sl0re - 28 July 2007 09:15 PM

CM - 28 July 2007 06:56 PM

Does the WHO just accept figures provided by each government? (I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it)

Couldn’t tell ya. Have you looked into the theory that Cuba has a policy of ‘encouraging’ abortion for problem pregnancies?

The WHO is trying to establish uniform reporting . . . all of their old data is based on the record keeping policies of individual countries, so to some degree their numbers lack consistancy.

Buzz - 29 July 2007 06:06 AM

sl0re - 28 July 2007 09:15 PM

CM - 28 July 2007 06:56 PM

Does the WHO just accept figures provided by each government? (I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it)

Couldn’t tell ya. Have you looked into the theory that Cuba has a policy of ‘encouraging’ abortion for problem pregnancies?

The WHO is trying to establish uniform reporting . . . all of their old data is based on the record keeping policies of individual countries, so to some degree their numbers lack consistancy.

Yep… that and can you really trust numbers from closed totalitarian states at all? When there is reason for them to fudge the numbers I’d start from a stance of assuming… they’re fudging the numbers…

But numbers from liberal democracies are going to be 100% accurate?!
Ah, ok. Any talk about fudging hospital waiting list numbers and employment numbers in NZ (and other countries) must just have been in my imagination. We simply wouldn’t do it as we are pure and righteous.

CM - 29 July 2007 04:47 PM

But numbers from liberal democracies are going to be 100% accurate?!

No, I doubt they are 100% accurate CM.
http://en.wiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

But the errors and politics involved in numbers from an open society tend to be less…

Am I right in assuming you’d start from a stance that they are correct?
‘Starting from a stance’ suggests one is going to be doing more work in determining their accuracy. How much more work would you do in the case of a totalitarian government, and how much more in the case of a liberal democracy?
I’m not really having a go, more like trying to figure out what assumptions are being made here, and what actual evidence (if any) is being relied on. And why.

EDIT: I’ve seen my government fiddle numbers repeatedly to try and make themselves look better, particularly in election year. I would assume that all governments act in that way.

CM - 30 July 2007 12:16 AM

Am I right in assuming you’d start from a stance that they are correct?

No CM.

They may be a bit off and even for political reasons. Example, I know the FBI inflates the US murder stats a bit with game play (they count anything considered a murder, anywhere in the process, a murder… even when its later shown not to be. They will revise a accident or manslaughter that is later re-classed a murder a murder, but not vice versa)… it justifies a bigger budget… all these murders… on that note, many acts of self defense initially start as a murder investigation.. even if it is only on the opening paperwork at the scene…

...anyway…

On the other hand, you can only fudge the stats so much or so far in a free country (as in, we even know about the odd ball stat gathering issues… such as the one above… if we care to look)… In a totalitarian dictatorship, you can just make up your stats whole cloth… claim whatever methodology you want to claim… and shoot anyone that contradict the stats or the methodology claims....

I see. Well it’s a good general point, but I’d love to see some actual evidence of what they do in Cuba.
Just saying, we can assume but that’s all we are doing.

That’s interesting about the FBI. Makes sense from their perspective I guess.

CM - 30 July 2007 12:53 AM

I see. Well it’s a good general point, but I’d love to see some actual evidence of what they do in Cuba.
Just saying, we can assume but that’s all we are doing.

Fair enough.

But I will start with the assumption that stats collected by closed totalitarian states are highly suspect / not credible.

The screens, in 1984, blaring production numbers non stop are in my mind here. :)