
Good News Hidden in the Data: Today’s Children Are Healthier - pavornyoh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/upshot/adults-may-be-dying-younger-but-children-are-getting-healthier.html?ref=opinion
======
neolefty
This is great news. It makes me want to summarize the article. From 1990 to
2010, death rates have been cut in half, roughly, all over the world. There's
no single factor, but these stand out:

* access to health care, especially early in life (in the US, helped by policy)

* fewer environmental toxins -- especially less smoking & less second-hand smoke

And in 2010, developing nations are where wealthy nations were in 1990. The
health gap between rich and poor is shrinking everywhere.

The consequence is that better health means better lives & positive
contribution to society. Positive feedback loop.

\---

My own theory: Internet access has helped too, by disseminating knowledge
about health & disease.

~~~
iwontreddit
> My own theory: Internet access has helped too, by disseminating knowledge
> about health & disease.

Considering internet usage is fairly recent, I don't think the internet is the
reason.

Your assertion about developing nations become wealthy nations probably has
more to do with it.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that it is great news. It just means that the human
population is going to continue to expand. We need more people to die. Not
more people to live.

If 7+ billion people want to live like westerners, there really is no hope.

------
vmateixeira
Good news, but I find the title somewhat misleading when all the article does
is trying to minimize the increase in adult death rates in the US (comparing
to children). Also less deaths doesn't necessarily mean healthier..

~~~
zardo
>Also less deaths doesn't necessarily mean healthier

Especially in youth where accidents are the leading cause of death.

Better use of helmets, seat belts, and life jackets could be the cause of
reduced mortality, even while health declines.

~~~
hugh4
True, although I'd guess that the massive decrease in mortality in infants
under 1 (who are still massively more likely to die than older children) is
probably due to improved medical intervention.

For older children and teenagers it's probably better safety equipment,
particularly in cars. I guess we've also got improved treatments now for the
few diseases which actually do kill children, such as various cancers.

But hey, it's still good news, even if "healthier" isn't the way to describe
it.

------
dredmorbius
The message here is that what matters most in healthcare and improvements in
health as measured by live expectancy and quality of life aren't the high-
cost, intensive interventions of advanced medicine, but the basics:

 _Ms. Currie can’t be sure what precise factors have led to the reductions in
death rates for poor young Americans, but she has some theories. Public health
insurance, through the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance programs,
expanded to cover more children and pregnant women throughout the 1980s and
1990s. Research has shown measurable benefits to the children with access to
the program: There was less infant mortality; they were hospitalized less
often as they grew older; they were more likely to finish high school and
attend college; and they earned more money in early adulthood. Those studies
all suggest a real health benefit from the insurance program._

what matters?

 _Access to healthcare._

 _Access to healthcare during pregnancy._

 _Access to healthcare at childbirth._

 _Reductions in environmental contamination._ Smoking. Lead. Pollution.

This is consistent with the data of the past 150 years: the greatest
improvements in health come _not_ from medicine, per se, but from public
health and sanitation measures.

Clean water.

Municipal sanitation. (Getting rid of horses, and their offal and carcases,
helped a lot as well.)

Food quality.

Refrigeration.

For all the commotion made about vaccines in the past few years, _and yes,
vaccines are absolutely a good thing and you and your children should have
them,_ there were vast improvements in life expectency _long before_ vaccines
became available.

As there were _long before_ antibiotics became available.

And much of the improvement in health among _adults_ since 1950 is
attributable to similar causes:

 _Less smoking._

 _Less alcohol consumption._

 _Better access to healthcare._ Among those who had little to no access
initially: the poor and minorities.

 _Vaccinations._

 _Better nutrition._

 _Fewer environmental contaminants._ Especially leaded gasoline and paint.

It's a sobering message for those who are looking to high-tech, high-
intervention methods for healthcare miracles. Evidence strongly suggests
you'll be disappointed.

Though your doctor may appreciate the billing potential.

------
juskrey
This journo tries to invent the narrative that is totally missing in the data.

Smaller children mortality does not mean they will leave longer lives, nor
they are (or will be) healthier.

~~~
dredmorbius
It _does_ mean improved _life expectancy_ , measured at birth.

It also _probably_ means longer lives, as health in the first few years is
predictive of this. Largely as indicated by discrepencies in mortality by
wealth and race:

[http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=life-
expectancy](http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=life-expectancy)

~~~
juskrey
Improved life expectancy for the whole population, not for that children.

If a child dies at 10 instead of 2, the population life expectancy at 0 will
be greater, but from 10 - the same.

Heck, even if dies at 80 instead of 2, this does not say anything about
health, just the fact some dangerous early-life condition was addressed.

------
known
50% infants in India are undernourished/starving/dying;
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/saving-
the-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/saving-the-cows-
starving-the-children.html)

