Sometimes one wonders at what otherwise presumably professional people do with statistics.
Researchers writing in the journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) examined all home births over a decade.
They apparently feel the study indicates there could be ‘serious risks’ for the baby when mothers who chose a home birth are transferred to hospital.
The implication being that home birth is the problem aspect.
The problem is the data is self selecting. They are examining births that have to be transferred to hospital because they have got into trouble serious enough to require it. Also they are not really comparing like for like.
As it stands the particular conclusion mentioned above can really amount to little more than a pointer to a possible direction for further research. Something as easily arrived at by educated logic. It is largely useless - and it needn’t have been, if those conducting it had planned more carefully and harvested the right data. One fears to some extent it is time and money not used to the best advantage it could have been.
Only around 15% of home birthers actually have problems that require they transfer to hospital, for second time mothers the risk is lower.
A valid comparison would have been to look at how women who elected to give birth in hospital, with no contra indications prior to giving birth, fared against women who elected to give birth at home with, no prior contra indications, fared.
One might expect to see that the possible wait and journey to hospital might disadvantage home birthers who got into trouble, compared to Hospital birthers who similarly got into trouble - but it is possible this could be offset by other factors, such as the risk posed by antibiotic resistant infections and other infections present in hospitals, or possible closer individual attention during the initial stages.
Whilst the actual report is more balanced, the BBC headline is dubious in that it baldly states “Home birth to ward increases risk”. It is actually misleading as this is by no means proven, or evident, even from the report. An accurate headline might have prefaced it with “Report claims”.
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Amnesty say Olympics are actually making things worse in China
One hears much guff that engaging the Chinese Government over the Olympic Games. There has been much talk about the possibility that the presence of western media (around 20,000 reporters) might help improve China’s human rights record.
It was not a good sign when British authorities, apparently colluding with Chinese oppression, decided to force UK athletes to sign a gag order, preventing them criticising the Chinese government, before they will allow them to attend the games. Why they felt it necessary to do this when other countries did not remains open to question.
Now it seems this may not necessarily result in an improvement after all. According to Amnesty International it is in fact making things worse.
Clearly the Chinese authorities see the prospect of any dissent as an embarrassment and are ruthlessly pre-emptively suppressing anything, or any one, that has the potential to flair up in front of the western media before they get there in numbers.
One only has to look at how they ejected reporters from Tibet and manipulated reports and figures. down playing the number of Tibetans killed by a factor of 10 or more. Or the vast numbers of troops they have sent into the country to suppress the native population.
It was not a good sign when British authorities, apparently colluding with Chinese oppression, decided to force UK athletes to sign a gag order, preventing them criticising the Chinese government, before they will allow them to attend the games. Why they felt it necessary to do this when other countries did not remains open to question.
Now it seems this may not necessarily result in an improvement after all. According to Amnesty International it is in fact making things worse.
Clearly the Chinese authorities see the prospect of any dissent as an embarrassment and are ruthlessly pre-emptively suppressing anything, or any one, that has the potential to flair up in front of the western media before they get there in numbers.
One only has to look at how they ejected reporters from Tibet and manipulated reports and figures. down playing the number of Tibetans killed by a factor of 10 or more. Or the vast numbers of troops they have sent into the country to suppress the native population.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ To prejudge other men's notions before we have looked into them is not to show their darkness but to put out our own eyes.”John Locke
Some imagine, some are more equal than others - but whom?
The Guardian today carries an article indicating that gay people feel that they are discriminated against because they are gay with the headline “Homophobia rife in British society”, one presumes it is a genuine report and not prompted by the date.
Schools seem to particularly come in for criticism as do the NHS - and the main political parties are mentioned.
All this, not on the basis of any actual quantifiable discrimination, but what homosexual people imagine might happen if they were, for instance apply to run as a Conservative, or New Labour MP. Talk about a story based on nothing but vapours and imaginings. Apparently 61% expected discrimination from the Conservatives and 47% from New Labour – ‘expected’, it says it all. This is based on prejudice alright, prejudice amongst what may be described as the Gay ‘Community’.
One should not forget that people do treat other people badly specifically because of their race, sexuality, etc. and this should not detract from that – but this report is more a problem with how people are imagining they will be treated, not with how they are actually being treated..
One should also keep in mind that someone can dislike someone else who is also male, or female, gay, or straight, black, or white, just because they are objectionable, unpleasant, or difficult, etc.
Apparently there was a perception that gay people might not get as good a service as presumably heterosexual people might when accessing emergency NHS care. I don’t personally recall my sexuality ever being relevant, or even being mentioned on any of the occasions I have needed to use casualty. I don’t understand why anyone else should feel it would.
One thing I have noticed - anecdotal evidence suggests, employees of some public bodies and companies sometimes feel their particular race and sexual orientation can detrimentally impact on their prospects. Male heterosexuals for instance are often concerned they are less likely to succeed in a job application. Gay men suspect they may be correct. None will risk speaking openly about it. Many now refuse details of sexual orientation, or even go so far as to misrepresent them in the ‘equality’ section of job applications. This has the potential to foster resentment.
Perceptions cut both ways.
Schools seem to particularly come in for criticism as do the NHS - and the main political parties are mentioned.
All this, not on the basis of any actual quantifiable discrimination, but what homosexual people imagine might happen if they were, for instance apply to run as a Conservative, or New Labour MP. Talk about a story based on nothing but vapours and imaginings. Apparently 61% expected discrimination from the Conservatives and 47% from New Labour – ‘expected’, it says it all. This is based on prejudice alright, prejudice amongst what may be described as the Gay ‘Community’.
One should not forget that people do treat other people badly specifically because of their race, sexuality, etc. and this should not detract from that – but this report is more a problem with how people are imagining they will be treated, not with how they are actually being treated..
One should also keep in mind that someone can dislike someone else who is also male, or female, gay, or straight, black, or white, just because they are objectionable, unpleasant, or difficult, etc.
Apparently there was a perception that gay people might not get as good a service as presumably heterosexual people might when accessing emergency NHS care. I don’t personally recall my sexuality ever being relevant, or even being mentioned on any of the occasions I have needed to use casualty. I don’t understand why anyone else should feel it would.
One thing I have noticed - anecdotal evidence suggests, employees of some public bodies and companies sometimes feel their particular race and sexual orientation can detrimentally impact on their prospects. Male heterosexuals for instance are often concerned they are less likely to succeed in a job application. Gay men suspect they may be correct. None will risk speaking openly about it. Many now refuse details of sexual orientation, or even go so far as to misrepresent them in the ‘equality’ section of job applications. This has the potential to foster resentment.
Perceptions cut both ways.
Gordon Brown to introduce death penalty for SPAMing
Today, in an eye catching new initiative, designed to ’reconnect’ with the ordinary citizen, UK PM Gordon Brown announced that; if re elected, New Labour would seek to re-introduce the death penalty, specifically for spamming.
A New labor think tank has produced a report recommending a graded series of offences. The most serious being sending out, or causing to be sent out, more than 100,000 SPAM emails, faxes, letters, or text messages.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the think tank showed levels of support for the initiative at over 96%. The reports authors believe support was only that low because some respondents didn’t feel the proposal went far enough.
Dr Frank N. Steen representing the the BMC accused the government of being short sighted, as they appeared to be missing the opportunity to harvest the organs of those found guilty, for transplant.
Government spokesperson Paul-Edward Legg said: “The key part of the legislation is that this should only target unsolicited communications. We are working on a definitive definition of SPAM”.
“We foresee potential problems with this proposed legislation, if it is not carefully framed, as we carry large amounts of unwanted junk mail.”, stated Post Office representative, Aprille Jape.
A New labor think tank has produced a report recommending a graded series of offences. The most serious being sending out, or causing to be sent out, more than 100,000 SPAM emails, faxes, letters, or text messages.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the think tank showed levels of support for the initiative at over 96%. The reports authors believe support was only that low because some respondents didn’t feel the proposal went far enough.
Dr Frank N. Steen representing the the BMC accused the government of being short sighted, as they appeared to be missing the opportunity to harvest the organs of those found guilty, for transplant.
Government spokesperson Paul-Edward Legg said: “The key part of the legislation is that this should only target unsolicited communications. We are working on a definitive definition of SPAM”.
“We foresee potential problems with this proposed legislation, if it is not carefully framed, as we carry large amounts of unwanted junk mail.”, stated Post Office representative, Aprille Jape.
Monday, 31 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ There is no comparison between that which is lost by not succeeding and that lost by not trying.”Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
‘Natural England’ advocate abandoning large swathes of Norfolk to the sea.
Thanks to the cult of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) the idiots at ‘Natural England’ are planning on abandoning huge swathes of Norfolk to the sea.
Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.
I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.
The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.
It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.
If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.
Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.
I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.
The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.
It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.
If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.
House of Lords may yet force a rethink on Lisbon Treaty referendum
It’s quite not over yet…
The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.
The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.
Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.
Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”
Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.
The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.
The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.
Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.
Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”
Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.
Zimbabwe’s 'elections'
The results of Zimbabwe’s elections have still yet to be announced. The longer they take the more one worries.
It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?
The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.
Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.
It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.
I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.
If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.
Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.
The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.
Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.
Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.
It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?
The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.
Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.
It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.
I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.
If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.
Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.
The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.
Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.
Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
