength of the USSR was incredibly significant. It served as a bound on the scope of soviet military strength. The stronger the soviet economy, the more weapons it could produce, the more research it could fund, etc. Knowing the strength of the soviet economy was critically important. Knowing how many babies die in Cuba is irrelevant to the CIA.

So the CIA spent resources to try to find out the state of the Soviet economy. They looked at trade with the west, which provided reliable numbers for part of the soviet economy. They looked at indirect information (number of factories, etc). And I'm sure they spied as well (ie, stealing secret government information). But they aren't going to spend those resources for this. They aren't going to try to bribe doctors to find out how many babies died in some random village. They aren't going to use spy satellites to try to figure out how much biological tissue gets disposed of. Because again, it doesn't matter to the CIA what the truth is, because whatever it is makes no difference. It's not their problem.

Hell, even among western countries where access isn't the issue, where people aren't given an incentive to lie, infant mortality numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Why? Because the numbers aren't all measured the same way, and they don't even measure the same thing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas

 

[Craig B]

I didn't say they were ALL valueless. But the numbers aren't produced by the CIA. That's the point.

Again, the answer should be obvious.

It doesn't really matter to the CIA what the infant mortality rate in Cuba is. Seriously, what difference does it make? Does it affect US security in any way, shape, or form? No, it does not.

It very evidently does, and the contributions of rightist contributors to this and similar threads proves that. If this is a propaganda legend cooked up by commies to make the US and its servile client dependencies (as the commies state them to be) in Latin America look bad, you're telling me that's of no interest to the CIA? Don't believe you. Now I've said I don't know where the truth of this matter lies, but that one way or another it isn't important to the agencies in the service of the USA defies all belief.

 

[Ziggurat]

It very evidently does, and the contributions of rightist contributors to this and similar threads proves that. If this is a propaganda legend cooked up by commies to make the US and its servile client dependencies (as the commies state them to be) in Latin America look bad, you're telling me that's of no interest to the CIA? Don't believe you. Now I've said I don't know where the truth of this matter lies, but that one way or another it isn't important to the agencies in the service of the USA defies all belief.

First off, I never said that Cuba lied about their infant mortality rates. I don't know if they lied, just like you don't know if they're telling the truth. But they're still the only source of those numbers.

Second, it's not the CIA's job to worry about what US health care should look like. If we want to try government-run health care in an attempt to produce Cuba's reported infant mortality rate, that's not something the CIA cares about. Their mission is a little more narrow than that. That doesn't mean that voters have no reason to be interested in it. The Department of Health and Human Services might be interested in the truth about Cuba's infant mortality, but they have no way to collect data on it.

Third, the importance of propaganda is not symmetric. Dictatorships need propaganda for internal purposes far more than for external purposes.

Lastly, I will note once again: you will not find any independent measurements of Cuba's infant mortality rates. The ONLY source for data is the Cuban government. If you want to prove me wrong, don't bother with all this speculation about the CIA's motives, just find a source for the data that isn't the Cuban government.

 

[caveman1917]

but that one way or another it isn't important to the agencies in the service of the USA defies all belief.

Of course it is important, they regularly check these sorts of claims through the WHO. But don't you know, the American government agencies are all in on it, even the WHO is - nudge nudge wink wink

 

[caveman1917]

Of course it is important, they regularly check these sorts of claims through the WHO. But don't you know, the American government agencies are all in on it, even the WHO is - nudge nudge wink wink

While not exactly the same thing as the infant mortality rate, it's still quite an achievement - especially if you have to do it with hospitals with only a single dirty toilet whilst in the middle of a famine.

 

[Segnosaur]

One measure of the health care system is infant mortality rate. Cuba's is considerably better than the US.

Others have already mentioned problems trying to compare infant morality between countries. Here are a few other references:

From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...m-harkin-says-cuba-has-lower-child-mortality/
Some say Cuba is so concerned with its infant mortality and life-expectancy statistics that the government takes heavy-handed actions to protect their international rankings. "Cuba does have a very low infant mortality rate, but pregnant women are treated with very authoritarian tactics to maintain these favorable statistics," said Tassie Katherine Hirschfeld, the chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma who spent nine months living in Cuba to study the nation's health system. "They are pressured to undergo abortions that they may not want if prenatal screening detects fetal abnormalities. If pregnant women develop complications, they are placed in ‘Casas de Maternidad’ for monitoring, even if they would prefer to be at home."

And also from: https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ (Note: This is a private article/blog, so skepticism is waranted...)
...in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.... This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight — less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams.
(Again, that last reference was a blog, so skepticism is waranted; I have heard similar arguments before, but it was a while ago and I can't find the reference articles.)

So even if the Cuban government was reporting the statistics accurately, there may be other factors affecting the data.

 

[Planigale]

Others have already mentioned problems trying to compare infant morality between countries. Here are a few other references:

From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...m-harkin-says-cuba-has-lower-child-mortality/
Some say Cuba is so concerned with its infant mortality and life-expectancy statistics that the government takes heavy-handed actions to protect their international rankings. "Cuba does have a very low infant mortality rate, but pregnant women are treated with very authoritarian tactics to maintain these favorable statistics," said Tassie Katherine Hirschfeld, the chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma who spent nine months living in Cuba to study the nation's health system. "They are pressured to undergo abortions that they may not want if prenatal screening detects fetal abnormalities. If pregnant women develop complications, they are placed in ‘Casas de Maternidad’ for monitoring, even if they would prefer to be at home."

And also from: https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ (Note: This is a private article/blog, so skepticism is waranted...)
...in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.... This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight — less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams.
(Again, that last reference was a blog, so skepticism is waranted; I have heard similar arguments before, but it was a while ago and I can't find the reference articles.)

So even if the Cuban government was reporting the statistics accurately, there may be other factors affecting the data.

survival rates are dependant more on age than weight so being small for dates is better than being the same weight but 2 weeks younger (this all referring to premmies. Less than 500g and less than 24 weeks are significant negative indicators of survival. It is doubtful given the embargo on Cuba from the US that drugs and equipment to enable successful treatment of infants below these limits were available. So who should be blamed the Cuban government for not futilely treating these infants and prolonging their suffering or the US government for the embargo?