PDA

View Full Version : Is the United States Losing Its Edge in Science and Technology?



Arhetton
8th May 09, 10:49 PM
Live near LA?

Attend the lecture if you're interested:

14th May.

http://www.rand.org/events/2009/05/14/?ref=homepage&key=t_technology

WarPhalange
8th May 09, 11:04 PM
Definitely. Case in point is the car industry. "lol look at those european fags with their small, efficient cars. I wants me a ess-ewe-vee!!" Well now they are taking it up the ass.

Secondly are medical procedures and junk that are available in Europe that aren't in the US yet, such as various dental procedures. This kind of goes both ways, though, since some EU countries don't have medications or have medications banned that are available here in the US. But, the food industry? We are killing ourselves with shit like bread and juice. Bread and fucking juice. What the hell are we supposed to do, bake our own shit and squeeze our own grapes? Yeah, that's very technologically advanced.

Remember when cell phones were just beginning to be able to record movies? Yeah, Japan had had that shit around for years already.

America is resting on its laurels way too much and needs to get off of its ass and get a fucking job. It's not 1950 anymore. The rest of the world isn't trying to pick up pieces of their countries after being gang raped by wars and having been exploited for years. People here think America is #1 simply because they are told so over and over by pseudo-patriotic assholes.

Look at the fucking arrogance of the people who supported invading Iraq. A few weeks and it will be over, they said. Any actual data or logic to back that up? No. We are America, hence we will win by default. I don't know, maybe it's because I've actually lived in a different country, but I can criticize the US whenever it does something shitty and not worry about the Patriot Faerie coming to my room at night and raping me in my sleep for being a liberal terrorist. You don't get better by sitting in a corner and repeating to yourself how awesome you are, you do it by looking at yourself honestly and tackling your shortcomings head-on.

Arhetton
8th May 09, 11:12 PM
I'm sure a lot of people feel the way you do poops, but the interesting thing would be to see what a premier organization had to say on the matter. I'd be particularly interested to hear and see some of the data that would be presented at that talk, I'm sure it would have some of the information about graduates per year in the US, graduates in other countries etc.

Its nice to hear some concrete figures instead of operating from broad general assumptions.

I think for instance, theres still incredible robustness in the boomer generation of scientists and engineers, but theres going to be a problem as they retire out of the work force.

That being said, there still are some top notch institutes like MIT etc that kick the balls out of other universities.

Spade: The Real Snake
8th May 09, 11:21 PM
What the fuck do you expect?
All our good Nazi scientists are fucking dying.

WarPhalange
8th May 09, 11:34 PM
I think for instance, theres still incredible robustness in the boomer generation of scientists and engineers, but theres going to be a problem as they retire out of the work force.

Not for me. I'll be in high demand and go to work dressed like a pimp.


That being said, there still are some top notch institutes like MIT etc that kick the balls out of other universities.

American universities > other universities when it comes to graduate school* in science/engineering. I was very interested in doing my grad school in Europe, but the more I found out about it, the more I learned it isn't exactly "user friendly".

Here, you essentially have your hand held the entire way. The departments really care about you being able to support yourself during the whole process, and make it easy for people who just got their Bachelor's and have no idea what they specifically want to do. I'm in that boat and the university I'll be going to has a pretty big physics department, with research in pretty much every area that I am currently interested in. I don't have to decide for at least a year who I'm going to work with and on what.

In Europe you get your Master's first (oh, a lot of schools they let you leave with a Master's here if you decide you just do not want to stay for a Ph.D. after 2-3 years), which you have to fund yourself, and then apply to specific professors in whatever universities they work at for your Ph.D. Turns out your professor is a dick? Too bad. Your research project isn't as interesting as you thought it would be? Well you're stuck with this sub-field for the next few years, possibly the rest of your life.

Soooo.... the US gets a lot of foreign grad students because we make life easier for science/engineering grad students here. This translates to a lot of good work being done, because hey, just because I got into grad school doesn't mean they let every moron in. Usually the students are really smart and good workers. The only real concern is foreign students going back home with all of our brain numbers instead of contributing to the US even further.


*European universities generally > US universities in undergrad. Just a harder curriculum over there. Professors aren't as close to their students apparently (I talk to my profs all the time, and in a casual manner. So does everybody else I know) so you're stuck trying to figure shit out on your own. Of course, MIT > most other places, but European undergrad schools are still solid. This was admitted to me by several professors who also told me about US grad school being better, as well as a Belgian guy I worked with (So you know it's legit. Belgians don't fuck around.)


But to be honest? I don't care where I end up working. I'd much rather it be the US/Europe, since I'd be a lot more used to the customs and lifestyles, but I don't think I'd mind going to Asia or Australia (The whole winter/summer thing doesn't sit right with me, sorry. You guys are pretty far down the list.) for a few years. At the end of the day, I care about the research and development and I won't stay in a stagnating environment "out of principle" or whatever.

Arhetton
8th May 09, 11:36 PM
I suppose another interesting question would be where people think the future of science and technology is?

Science is so broad in its scope and specialities now, to dominate all of them would be a very ambitious goal.

If there is some problem (say in the K-12 results), is that a cultural problem for America, or does it come from somewhere else (government intevention in schools, politically correct programs, uncompetitive educational environment etc)?

HappyOldGuy
9th May 09, 12:42 AM
The US is still out in front in science and technology.

We just have to import most of our scientists.

WarPhalange
9th May 09, 01:11 AM
I suppose another interesting question would be where people think the future of science and technology is?

Right, I just remembered that a good chunk of the US population distrusts scientists and doesn't think it's that important. That should give you some sort of clue.


If there is some problem (say in the K-12 results), is that a cultural problem for America, or does it come from somewhere else (government intevention in schools, politically correct programs, uncompetitive educational environment etc)?

Schools are taught shitty here, period. I remember in Poland you had to have an actual degree in the subject you were going to teach. None of this "The gym teacher is teaching us algebra and he gets help from one of the kids in class" bullshit. Secondly, the school system has to change from busy work to actual learning. For math, there's not much you can do apart from including more complex word problems that aren't shitty and unrealistic, and involve more than one step.

But there are other classes, such as history or English, that I never really learned anything because in the first one all I did was read the question, scan the chapter for key words, and copy pasta it onto my piece of paper. No thinking, no "what would you have done?", nothing that involved more than just remembering shit from the book like it was a poem you were memorizing.

What needs to happen is to make these classes (all of them) a lot harder. Kids can take it. What they can't take is shitty homework assignments that are boring and take hours to do, but end up not teaching them anything. Give the kids a reason to want to learn this shit. I don't learn by having people spoon feed me information. I never did. I've always learned by wanting to accomplish Goal A, and figuring out how to get there. Need to fix computer? Need to learn computer shit? Okay. Need to learn electronics shit to understand computer shit? Okay. There was an end goal I was trying to apply all this knowledge to that I had in mind ahead of time.

Harpy
9th May 09, 02:06 AM
I work for a US company and all our new technologies, developments in the last 5 years have come from Australia and Europe. Per capita, Australia is blitzing the field.

If anything, the US Sociociders give me hope that the anti-intellectualism of your past administrations hasn't melted your brains.

Cullion
9th May 09, 05:02 AM
It depends on the field. America produces the most advanced military equipment and software. I think some European and Asian countries are ahead of you in medical research, partly because we don't have the same restrictions on genetic and stem cell research. My understanding is that Europe is also further ahead in nuclear fusion research (and that's very important IMHO).

As HOG points out, the proportions of American born students studying science at the postgraduate level is getting smaller. You do have to import a lot of your scientific and engineering talent.

You're still the only country to land men on the moon, so you win.

Odacon
9th May 09, 06:37 AM
It's a pretty stupid question to begin with tbh, there are so many fields to cover in science and technology it'd be impossible to know.

Arhetton
9th May 09, 09:30 AM
I don't think its a stupid question, I think its very broad though.

HappyOldGuy
9th May 09, 11:35 AM
It depends on the field. America produces the most advanced military equipment and software. I think some European and Asian countries are ahead of you in medical research,

The reverse. 20 years ago the big cutting edge pharma companies were european. Today, they aren't. There definetely are areas where the US isn't the best. Japan rapes the rest of the world in robotics for example.

Cullion
9th May 09, 11:51 AM
Some types of telecommunications technologies are rolled out more slowly in the US. Things like SMS messaging tend to get widespread use in densely populated countries like the UK and Japan first, in part because the greater population density means you reach a lot more customers for the amount of infrastructure spending the telcos have to do.

Cullion
9th May 09, 11:52 AM
Here's a map I found about stem cell research competitiveness:-

http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap/competescmap.html

Please feel free to debate it's credibility, I haven't done the background reading yet.

HappyOldGuy
9th May 09, 11:53 AM
Some types of telecommunications technologies are rolled out more slowly in the US. Things like SMS messaging tend to get widespread use in densely populated countries like the UK and Japan first, in part because the greater population density means you reach a lot more customers for the amount of infrastructure spending the telcos have to do.

True, and because the US screwed the pooch in how we initially rolled out wireless. (too many incompatible networks)

Spade: The Real Snake
9th May 09, 11:57 AM
The reverse. 20 years ago the big cutting edge pharma companies were european. Today, they aren't. There definetely are areas where the US isn't the best. Japan rapes the rest of the world in robotics for example.

Do you think this would change if the US went from a "for profit" health care system to a national socialized health care system, thus removing the financial incentive for these companies to recruit doctors and operate primarily from here?

HappyOldGuy
9th May 09, 11:59 AM
Here's a map I found about stem cell research competitiveness:-

http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap/competescmap.html

Please feel free to debate it's credibility, I haven't done the background reading yet.
Nothing to debate, but the public policy question about stem cells is not relevant to current treatment development. There are currently zero stem cell treatments in human trials. It probably will be relevant in the future, but it's not totally clear how the policy question will map to treatment development. A) because policies can change fairly quickly, and b) because so far most of the most promising treatments are based on peoples own stem cells from marrow etc. What is already relevant on that page is the little black dots. Notice who's got the most?

Edit: correction there is one safety-only trial happening.

Cullion
9th May 09, 12:05 PM
True, and because the US screwed the pooch in how we initially rolled out wireless. (too many incompatible networks)

I used to work in the mobile technology field (software applications for SMS and WAP push messaging), and I was really surprised by the bureacratic red-tape and expense involved in setting up a number for sending and receiving these messages in bulk in the US. The only country I encountered with more extreme red tape in this area was France.

Of course, the rules were intended to protect consumers from premium-rate scams and intrusive mass-marketing to people's cell phones, but I was still surprised that the US was high on the 'consumer protection bureacracy' list, and the companies providing the infrastructure generally seemed a bit less clued-in and professional than bulk messaging suppliers in other parts of the world.

Cullion
9th May 09, 12:07 PM
What is already relevant on that page is the little black dots. Notice who's got the most?

Edit: correction there is one safety-only trial happening.

Note that the black dots are gene sequencing centres, not necessarily stem cell labs, the two are different but related fields.

Zendetta
9th May 09, 02:31 PM
You're still the only country to land men on the moon, so you win.

FUCK YEAH!!!

Astronauts playing golf on the moon was pretty much the pinnacle of western culture.

(We are going to feel pretty pwnt when China builds a military base on Mars though!)

But seriously, though: Poop's Old Man Rant and all that stuff about our importing talent is spot on.

I've heard it was said by some Wiseguy that we will still win the next round of world supremacy because "our Asians are better than their Asians".

Odacon
10th May 09, 08:23 AM
What if the moon landing really were fake?

Cullion
10th May 09, 08:40 AM
Then they would win the 'best troll job ever' prize.

Wounded Ronin
10th May 09, 09:43 AM
Do you think this would change if the US went from a "for profit" health care system to a national socialized health care system, thus removing the financial incentive for these companies to recruit doctors and operate primarily from here?

Yeah, we're so much better off with that endoscopy center in Las Vegas which gave a bunch of people hepatitis by trying to save money by not sterilizing equipment.

I'm begining to feel that the idea that a financial incentive is the one and only thing that will motivate people to do a good job is a fallacy.

Cullion
10th May 09, 09:53 AM
People get serious, serious infections due to poor cleaning practices all the time in the NHS. Somebody catching MRSA isn't even newsworthy any more. Just sayin'

Quikfeet509
10th May 09, 07:33 PM
Yeah, we're so much better off with that endoscopy center in Las Vegas which gave a bunch of people hepatitis by trying to save money by not sterilizing equipment.

I'm begining to feel that the idea that a financial incentive is the one and only thing that will motivate people to do a good job is a fallacy.


Actually I think it was from injecting the upper port on a IV line with the same needle and multiuse vial for numerous patients. It's one of those things that seems safe - contamination would required backflow through 7 feet of tubing with up to the high port...which, they found out, can actually happen.



People get serious, serious infections due to poor cleaning practices all the time in the NHS. Somebody catching MRSA isn't even newsworthy any more. Just sayin'


Wurd. In the US we do have many technological advances because medical device / drug developers realize that if they release a new product, it will probably be incorporated because we have "somebody else is paying for it" mentality. But once we have universal healthcare, either the expenses will continue to go up or we will have to start rationing.

And without serious medical malpractice reform, if the latter happens, it will be an amazing recipe for disaster.

Sun Wukong
10th May 09, 07:39 PM
I work for a US company and all our new technologies, developments in the last 5 years have come from Australia and Europe. Per capita, Australia is blitzing the field.


The key word there is per capita... Austrailia is desolate in terms of population.

I won't knock you Aussie sum bitches; after all, I can see that Aussie land has contributed quite a bit to the world already. I would like to say that if I were you guys, I'd start cooking up a way to take back the interior of your country to make it hospitable again. I realize that I'm suggesting something akin to wiping out hundreds if not thousands of animal species that currently lay stake to the out-back, but you have to admit Austrailia really would be a force to be reckoned with if your interior were as habitable as that of the U.S.

Ajamil
10th May 09, 09:57 PM
What of areas where science/technology is the secondary aspect? Thre was a great argument that we're (the US) seeing the "Green Revolution" too much as a hampering on business, instead of a completely new area to conduct business. As such we're getting reamed when it comes to tech for solar/wind power and the like.

Spade: The Real Snake
11th May 09, 12:11 AM
because nobody wants "ugly and unsightly" solar panel farms or giant wind turbines littering up their landscape

Ajamil
11th May 09, 03:44 AM
So have Budweiser sponsor them, I'm sure they can figure out how to make a pin-up wind turbine or a beer one or something. And the solar panels could be arranged to spell out "America! Fuck Yeah!" if seen from space. Just jazz it up and Americans'll buy it.

Kein Haar
11th May 09, 08:43 AM
The United States is losing nothing.

Oh, and Belgians bought Budweiser. I guess we "lost" that.

Quikfeet509
11th May 09, 10:56 AM
They can have it. They must have drank too much Delerium...

Sophist
15th May 09, 09:37 AM
People get serious, serious infections due to poor cleaning practices all the time in the NHS. Somebody catching MRSA isn't even newsworthy any more. Just sayin'
It still potentially looks better than the US in that regard.

Some figures:
U.K. MRSA deaths 1993-2007, from statistics.gov.uk
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1067

U.S. MRSA deaths 2005 from the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_mrsa_Invasive_FS.html

The numbers stack up at 1,600ish vs 18,650, which is a ratio greater than 1:11. The population ratio between the U.S. and U.K. is less than 1:5. The raw numbers-based conclusion would be that you're over twice as likely to die from MRSA in the States as you are here. There are other possible factors that might influence this, however; the British figures aren't counting people already terminally ill who acquire MRSA before dying of their original illness, and the American figures may be a bit more inclusive.

However, the raw number of infections looks to hold to a similar or greater ratio, with the Americans reporting an estimated 94,360 infections in 2005, and the UK reporting ~7,000 over the same period (HPA graph found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7364509.stm), which suggests that at the very least being infected with MRSA is much more likely in the U.S. than the U.K.

As far as the thread topic goes, though, I think the U.S. will maintain their scientific lead for a bit, as long as they can keep the economic rewards flowing to enable them to brain drain talent from abroad.

Cullion
15th May 09, 09:49 AM
I wonder why the ratio is so bad ?

They have a higher incidence per head.. I wonder how the figures look if we look at hospital admissions per head ?

Could it be the case that a different proportion of the US population is admitted to hospital in the time ?

If a higher proportion of their population were admitted to hospital over that time, then it might be the case that whilst American hospitals are cleaner, being admitted to any hospital has a higher risk of MRSA infection than not being admitted to hospital.

Or it could make America look even worse.

EuropIan
15th May 09, 10:21 AM
The United States is losing nothing.

Oh, and Belgians bought Budweiser. I guess we "lost" that.
They made a solemn promise to not elevate their brewing standards because they didn't want to mess with "tradition".

Shawarma
15th May 09, 10:38 AM
Hey, I think Stella's an OK beer.

EuropIan
15th May 09, 10:48 AM
yeah.. but anhauser-Busch actually promised on televison that they would not improve on the budweiser formula.

Which is cruel and unusual punishment, imo.

WarPhalange
15th May 09, 11:06 AM
We put anti-biotics in our animals because it's easier than keeping a clean environment for the cattle/chickens/pigs. Humans eat this meat and injest these anti-biotics. Bacteria eventually adapts to these anti-biotics and we get strains that we cannot cure.

Food in America is shit. Period.

WarPhalange
15th May 09, 11:06 AM
We put anti-biotics in our animals because it's easier than keeping a clean environment for the cattle/chickens/pigs. Humans eat this meat and injest these anti-biotics. Bacteria eventually adapts to these anti-biotics and we get strains that we cannot cure.

Food in America is shit. Period.

theotherserge
15th May 09, 11:19 AM
^antibiotics double-post!

It seems like Americas been too fascinated with technology, at times. The antibiotics over clean environment is a good example. So is baby-formula/margerine being pumped as better than the natural product it replaces.

Especially in the case of breast milk, where it's proven to be essential to developing an infant's immun system.

More examples when I can get my brain to function...

WarPhalange
15th May 09, 11:33 AM
I posted it twice because they put antibiotics in meat twice.

Cullion
15th May 09, 11:33 AM
We have antibiotics in European livestock too, unless it comes certified 'organic'. AIUI the main thing that's different in US livestock is the use of various steroids and growth hormones that are banned here.

EuropIan
15th May 09, 11:36 AM
Wonderbread is a great example of what is wrong with America's food culture.

They make cheap bread that has no nutritional value only to insert some afterwards.

WarPhalange
15th May 09, 11:40 AM
We have antibiotics in European livestock too, unless it comes certified 'organic'. AIUI the main thing that's different in US livestock is the use of various steroids and growth hormones that are banned here.

Yeah, we get all that shit as well. Didn't know you guys use antibiotics too. That's just irresponsible. Breeding super germs, srsly.

Cullion
15th May 09, 01:33 PM
Well, we need to reduce population somehow, and the people that survive will have awesome immune systems.

Kein Haar
15th May 09, 03:03 PM
I really don't see anything wrong with budweiser...other than it's more expensive than Old Style.

I get Old Style instead.

Cullion
15th May 09, 03:15 PM
The Budweiser I've tried just didn't have any flavour. It was just watery fizz.

All these well-made beers, stuff from microbreweries etc.. that I read about in the US certainly interest me, but generic bland Budweiser is what foreigners are usually thinking of when they make fun of American beer. Your bourbons have always been popular though.

Zendetta
15th May 09, 03:29 PM
Our Bourbons do indeed Rock the fuck out. I like Maker's Mark, myself.

And the Pacific coast Microbrew scene is giving the Belgians a run for their money.

And Budwesier is piss.

Vic_Viper
16th May 09, 04:53 AM
We put anti-biotics in our animals because it's easier than keeping a clean environment for the cattle/chickens/pigs. Humans eat this meat and injest these anti-biotics. Bacteria eventually adapts to these anti-biotics and we get strains that we cannot cure.

Food in America is shit. Period.

Reading this quote made me curious as to what the situation in Canada is. A brief search showed that dairy products produced in Canada can't have any antibiotics or artificial growth hormones. If a cow needs antibiotics it need to be prescribed by a vet and it's milk can't be sold. I only found this info on the dairy farmers of Canada website. Hopefully it applies to all farm animals. :/

Japuma
16th May 09, 10:35 AM
Our Bourbons do indeed Rock the fuck out. I like Maker's Mark, myself.

And the Pacific coast Microbrew scene is giving the Belgians a run for their money.

And Budwesier is piss.


Try Woodford Reserve it blows Makers out of the water... srsy.

Cullion
16th May 09, 10:44 AM
I think I've tried Woodford, and I've definitely had Maker's Mark, I liked them both.

My very favourite North American booze so far have been Canadian Rye whiskeys.

Neildo
16th May 09, 11:00 AM
really? i always thought canadian rye was cheap swill compared to the american stuff. i should try and send you some danfields private reserve. it's a bit of a misnomer considering how much of it there is, and how cheap it is, but i like it.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 09, 11:24 AM
Reading this quote made me curious as to what the situation in Canada is. A brief search showed that dairy products produced in Canada can't have any antibiotics or artificial growth hormones. If a cow needs antibiotics it need to be prescribed by a vet and it's milk can't be sold. I only found this info on the dairy farmers of Canada website. Hopefully it applies to all farm animals. :/

You aren't supposed to sell the milk of a cow on antibiotics in the US. The heavy anti-biotic abuse is for cows in feed lots being raised for beef. It's because they are being kept packed in tight quarters.

bobyclumsyninja
16th May 09, 12:09 PM
k, read whole thread. analysis: US now shares w/ world in tech.

My sister went to MIT for her phd. (materials science), and her dept. wasn't predominantly American. A few, but mostly, they were from all over the globe. Many of them are now back around the globe working.

She moved to England at Oxford, but then took a job in New Zealand (avid hiker, park ranger hubby, and where better to raise a child?).

There are simply more worldwide opportunities for careers in science/research/teaching nowadays. Teh seriousness of the int3rnets is allowing institutions to reach out, and touch scientists (sound dirty?) That and the hostility to scientific thought in the American mainstream. (seriously, we're 'debating' global pollution's effects??? evolution??? gwb...he was the decider!!!!??? thinking is out here...or at least, it was for 8 years).

If I had the money, I'd get the hell out myself. Thanks to the internets, I've seen enough to know, sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side...especially if everyone's been shitting on your side.

Cullion
16th May 09, 01:03 PM
Where would you go if you had the money ?

bobyclumsyninja
16th May 09, 01:27 PM
Copenhagen to visit....France to live (mentioned France, ban plz). Gig in Holland (Hiy Lebell sexi tyme), Germany, Britain, etc.

That or go to Aussieland/NewZealand, and be near my niece, and bits of my family.

Cullion
16th May 09, 03:53 PM
I think New Zealand looks like a great place to raise a family, but it might be a bit small and quiet for a young single man used to large American cities. I dunno.

I'd live in France in the blink of an eye if I spoke the language well enough to make a living there. I don't suppose that matters so much for a musician.

Sophist
18th May 09, 07:46 AM
I wonder why the ratio is so bad ?

They have a higher incidence per head.. I wonder how the figures look if we look at hospital admissions per head ?

Could it be the case that a different proportion of the US population is admitted to hospital in the time ?
Yes, but it rather looks like the proportion is in the other direction. It's difficult to make out, as metrics are different and I can't find inclusive data for all US hospitals.

U.S. inpatient/outpatient data:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/hospital.htm

England-only inpatient/outpatient data:
http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1122
http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1130

Inpatients: English hospitals admitted 13.3 million people 2007-2008, and the U.S. discharged 34.9 million people from non-Federal short-stay hospitals in 2006. Federal hospitals (according to a Google books search) apparently only make up about 5% of U.S. hospitals, so they probably don't bump the numbers up by a factor of 2 or anything close. I don't know what impact long-stay hospitals would have on the figures. Of course, the U.K. side is just providing English data, which shifts the population ratio from 1:5 to 1:6.

Outpatients: English hospitals successfully saw 54 million people in 2007-2008, and U.S. non-Federal short-stay hospitals saw 102 million people as outpatients in 2006.

This is assuming that the emergency department figures on the CDC website aren't being folded in to either the U.S. or English inpatient and outpatient records. Even with these being added to the U.S. outpatient figures, though, there would only be a ratio of 1:4 between English outpatient visits and U.S. outpatients; and as it seems unlikely that long-stay hospitals would materially affect outpatient figures, I think the data above weakly suggests, if anything, that the socialised healthcare of the U.K. sees an increase in the number of hospital visits made per person (which would make a certain intuitive sense).

So, the U.S. probably cannot use a higher ratio of hospital admissions as an explanatory factor for its proportionately larger incidence of MRSA; there will likely be other issues involved.

Cullion
18th May 09, 07:52 AM
What are the possibilities here?

i) They don't clean their hospitals as rigorously

ii) Despite the other ratios they're performing more invasive surgery per capita thus exposing more people to infection

iii) There's a more vigorous strain of MRSA loose in the US

iv) Americans are more vulnerable to such infection perhaps because of their diet or the fact that they tend to be more medicated

v) The UK statistics are false

(these aren't arranged in any particular order)

What else ?

bobyclumsyninja
11th July 09, 05:44 AM
(bump)

I think the for-profit healthcare system rewards/encourages/promotes cutting corners, and that leads to mor3 inf3ctions.

Kein Haar
11th July 09, 11:54 AM
The Budweiser I've tried just didn't have any flavour. It was just watery fizz.

All these well-made beers, stuff from microbreweries etc.. that I read about in the US certainly interest me, but generic bland Budweiser is what foreigners are usually thinking of when they make fun of American beer. Your bourbons have always been popular though.

Foreigners should spend a summer in tornado-alley or southeastward, and then see what they're in the mood to drink.

I suspect the climate nudges people more toward thirst-quenching on the way to intoxication.

That'd mesh with the micro-stuff being a big pacific northwest thing.

I'm guessing.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/tornadoUSmap.gif

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th July 09, 11:58 AM
They have tornadoes in New York?

Kein Haar
11th July 09, 12:00 PM
Sure.

Ajamil
11th July 09, 12:57 PM
Average per year, which means they have several. And I've seen tornadoes in AZ...well, once.

Toby Christensen
13th July 09, 10:36 PM
The key word there is per capita... Austrailia is desolate in terms of population.

I won't knock you Aussie sum bitches; after all, I can see that Aussie land has contributed quite a bit to the world already. I would like to say that if I were you guys, I'd start cooking up a way to take back the interior of your country to make it hospitable again. I realize that I'm suggesting something akin to wiping out hundreds if not thousands of animal species that currently lay stake to the out-back, but you have to admit Austrailia really would be a force to be reckoned with if your interior were as habitable as that of the U.S.

The problem is our cities are largely empty as per size.

And our turning IDEAS into CAPITAL and keeping them in the COUNTRY is so awful I don't have a word to describe it.

So we could have 100 million or 200 million conceivably; 50 million certainly.

But our forebears in the politics of Australia have been very greedy and irresponsible.