Thursday, April 19, 2018

maternity punishment

Из вечно жывага телеграма, канал Женская логика:

Датчане показали пару чертовски обидных графиков, иллюстрирующих, что происходит с женскими зарплатами после рождения детей. И что не происходит с мужскими. До 80% разрыва в заработной плате между мужчинами и женщинами - это своего рода наказание за материнство [о терминах можно спорить, но оценка наглядная].

Интересно, что в Дании декретный отпуск могут брать мужчины, но пользуются этим правом только 10%. Важный вопрос - почему так происходит? А пока это происходит так, норма, которая призвана защищать женщин - одновременно выбивает нас с рынка рабочей силы. Пишут, кстати, что в Исландии 13 недель декретного отпуска зарезервировано за отцами, и после появления такого правила, 90% отцов стали их брать. Интересно, что в Исландии с разрывом в заработной плате.
maternity punishment

Wednesday, April 18, 2018


Kőrösy József 1906-26Йо́жеф Кё́рёши (венг. Kőrösy József, Hajduska József; 1844—1906) — венгерский статистик.

В 1870 назначен директором статистического бюро Пешта, которое под его управлением заняло одно из первых мест среди статистических учреждений больших городов Европы.

Некоторые работы Кёрёши представляли теоретический интерес для санитарной статистики, статистики смертности, городских финансов. То же самое можно сказать и о его сочинениях.

Основные труды

  • «Limites de la démographie» (Жен., 1882)
  • «Methodologische Beiträge» (В., 1886).

По поручению статистического конгресса 1876 Кереши издал
«Statistique internationale des grandes villes. I Section: Mouvement de la population» (Пешт, 1876— данные по 38 городам)
«II Section: Statistique des finances» (Пешт, 1877 — данные 26 городов) и «Bulletin annuel des finances des grandes villes» (Пешт, 1877—1890).

из/от сюда:

József Kőrösy was born in Pest to a poor family, and was forced to interrupt his university studies as a consequence of his financial circumstances. He went to work for the Első Magyar Általános Biztosító Társaság (First Hungarian General Insurance Company), and was the economic columnist for the newspapers Pesti Napló (from 1868) and Reform (from 1870). He was appointed director of the Statistical Office of Budapest (Fővárosi Statisztikai Hivatal) in 1870. During the 30 years of his tenure in that position, he developed the agency into a renowned institution.

Kőrösy’s specialized areas were urban statistics and demography. His main studies were on the demography of Budapest, and he was especially interested in issues of public health, mortality, and housing. The nineteenth century saw major theoretical and mathematical innovations in calculating mortality statistics; Kőrösy’s primary contribution in this field was to create a standardized coefficient that could connect the mortality rate of a given territory and the composition of the population by age. His method made him one of the leading demographers of Europe.

Kőrösy was also active in the realm of public health. The first hospital for infectious diseases in Hungary was created in Budapest at his suggestion in 1886, and he advocated the introduction of compulsory vaccinations. In connection with this issue he also introduced a new statistical method, that of the relative intensity ratio. Numerous prestigious European societies for statistics and public health elected him to their organizations. He was ennobled in 1896, granted the nobiliary particle szántói. He had been elected to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as a corresponding member from 1879 and served as an ordinary member from 1903.

Kőrösy’s grandson described his grandfather as a man who “very often donated large sums for Jewish purposes. He demonstrated that it is also possible in Hungary to be a leader of an important institution as a Jew without having to convert to Christianity . . . and that it is possible to maintain one’s own and one’s family’s Jewish identity without observing the formal commandments” (Kőrösy, 1984).

Although Kőrösy did not devote a study solely to the demography of Jews, he frequently included sections in his works in which he separately marked the demographic characteristics of Jewish communities in given localities. As an assimilated Jew, he was very much interested in the process of Magyarization and assimilation, viewing knowledge of the Hungarian language as the single most important element of the Hungarian national identity. According to this criterion, he found that the Jews of Hungary were highly assimilated, with the exception of those Hasidic Jews in northeastern Hungary and Transylvania. Kőrösy died in Budapest in 1906. [В этот год родился Урланис]
Suggested Reading
László Cseh-Szombathy, “A budapesti szegényügy és statisztikája Kőrösy József szemléletében a XX. század elején,” Statisztikai Szemle 11 (1969): 1140–1147; Ferenc Kőrösy, “A Kőrösy család és a vele kapcsolt családok,” IMIT Évkönyv 1983/1984 (Budapest, 1984): 200–218; Egon Szabady, “A népességtudomány fejlődése Magyarországon,” Statisztikai Szemle 8–9 (1967): 861–883.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Effects of the 1st birth postponement and ART on completed fertility

Published on N-IUSSP.ORG April 16, 2018

Effects of first birth postponement and assisted reproductive technology on completed fertility

Effets du report de la première naissance et des techniques de procréation assistée sur la descendance finale

Henri Leridon

Two forces with a contrasting impact on fertility have typically been overestimated in both scientific writing and the popular press. A marked postponement of fertility (by four years of age) causes fertility to decline by only about 0.2 children per woman. Lower still, according to Henri Leridon’s estimates, is the impact of ART, or assisted reproductive technology: even in an “extreme” scenario it could increase fertility by no more than 0.05 children per woman.

Since the 1960s, there has been a notable decline in both cohort and period fertility in Europe, and a rapid 3-4 year increase in the age at first birth. At the same time, recourse to increasingly effective assisted reproductive technology (ART) has become much more widespread. Whether this growing recourse to ART reflects a decline in male and female fecundity (the ability to conceive and deliver a child) is debatable (Leridon and Slama, 2008). Here, however, we will focus on a different topic: lower completed fertility may be partly due to birth postponement, because fecundity declines with age, and ART may be used to counter this effect. With the help of a simulation model, we will try to gauge the impact of both phenomena (postponement and ART) using the French case as an example, (see Leridon 2017 for details).

Constructing a reproductive life history

A woman’s reproductive history usually begins with the formation of her first union, not necessarily a marriage. The desired number of children and the desired birth spacing then comes into play, together with contraception, which is never 100% effective (except for sterilization, but this is very rare in France before age 35). In short, a small risk of unplanned pregnancies must be taken into account.

Couples who do not use contraception do not have children immediately: there is a certain “waiting time”, usually of a few months, which depends on the monthly likelihood of conception, or fecundability, which is typically well below 100% (Bongaarts, 1975; Leridon, 1977; Wood, 1989) and declines with age. The age at the onset of permanent sterility (which should not be confused with age at menopause – Stanford et al., 1987) must also be taken into account.

Following a conception, the pregnancy may not end in a live birth: the risk of spontaneous fetal mortality is non-negligible, and increases significantly with age beyond age 30. It is, in fact, the primary factor in the reduction of fecundity as age increases (Leridon, 2008).

Let us get back to the waiting time: if it becomes too long, which may be due to complete sterility, low fecundability (subfecundity), or simply to chance, couples who want children may decide to use assisted reproductive technology (ART). The main methods used today are in-vitro fertilization (IVF, excluding ovarian stimulation alone) or its variant, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Effective implementation of an ART method may take some time, involving visits by the couple to specialized physicians, time for reflection, medical preparation for the intervention (for example, cycles of hormonal stimulation), and waiting times for treatment in a specialized centre. Consequently, several years may elapse between the couple’s initial decision and a first attempt at IVF or ICSI, as most studies have shown (Troude et al., 2012).

Results for France

France is an example of a country where fertility has remained relatively high in comparison to the rest of Europe. I will focus here on the comparison between two cohorts: the 1945 cohort (whose completed fertility was 2.22 children per woman) and the 1975 cohort whose completed fertility (on the basis of the data observed up to 2015) will probably be about 2.01 (Table 1). The main difference between these two cohorts is the sharp increase in the age at first birth, which rose from 24 years for the former to 28 years for the latter, and this gives us the opportunity to estimate the impact of the change in the timing of births.
таб 1
To compare the two cohorts, I first designed a model and used all the variables described above (union formation, waiting time, desired number and spacing of children, etc.) to “run” it, i.e., to estimate its parameters. Then, I shifted the distribution of entry into union of the 1945 cohort by four years, without changing any other parameter of the system. This gives us an idea of the effect of postponement alone (Table 1, central column of the 1975 cohort). The estimated completed fertility is 2.008 children per woman, which is basically the same as that actually observed for the 1975 cohort (2.01). In short, postponement alone could explain all of the observed changes between the two cohorts (–0.21 children per woman).

However, this simulation assumes that nothing else changes, which is patently false. Therefore, the right-hand column of Table 1 shows the results of a more realistic model, which uses various data available for the 1975 cohort, such as more effective contraception (which depresses fertility) and a higher ideal number of children (which inflates it). Further, the average age of union formation is now shifted by only three years (instead of four) which is closer to what actually happened, but this effect is offset by longer spacing to maintain the same age at first birth, and at all births (which, as I said before, is delayed by about four years). Finally, I assumed no ART at all. This produced a result of 1.996 children per woman instead of 2.010. If all other the parameters were correctly estimated, the difference between the two (+0.014) would give a rough measure of the effect of ART, which was indeed available and used. But we will give below a more reliable estimate of the contribution of ART.

More about ART

Table 2 gives some complementary results on the use of ART for the 1975 cohort. Differences in completed fertility are reported (all estimated with my model): without ART (left-hand column, as shown above), with a “realistic” use of ART (centre column), and with a theoretical (“extreme”) use of ART (right-hand column). “Realistic” means that about a third of the women “eligible” for ART actually use it (and this produces an estimated fertility which is very close to that actually observed), and “extreme” means that all women eligible for ART actually use it. In both cases, “eligible” should be interpreted according to the definition of the model as rapidly outlined above (i.e., when the waiting time becomes “too long”).
What do we see? Of course, the values obtained with ART for completed fertility are higher (+17‰ in the “realistic case; +53‰ in the extreme case), but the increases are small, probably smaller than one would expect. This is because a large share (and even a substantial majority) of the births obtained via ART would have occurred in any case, since many of the women seeking assistance from ART are simply subfecund and not completely sterile. The births would have happened naturally, but later, sometimes much later, which explains why couples did not wish to take the risk of waiting.

In short: not all ART births translate into increased completed fertility, and the overall impact remains limited, even under the most extreme scenario.


I applied the same model to the Italian and the Austrian case, and I obtained similar results, taking into account the differences in actual histories of these cohorts. Overall, my simulations show that in terms of completed fertility, the biological effect of a delay of 3 to 4 years in the timing of the first birth is limited, at between 0.10 and 0.20 children. The actual change has often been greater (e.g., in the Italian case) and this is due to other relevant behavioural factors: desired number and spacing of children, contraception efficacy, etc.

Can ART counter fertility decline in modern society? Only up to a (very limited) point, according to my estimates: +0.02 is the figure that it seems reasonable to expect in the current conditions (efficacy of the techniques and frequency of use), and maybe up to +0.05 if all eligible women used ART.


  • Bongaarts J, 1975,”A method for the estimation of fecundability”, Demography 12(4), pp. 645-660
  • Leridon H., 1977, Human Fertility. The Basic Components, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 202 p.
  • Leridon H., 2008, “A new estimate of permanent sterility by age: Sterility defined as the inability to conceive”, Population Studies, 62(1), pp. 15-24.
  • Leridon H., 2017, Biological effects of first birth postponement and assisted reproductive technology on completed fertility”, Population-E, 72(3), 2017, pp. 463-490
  • Leridon H., Slama R., 2008, “The impact of a decline in fecundity and of pregnancy postponement on final number of children and demand for assisted reproduction technology”, Human Reproduction, 23(6), pp. 1312-1319.
  • Stanford J.L., Hartge P., Brinton L.A., Hoover R.N., Brookmeyer R., 1987, “Factors influencing the age at natural menopause”, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(11), pp. 995-1002.)
  • Troude P., Bailly E., Guibert J., Bouyer J., de La Rochebrochard E., for the DAIFI group, 2012, “Spontaneous pregnancies among couples previously treated by in vitro fertilization”, Fertility and Sterility, 98(1), pp. 63-68.
  • Wood J., 1989, “Fecundity and natural fertility in humans”, in Milligan S. (ed.), Reviews of Reproductive Biology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 61-109.

Monday, April 16, 2018

holistic science communication

мос К
How can we effectively engage in the practice and art of science communication to increase both public understanding and public impact of our science? Here I present five principles based on what I learned at the Science of Science Communication III Sackler Colloquium at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC in November 2017.

1. Assemble a diverse and interdisciplinary team

  • Scientists should recognise that while they may be an expert on a particular facet of a complex problem, they may not be qualified to serve as an expert on all aspects of the problem. Therefore, scientists and communicators should collaborate to form interdisciplinary scientific teams to best address complex issues.
  • Science is like any other good or service — it must be strategically communicated if we want members of the public to accept, use, or support it in their daily lives. Thus, research scientists need to partner with content creators and practitioners in order to effectively share and “sell” scientific results.
  • Collaboration often improves decision-making and problem-solving processes. People have diverse cognitive models that affect the way each of us sees the world and how we understand or resolve problems. Adequate “thought world diversity” can help teams create and communicate science that is more creative, representative of a wider population, and more broadly applicable.

2. Tell a story

  • Great science and great stories have something in common — as Frank Sesno explained at the colloquium, both involve “compelling characters overcoming obstacles to achieve a worthy outcome”. Holistic science communication should therefore integrate diverse facts into a comprehensive message, and tell the story of the research process and results in a way that is engaging and relevant to an audience.
  • There is a move towards attention-grabbing, tweet-sized science. Be careful to avoid sensationalism and do not shy away from studying complex issues in favour of addressing “tweet-sized problems”.
  • In order to help our science tell a more complete story that includes more voices and resonates with more diverse audiences, scientists should be less numbers-driven and more willing and eager to incorporate qualitative data and experiential knowledge into their research.

3. Make the message personal

  • Clearly articulate why people should care about your science. This involves thinking about what matters to the audience and then framing your message in a way that makes it more localised. For example, talk about cause and effect relationships that impact people’s daily lives.
  • The identity and public perception of the messenger matters. As communicators, we must consider how our own identities might impact the way our message is received.
  • Be mindful of the “information climate”, or socio-political landscape in which your science will be received. Science communicators need to consider the mental models of their audience members and think about how to best connect with audiences that may be culturally different or resistant to the new information.

4. Communicate with people, rather than to them

  • It is mutually beneficial for scientists and the public to establish a two-way dialogue. Engaging the public and listening to their input helps scientists make their research more socially valuable and comprehensive, while scientists’ research helps the public make informed, evidence-based decisions. Excluding other voices from what should be an inclusive conversation causes scientists to lose public respect, rapport, and support.
  • Face-to-face interactions and shared experiences are important for developing relationships and creating learning outcomes. Effective science communicators should aim to create moments that enthuse people to keep learning about our science and asking questions, even after we are gone.
  • Science communicators need to abandon the information deficit model. The deficit model posits that scepticism or disuse of science stems from the public’s lack of knowledge, and if scientists take time to educate the masses and communicate information, then science-based decision-making and public support of science will prevail throughout society. This model does not work! The missing link is not communication, but effective communication.

5. Remember to be a human first!

  • If we want people to understand and use our science in their lives, we must earn their trust. We should not only communicate our science, but also communicate who we are and where we come from in order to give our expertise context and gain trust as humans.
  • Scientists are often concerned with maintaining objectivity and eliminating bias. While these goals are understandable in a lab setting with respect to experimental design and execution, they are not attainable, or even desirable, in a real-world setting with respect to complex, transdisciplinary, and controversial societal issues. Scientists should realise that they are not objective actors, and that science is not only biased, but often inherently and unavoidably political. When communicating science, we must acknowledge our own biases and maintain honest and transparent communication with our audience.
  • Scientists should work with other members of society to create socially-accepted and socially-useful science. First and foremost, the responsibility of science is to deliver to society, and in order to fulfil this social contract, scientists need to collaborate with experts in other disciplines, and establish a natural two-way dialogue with members of wider society in order to ensure that science is meeting the needs of the public.
What other suggestions do you have for thinking critically about your role as a science communicator? How do you remind yourself to always be mindful of your responsibility to society as a scientific researcher and as a citizen?

happy birthday

Алекса́ндр II Николаевич (17 [29] апреля 1818, Москва — 1 [13] марта 1881, Санкт-Петербург) — Император Всероссийский, Царь Польский и Великий князь Финляндский (1855—1881) из династии Романовых. Старший сын сначала великокняжеской, а с 1825 года императорской четы Николая Павловича и Александры Фёдоровны.
Family Alexandre 2

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Mater certa est, pater numquam

Mater certa est, pater numquam: What can Facebook Advertising Data Tell Us about Male Fertility Rates?

In many developing countries, timely and accurate information about birth rates and other demographic indicators is still lacking, especially for male fertility rates. Using anonymous and aggregate data from Facebook's Advertising Platform, we produce global estimates of the Mean Age at Childbearing (MAC), a key indicator of fertility postponement. Our analysis indicates that fertility measures based on Facebook data are highly correlated with conventional indicators based on traditional data, for those countries for which we have statistics. For instance, the correlation of the MAC computed using Facebook and United Nations data is 0.47 (p = 4.02e-08) and 0.79 (p = 2.2e-15) for female and male respectively. Out of sample validation for a simple regression model indicates that the mean absolute percentage error is 2.3%. We use the linear model and Facebook data to produce estimates of the male MAC for countries for which we do not have data.
Comments:Please cite the version from Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM-2018)
Subjects:Computers and Society (cs.CY)
Cite as:arXiv:1804.04632 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:1804.04632v1 [cs.CY] for this version)

comfortable having an immigrant as a friend

Saturday, April 14, 2018

America's Favorite Apparel Brands

There are few markets where brands matter more than in fashion and apparel. You can sell a white t-shirt for $10 dollars, or you can put a brand logo on it and sell the same shirt for $50 (or $120 for that matter). While some brands charge prices unaffordable for the majority of people and pride themselves in their exclusiveness, others happily cater to the mainstream and still manage to maintain a strong brand image.

Nike is one example for such a brand. Even though the company’s iconic Swoosh is omnipresent, the brand is almost universally loved – and not just by athletes. According to Statista’s Global Consumer Survey 2018, Nike is the most popular apparel/footwear brand in the United States. When asked about the brands they typically buy when it comes to clothing, shoes and accessories, 52 percent of the 2,010 Americans polled named Nike as one of their go-to brands, with Levi’s and Adidas ranking second and third in that category.
Infographic: America's Favorite Apparel Brands | Statista

Friday, April 13, 2018

duma is banning baby-boom in russia

Американская Abbott вчера запустила на белгородской площадке «Верофарма» производство препарата для «поддержания женского репродуктивного здоровья» мощностью 200 млн штук в год и стоимостью около 1,4 млрд руб. В торжественном мероприятии поучаствовали старший вице-президент корпорации Шон Шримптон и губернатор Евгений Савченко. К открытию производства была приурочена научная конференция в Белгородском госуниверситете. На ней чиновники совместно с инвесторами обсудили особенности «размножения человека» и пообещали, что белгородские женщины будут делать намного меньше абортов.

Эх! бедолага Шримп Тон — чо ты забыл в нашей пролетарской вагине ???

new losses

Директор ЦРУ Майк Помпео, номинированный президентом США Дональдом Трампом на должность госсекретаря, сегодня заявил о гибели «пары сотен русских» в Сирии в начале февраля. Это первое официальное подтверждение этой информации со стороны США.

«В Сирии несколько недель назад русские встретили достойный отпор. Были убиты пара сотен русских», - сказал Помпео на слушаниях комитета cената США по международным отношениям. Никаких других деталей Помпео не привел.

Помимо этого Помпео объяснил «плохим поведением России» конфликт между ней и США и выступил за ужесточение санкций. «Владимир Путин не воспринял наше послание в полной мере, и мы будем работать над этим. Но это должно быть больше, чем санкции», - сказал он в ходе слушаний.

МИД России в середине февраля признал гибель лишь пяти россиян во время удара коалиции в Сирии. Представитель МИДа Мария Захарова тогда назвала цифру в 100-200 погибших «классической дезинформацией» и подчеркнула, что погибшие не были военнослужащими. [ихтамнет]

Суть самого инцидента, по данным различных источников, состоит в попытке захвата сирийцами совместно с российской частной военной компанией «ЧВК Вагнера» нефтяных полей и недействующего НПЗ Conoco на реке Евфрат под Дейр-эз-Зором, находящихся под контролем курдских сил. По версии Пентагона, авиаудар коалиции 7 февраля был ответом на атаку группировки «проасадовских сил» численностью до батальона «при поддержке артиллерии, танков, РСЗО и минометов» на базу «Сирийских демократических сил» (SDF) под поселком Хишам на восточном берегу Евфрата. Американская сторона утверждала, что запрашивала официальных российских военных об их отношении к рейду, но из российского ответа следовало, что российских военнослужащих в районе нет.

генералы стали догадывацо?