INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION: This blog is my effort to help improve the understanding of numbers, especially as used by the press and in research reported by the press. I hope journalists will find it useful to improving the quality and validity of what they write. The topics are chosen from items I encounter with depressing frequency, in which failure to understand what they are saying or reporting leads journalists to write material that may mislead the public and result in ill-advised policy decisions. Please understand that my comments do not reflect my opinions of the subject matter. I protest misleading information even when it supports my opinions.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Big Numbers - Deaths of Children


A brief article by Donald G. McNeil Jr. (“Young Children’s Deaths Said to Drop Again in 2011”, NY Times 12 September 2012 ) reports that fewer than* 7 million children died from disease and birth complications in 2011—a new low.  The problem with this type of statement is that it offers no perspective for the “7 million”, so the reader does not understand the import of the number.  It would make no difference to most of us if the story had said 70 million.  It is quite simple to discover that the world population of children aged 0-4 was close to 624 million in 2011, so that the 7 million deaths represents about 1.1 percent.  Now we understand something of what the number means.

*I note meaningless phrasings.  One hopes that by "fewer than" the author means "approximately".
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Jim DilgerSeptember 22, 2012 at 7:54 AM

    I agree!
    As a scientist, I don't understand why reporters simply give us "facts" without citing the sources. Okay, the reporter did note that this was from the World Health Organization. But, it would have taken very little effort for him or his editor to provide a link to the page of interest. http://www.who.int/research/en/
    So, the number is 6.9 million.
    That page links to a graph from which we can see that the mortality rate for under 5s in 2011 was 51 per 1000 live births. About 0.5%. A bit different normalization than what you came up with.
    To the NYT's credit, my quick search suggests that the other news sources that reported this, simply paraphrased (or quoted) the NYT article. None of them searched independently!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)