Read on Twitter
I believe this is a pretty risky pilot/study to launch.
Namely, because the n is so small that a single additional infant or maternal death would represent a 170% and 1901% *increase* in death rate, respectively. Analysis
(1/x) https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1305639662313119745
Namely, because the n is so small that a single additional infant or maternal death would represent a 170% and 1901% *increase* in death rate, respectively. Analysis
(1/x) https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1305639662313119745
This article cites the Black infant death rate at 9.6 per 1000 births. Or 0.0096.
Note that the Press Release from the Mayor's office did not state absolute death rates. Instead, it mentioned % of overall infant deaths (~15%) (2/x) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/26/black-maternal-mortality-babies-san-francisco-crisis
Note that the Press Release from the Mayor's office did not state absolute death rates. Instead, it mentioned % of overall infant deaths (~15%) (2/x) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/26/black-maternal-mortality-babies-san-francisco-crisis
The press release also that the black death rate is 2x that of whites.
The Chronicle used the same stats.
https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-london-breed-announces-launch-pilot-program-provide-basic-income-black-and-pacific
The Chronicle used the same stats.
https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-london-breed-announces-launch-pilot-program-provide-basic-income-black-and-pacific
I reached out to the SF Chronicle and asked why there were not more stats in the article.
I wanted to know how bad this situation is.
Especially since Marc Benioff is referring to it as an epidemic. https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1305705806050992128?s=20
I wanted to know how bad this situation is.
Especially since Marc Benioff is referring to it as an epidemic. https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1305705806050992128?s=20
The Chronicle did not share much more but did say that there were 430 Black & PI births in SF per year.
So I ran the numbers.
430 * 0.0096 indicates that there are ~4.13 Black & PI infant deaths a year.
This is 4.13 too many.
So I ran the numbers.
430 * 0.0096 indicates that there are ~4.13 Black & PI infant deaths a year.
This is 4.13 too many.
The national maternal death rate is about 17 in 100,000 and *significantly* higher for black women - at 37 per 100,000. I was floored by that delta. Frankly, it made me feel ill.
That death rate would indicate that there are 0.16 Black & PI maternal deaths/year in SF.
(6/x)
That death rate would indicate that there are 0.16 Black & PI maternal deaths/year in SF.
(6/x)
Looking at these numbers I understood why the study felt off to me. Given only 150 women will be in the pilot, a single additional death could really skew the numbers.
One additional infant death --> 169% increase
One additional maternal death --> 1901% increase.
(7/x)
One additional infant death --> 169% increase
One additional maternal death --> 1901% increase.
(7/x)
You can't run a study where you only look at the results if they are positive.
In this case, a single negative result (additional death) could lead to catastrophic conclusions -- namely that giving assistance to Black & PI mothers leads to a massive increase in death. (8/x)
In this case, a single negative result (additional death) could lead to catastrophic conclusions -- namely that giving assistance to Black & PI mothers leads to a massive increase in death. (8/x)
I am left with a few questions:
1) Is this actually a pilot/study?
2) If yes, why aren't we ensuring it's set up for statistically significant results/success?
3) If not, then why are we calling it a pilot?
https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1305639663114137601
(9/x)
1) Is this actually a pilot/study?
2) If yes, why aren't we ensuring it's set up for statistically significant results/success?
3) If not, then why are we calling it a pilot?
https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1305639663114137601
(9/x)
4) Did we consider the potentially negative political consequences of this study?
I saw tweets last night that were astounding.
The right is claiming that this is a violation of the 14th amendment, and race-based wealth distribution. https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/1306078265933692934
I saw tweets last night that were astounding.
The right is claiming that this is a violation of the 14th amendment, and race-based wealth distribution. https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/1306078265933692934
5) If the goal is to study how to save the lives of infants and mothers, why not focus the $2.2M on the highest risk mothers?
If the $1000/month worked, we could have a solid case for massive expansion of the program - to all Blacks, PIs, Latinos, etc.
If the $1000/month worked, we could have a solid case for massive expansion of the program - to all Blacks, PIs, Latinos, etc.
I am befuddled as to how this is framed as a pilot.
Rather - it feels like a way to bring attention to two very serious problems:
1) The severe income inequality of Blacks & PIs in SF.
2) Very small Black & PI populations that are likely shrinking.
(12/x)
Rather - it feels like a way to bring attention to two very serious problems:
1) The severe income inequality of Blacks & PIs in SF.
2) Very small Black & PI populations that are likely shrinking.
(12/x)
