The death rate for US children has surged by 25 percent over the past decade, according to a study published last month by pediatrician Dr. Christopher Forrest and colleagues in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even as the child mortality rate has slowly fallen in other developed countries, it has surged in the US, along with every other indicator of chronic illness.
To this day I don’t know whether the numbers are staggering. Maybe they are, but your unsupported assertion (and the article’s) doesn’t make it true. I can be staggered by a number if I can understand what it means in the context of other risks we are all exposed to. Data like “your 8yo kid has 10% lower chance of surviving childhood than an 8yo in Sweden” or something like that would be cause for concern (an understatement, since it means that the likelihood of US 8yos surviving childhood is at most 90%).
You instead use charged adjectives on numbers with no context, a classic manipulation technique. Maybe not on purpose since you don’t seem like much of a critical thinker, but it doesn’t matter. That you haven’t recognized the importance of N suggests that you don’t understand the base rate fallacy (look it up).
Anyway, I don’t see any reason to continue this discussion, so have fun.
I’ve repeatedly explained the context, you’re being obtuse.
You haven’t given any numbers. What is N? You don’t know. Without it, you can’t contextualize the excess death number. So you are the one who is obtuse.