Laura Brown41 said:A baby boom happening over in Detroit. On June 12, 2014, 14 kids were born—7 girls and 7 boys. CONGRATS TO THE HAPPY PARENTS.
Yesterday there were 13, so I guess this baby boom is actually happening, and not just this month, but since the start of the year. I figured June would be slower than last year since we had a solid 199 babies last June, but maybe this June is already beating that.
Here are the numbers for the Kragujevac hospital for May and the year-to-date totals. I guess we saw an incredible 204 babies born in May alone. That’s actually 44 more than last May. Here is the May breakdown for comparison.
May: 2012 - 185 2013 - 160 2014 - 204
For the first five months, here is how it looks.
Jan-May: 2012 - 832 2013 - 806 2014 - 904
So, for the first five months this year, there are 98 more babies compared to last year. It's an insane score, honestly.
George Young44 said:No offense intended, but I gotta ask one thing here:
Haven't we spent basically the entire last year—and most of this one too—constantly seeing news on this thread about how birth rates in hospitals are climbing, only to find out that when you actually crunch the numbers for the whole country, we're sitting at a deficit of like 1,000 people?
There are really only two ways to look at this: either all these "good news" stories are just window dressing to distract us from reality, or they're somehow shutting down clinics somewhere along the line...??
The hospital numbers in Detroit last year were actually great, probably the best we've seen in seven or eight years. That’s a fact. I'm waiting until the end of June to see how much of that was specifically from Detroit itself, but based on what I've heard from the registrar's office and posted here, the city of Detroit drove that increase. So far, this year is looking even better than last. Honestly, the second half of last year was incredible and basically carried those strong results, so I guess I still view this spike as a way to build up a buffer before things get rough again. Anyway, I'm pretty happy with it. If this year matches last year, I couldn't ask for more; I'd be thrilled. Lawrence Williams and Justin Hernandez11 have already covered everything regarding the data we provide. They haven't been wrong yet, and they've always nailed the final national totals for America. It shouldn't surprise you that New York City, Chicago, Detroit, or Buffalo show above-average results. Those are the biggest, most demographically stable cities in the US. The national average is never going to match the levels seen in those cities. If you think the stats from these major hubs are misleading, then, no offense, you might just be behind on your demographics or regional trends.🙂
In an American maternity ward this April, there were 148 births. That’s eight more than the 140 we saw during the same month last year. I guess it isn't exactly a huge jump, since last year's numbers were even worse. But honestly, the trend is holding up; all four months this year have outperformed last year. I suppose that's worth noting.
Here’s the March report and the year-to-date stats for the Columbus maternity hospital.
March: 2012 - 170 2013 - 166 2014 - 188
So, that's 22 more babies than last March. All three months of 2014 have been stronger than last year's numbers, which I guess is showing up in the total score too.
This year is crushing it so far.☕It would probably be smart to build a solid lead during the first half of the year, since the second half of last year was pretty fantastic.
Local news outlets are reporting that there are over 6,000 more voters this time around. I haven't really bothered checking if any of this is actually true or where they even got these numbers from, but since you asked me to include it, here it is. It’s probably just nonsense, honestly, and it just shows how terrible our voter rolls are. Here's the copy-paste from their statement:
6,500 more voters in Detroit Friday, March 14, 2014 5:34 PM Author: RTK
For the special parliamentary elections on March 16, 159,338 citizens in the Detroit area have the right to vote.
That’s about 6,500 more than in the last election.
During the elections held back in May 2012, 152,671 Detroit citizens were eligible to vote.
The number of polling stations has also increased by two, so there will be 168 locations set up for voting in Detroit this Sunday.
Here’s the February report for Kragujevac. We had 164 babies born, which is maybe six more than last year when there were 158. The numbers for the last three years look like this:
February: 2012 - 153 2013 - 158 2014 - 164
Total for Jan-Feb: 2012 - 312 2013 - 331 2014 - 364
So, I guess this year is looking significantly better than the previous two for this same period.
Exactly 200 babies were born at the Mayo Clinic maternity ward this January.🙂 That’s an increase of 27 compared to last January.☕ The Mayo Clinic is keeping up its incredible streak heading into this year. Early January didn't look promising at all. For the first 13 days, just like Kacamak reported, there were only sixty-something births, leaving us about ten behind last year. But then we hit this massive run—five different double-digit stretches, one day with 16 births, and finally hitting that even 200 mark. Here is how the last three years stack up. I should mention that for 2012, my numbers differ slightly from the hospital's records. I'll fix that in March once I figure out if the discrepancy happened in January or February, since they released those two months as a single total. For now, I guess we'll just stick with my data since it's pretty close anyway:
I guess I'll just say what's on my mind. It’s honestly ridiculous.
quietangler5 said:When you cross-reference the vital statistics for the 2007-2011 birth period against the census data for the 0-4 age demographic, it becomes glaringly obvious: the census shows fewer children in the major metropolitan areas than the vital statistics suggest, while smaller townships show a higher number than expected. It seems clear that the vital statistics disproportionately attribute a higher volume of births to large cities than is actually occurring, while undercounting the reality in smaller municipalities. Why this happens, I honestly can't say.
I guess there’s definitely something going on there, you can tell, but the numbers just aren't that big. I mean, the discrepancies we saw back in Detroit between the census and vital statistics weren't even that extreme. You see the same thing with championship winners or school enrollment numbers. The gaps are small enough that they could honestly just be blamed on migration. Most of the time, the number of kids starting first grade pretty much lines up with how many were born seven years prior anyway. I guess smaller towns definitely get the short end of the stick, but maybe not enough to justify everything else. Take Detroit, for example—they still don't have an IVF program at their local Mayo Clinic, though they’re supposedly renovating space to bring one in this year. Because of that, women who conceive via IVF—which is often twins—end up scheduling their C-sections at those big-city clinics where the procedure actually happened, like in New York City. I personally know several people in that situation. Right now, a friend of mine is carrying triplets, and the family is heading to NYC for the birth, even though they're practically on the outskirts of places like Jacqueline or Queen. With high-risk pregnancies like that, people just won't bother coming to Detroit; they claim it's much safer and better to stay near the specialists. 🤷
I managed to dig up some data from the vital statistics office covering the last three years for the Kalamazoo area.😉 It’s pretty interesting stuff, and I think we can actually make a solid prediction for the number of births in Kalamazoo for 2013. Basically, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the birth numbers in KG over the last three years were:
2011 - 1777 2012 - 1637 2013 - ?
At the same time, looking at the latest info pulled directly from the hospital, the total number of births at the local maternity ward was:
2011 - 2194 2012 - 2148 2013 - 2211
So, based on the hospital numbers, this year is actually looking better than even that great run in 2011. I did notice an unusually low percentage of Kalamazoo babies specifically in 2012 compared to the total hospital count. That’s what bugged me—it made me think that even if the hospital's overall numbers looked good this year, the actual city stats might end up being mediocre or even worse. That's why I went through the trouble of getting the official records from the registrar; they clarify things, though there is one weird discrepancy I'd like to run by you guys.
According to the registrar, these are the babies born at the Kalamazoo hospital where at least one parent is a resident of Kalamazoo:
2011 - 1623 2012 - 1502 2013 - 1638
The dip in 2012 is pretty obvious. Even though the hospital's total count only dropped by about fifty babies, the specific share of Kalamazoo babies plummeted, leading to a total loss of nearly 150 babies for our city. I didn't have that specific breakdown back then, so I was expecting a minor drop or maybe something similar to previous years, since the local share had been growing for a while. I figured maybe people from nearby counties were driving in to give birth, which would make sense. Honestly, the results shocked me. Now, in 2013, the share of local babies is jumping up significantly, and it looks like it might even beat the 2011 numbers. Plus, I was told by the registrar that because of the rule requiring registration within a month of birth, there's still a chance more 2013 babies will be reported in the next couple of days, so the final count could be even higher. It’s clear now that this surge at the hospital is pulling the whole city up, and not just by 65 babies, but a significant jump in local share too. It wouldn't be a stretch to see us hit near 1,800 births again, like in 2011. Still, there is one "but" that isn't totally clear to me, and it might lead to some adjustments in the final totals. For instance, if you look at 2011, the registrar says 1,623 babies were born to Kalamazoo parents, yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a total of 1,777. Where do those extra 154 babies come from? Is it possible that that many Kalamazoo residents are giving birth in NYC or other cities? Or are those babies being counted toward our city's total even if the parents aren't locals? By what criteria? Are they adding babies born abroad? If you follow the trend from 2012, the registrar shows 121 fewer local babies than the year before, while the Bureau's final count shows a drop of 140. Based on these indicators, it's impossible to miss the direction we're headed. 2013 is going to be way better than last year, and there's a real shot it beats 2011. Ultimately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gets the final word with their adjustments, which I don't think will change much, but they might decide whether we officially top the 2011 record. Now that I have these registry numbers, any result or trend that contradicts what I've written here would be a massive surprise to me.
Here’s some more official data from the Detroit maternity ward regarding 2013. A total of 2,211 babies were born. That’s 65 more than what they recorded back in 2012, I guess. They had 49 sets of twins and one set of triplets. Since there were only 40 sets of twins in both 2011 and 2012, there's a pretty noticeable jump, which probably comes down to more couples using IVF. The most twins were born in June—nine of them, actually.
Sixteen babies were born in Kragujevac over the last 24 hours. That’s already a massive number for the first month, maybe even enough to compete for the best record of the year.🙂 If I remember correctly, last year's record was 17.
I guess people really love their heavy, greasy stews. Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the hype around this stuff. quietangler5 says: I guess back in 2013, they had something like 2,211 babies born at that hospital in Detroit.🙂 placidlynx4, that’s way more than what we were seeing back in 2012. I guess.😉 Only 64 babies were born between January 1st and January 13th, 2014. I guess according to the news reports, they had 72 during that same window last year. Maybe things will pick up soon. I saw this thing about a newborn baby being born in Detroit. I guess it’s just more news that doesn't really change anything. Maybe it's important to some people, I don't know.
Yeah, I guess that's just how it is.🙂😉 I guess I was wrong about those mid-December numbers from the hospital records. Based on what I'm seeing now, the gap between the 2013 birth cohort and the 2012 one is actually about forty babies larger than my initial math suggested. So, it looks like we're looking at 2,211 babies instead of 2,182. My bad. That’s 63 more babies than back in 2012. I guess that’s actually a pretty decent score. We'll see how much Detroit contributed to that, but honestly, given that sudden dip we saw a couple of years ago, it's probably a huge chunk. January started off pretty rough, which I guess I expected after how great December was. But things have been picking up lately, and we're already seeing numbers that look like they might match up to last January—which, honestly, was incredible and easily my best month until June rolled around.
This whole thing is completely irrelevant. They’re comparing birth rates in Mexico City hospitals from 2013 against babies born specifically in Mexico City back in 2012. Of course the numbers are higher. It's just nonsense. I guess Mexico City might actually be seeing a slight dip this year compared to last.
Happy New Year to everyone out there! Wishing you all nothing but health and happiness.
The maternity ward over at Mount Sinai was absolutely crushing it this December. They had 214 babies born, which I think is one of their best months in years. I guess August 2011 might still hold the record with 2,018 births. What makes this number so crazy is that it happened in the dead of winter, when numbers usually tank. Compared to last December, when they had 144, this month saw an extra 70 babies.☕😉 Obviously, this bumps up the total for the whole year. But before I get ahead of myself, I have to say these are just my own numbers. Back in mid-December, the hospital released stats that were actually higher than mine—by as much as 40 babies. So, I’m waiting on the official report because this year might actually be even better than I thought. So, here's what my data shows:
December 2011 - 178 2012 - 144 2013 - 214
Full Year 2011 - 2,236 2012 - 2,148 2013 - 2,182
Basically, this year beat last year by 34 babies. According to the hospital's own count, we're probably looking at over 2,200. Once I get the final word, I'll let you guys know.
Here's a perfect example of how economic stability and feeling secure about the future actually impact birth rates. Maybe this recent baby boom we're seeing in Columbus has something to do with what this article is talking about. http://www.ikragujevac.com/vesti/171...-300-beba.html
Maybe I'm being annoying, but since this info is official now, I have to share it. Today's edition of the Kragujevac News ran a story about the baby boom at the local hospital, looking back at the whole year. They’re citing data straight from the hospital itself. I have to say, they seem pretty optimistic—honestly, even more positive than the numbers I've been seeing. Basically, the hospital claims this year will see an above-average number of births. Usually, they see between 2,100 and 2,200 babies a year, but as of December 15th, they've already hit 2,113. They're predicting they'll break the 2,200 mark. What's interesting is that according to my own data, there were 2,095 births through December 18th. So, realistically, based on the hospital's figures, they're claiming about 20 more babies were born by just the 15th. Plus, since we're missing those last three days of data, it looks like the hospital's count is actually about 40 babies higher than what I had. I hope these numbers are accurate. I don't really have a reason to doubt them, though, since the article includes interviews with both the director of GAK and the head of the neonatal center. They also mentioned that 133 babies were born in the first half of December. That is honestly fantastic. My info showed 127 births through December 18th, so once again, the hospital is reporting higher numbers. Even if my number of 127 is right, that still puts them on track for over 200 births by the end of the month. For mid-December, that's seriously great and totally unexpected. Anyway, both GAK and I can agree on one thing: there's a mini baby boom happening at the hospital, and so far, things aren't slowing down at all.