Sentences with phrase «lower than the outcome»

Not exact matches

A common retort by the industry is that rates of the health outcome studied - whether it's asthma or preterm birth - are lower in fracking areas than in areas without fracking, or that the rate of the outcome is decreasing over time.

It's counter-intuitive, but Grant says a study involving a math test has confirmed the finding: «When the defensive pessimists distracted themselves with another task right before the math test, their scores were about 25 percent lower than when they listed the most extreme outcomes that could happen in the test, and how they might feel.

As argued in an earlier piece (Deficit Outcome for 2010 - 11 will be $ 7 billion lower than forecast in October 2010 Update — December 2010: www.3dpolicy.ca), we expect that the deficit in 2010 - 11 will be at least $ 7 billion lower than forecast in the October 2010 Update, based on the financial results to the end of October 2010 and an analysis of the impact of one - time accrual liabilities which inflated the 2009 - 10 deficit oOutcome for 2010 - 11 will be $ 7 billion lower than forecast in October 2010 Update — December 2010: www.3dpolicy.ca), we expect that the deficit in 2010 - 11 will be at least $ 7 billion lower than forecast in the October 2010 Update, based on the financial results to the end of October 2010 and an analysis of the impact of one - time accrual liabilities which inflated the 2009 - 10 deficit outcomeoutcome.

For example, if, as expected, the final audited deficit outcome for 2011 - 12 is lower than that estimated in the March 2012 Budget, some, if not all, of this improvement could carry forward into 2012 - 13, thereby resulting in a lower outcome that currently estimated.

The final outcome was $ 1.5 billion lower than forecast in the March 2012 Budget, with most of the decline again attributable to lower - than - projected direct program expenses.

Based on financial results for the first eight months of 2010 - 11 and adjusting for the large extra-ordinary liabilities booked in 2009 - 10, which inflated the deficit outcome for that year, the deficit for 2010 - 11 will be about $ 7 billion lower than forecast in the October 2010 Update.

For example, if the final audited deficit outcome for 2010 - 11 is lower than that estimated in the June 2011 Budget, some, if not all, of this improvement could carry forward into 2011 - 12, which would then explain part of the improvement ion 2011 - 12.

For example, if the final audited deficit outcome for 2010 - 11 is lower than that estimated in the June 2011 Budget, some, if not all, of this improvement could carry forward into 2011 - 12.

The government must have been aware for some time that the deficit outcome in 2013 - 14 was going to be much lower than expected.

With the benefit of hindsight, given the lower - than - expected inflation outcomes, this would have resulted in a significant undershooting of the inflation target.

As noted above, the higher - than - expected deficit outcome for 2011 - 12, compared to the March 2012 Budget forecast, was entirely due to lower - than - expected revenues.

It is not known whether the lower - than - expected outcome for other transfers will carry forward.

Based on monthly Fiscal Monitor results for 2012 - 13, we argued that the final outcome could be lower than $ 25.9 billion, so this announcement is no surprise.

As a result, it is still too early to assess the potential outcome for this component, although final tax liabilities for 2012 would have to be significantly lower than in 2011 in order to meet the November 2012 Update estimate.

In some cases, a lower valuation with lower preferred share rights may yield a higher economic outcome for common shareholders than a higher valuation with a high level of preferred share rights.

As indicated in previous reports, we, along with others, believe that the deficit outcome for 2010 - 11 will be at least $ 7 billion lower than estimated in the October 2010 Update.

With the deficit outcome for 2010 - 11 expected to be much lower than projected in the October 2010 Update, the Harper Government has more than enough financial room to «buy» the support one or two of the opposition parties.

On balance, the final deficit outcome for 2012 - 13, which will not be known until the audited results are released in the fall of 2013, could be slightly lower than the Budget 2013 estimate of $ 25.9 billion.

If wage negotiations, for example, were to build in current low expected price increases — of the order of 2 to 3 per cent — that kind of behaviour would clearly produce better national outcomes than if larger increases (not backed by genuine productivity gains) were pursued and granted, only to be followed by a tightening of policy.

The deficit for 2011 - 12 was $ 26.2 billion; $ 7.2 billion lower than the final outcome for 2010 - 12.

On balance, the final outcome for 2016 - 17 could be at least $ 3 billion lower than forecast in the November Update, excluding extraordinary accrual adjustments.

In the media briefing following his meeting with private sector economists on October 28th, the Minister of Finance stated that the lower than expected deficit outcome for 2012 - 13, of $ 6.9 billion, was due to the Government's «tight control over spending ``.

To date, Minister Flaherty has been unable or unwilling to explain why the deficit for 2012 - 13 came in so much lower than what he forecast in the March 2013 Budget or why the monthly results to the end of March 2013 were so far off the final outcome for 2012 - 13.

Based on the financial results to date, the final deficit outcome for 2011 - 12 could be at least $ 2 billion lower than forecast in Budget 2012.

CopyOp Review If you are not familiar with the world of trading in binary options, it involves betting on one of two probable outcomes [for instance: that the EUR vs USD rate will be lower or higher than the current rate in 30 minutes].

The outcome for 2016 - 17, along with the much stronger than expected economic growth for 2017, suggests that the deficit outcome for 2017 - 18 could also be much lower than currently forecast at $ 28.5 billion.

However, the final financial outcome for 2016 - 17 at $ 17.8 billion was $ 5.3 billion lower than that estimated in the March 2017 Budget, part of which should carry forward in 2017 - 18 and future years.

As a result, the final deficit outcome for 2010 - 11 could be between $ 3 and $ 6 billion lower - than - estimated in the March 2011 Budget.

The better - than - expected outcome for 2016 - 17, along with the much stronger than expected economic growth for 2017, suggests that the deficit outcome for 2017 - 18 could be much lower than currently forecast at $ 28.5 billion.

We would expect that the final outcome for 2011 - 12 will be $ 2 to $ 3 billion lower than forecast in the November 2011 Update, provided that there are no «extraordinary» adjustments at year end.

The final deficit outcome for 2016 - 17 was $ 5.3 billion lower than that forecast in the March 2017 Budget.

On a 10 - 12 year horizon, we expect the total return of the S&P 500 to fall short of 1 % annually, and given that more than that amount is likely to represent dividends, it follows that we expect the level of the S&P 500 Index to be lower 10 - 12 years from now than it is today (recall a similar outcome after the 2000 peak).

The lower - than - expected deficit outcome for 2010 - 11, compared to the June 2011 Budget estimate, resulted from both higher revenues (up $ 1.5 billion) and lower program expenses (down $ 1.2 billion).

The final outcome for 2010 - 11 was $ 22.2 billion lower than the deficit for 2009 - 10.

The final outcome could be at least $ 1 billion lower than forecast.

Perhaps the right conclusion is that it's less crazy to replace founders when the outcome being driven to is an outright acquisition, where the mean value is lower than the total capital raised.

The outcome is less playing time than necessary, which then initiates a perpetual cycle; being of a lower quality than the existing striker results in less minutes on field, which leads to less confidence, resulting in a seemingly even lower quality.

Flint and colleagues suggested that when midwives get to know the women for whom they provide care, interventions are minimised.22 The Albany midwifery practice, with an unselected population, has a rate for normal vaginal births of 77 %, with 35 % of women having a home birth.23 A review of care for women at low risk of complications has shown that continuity of midwifery care is generally associated with lower intervention rates than standard maternity care.24 Variation in normal birth rates between services (62 % -80 %), however, seems to be greater than outcome differences between «high continuity» and «traditional care» groups at the same unit.25 26 27 Use of epidural analgesia, for example, varies widely between Queen Charlotte's Hospital, London, and the North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

For healthy nulliparous women with a low risk pregnancy, the risk of an adverse perinatal outcome seems to be higher for planned births at home, and the intrapartum transfer rate is high in all settings other than an obstetric unit

However, the fact that odds ratios for adverse maternal outcomes were much lower for parous women than for nulliparous women, suggests that other factors played an important part.

It's disturbing that high risk moms with OBs have better outcomes than low risk moms with midwives.

When this 20 % risk of death is compared to the 0.02 % rate of cord prolapse during labor at homebirth that might have a better outcome if it happened in hospital, this means that a low risk woman has a 1000 times higher chance of having a life threatening complication either to her life or her fetus / newborns life at planned hospital birth, than if she plans to have an attended homebirth with a well - trained practitioner.

Women who are labelled as high - risk and whose births are managed by OB's have better outcomes than the low - risk women who give birth in the midwife - led part of the delivery ward.

For low - risk women who had never given birth before, home birth led to bad outcomes (such as encephalopathy or stillbirth) slightly less than 1 % of the time.

For all low risk women, bootstrapped estimates showed that planned birth in settings other than an obstetric unit was associated with cost savings and considerable stochastic uncertainty surrounding adverse perinatal outcomes.

A study reported in the BMJ found that women whose pregnancies were low - risk suffered far fewer severe negative outcomes from home than hospital births, especially after the first pregnancy.

So a team of Dutch researchers decided to test whether low risk women at the onset of labour with planned home birth have a higher rate of rare but severe outcomes (known as severe acute maternal morbidity or SAMM) than those with planned hospital births.

Multiple trials of low risk of bias contributed to each outcome, and there were precise estimates with no heterogeneity greater than 60 %.

Twelve of the included studies were judged at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data on the basis that attrition rate was less than 20 % for all outcomes (other than satisfaction), or missing outcome data were balanced across groups (Begley 2011; Biro 2000; Flint 1989; Harvey 1996; Hicks 2003; Homer 2001; Kenny 1994; McLachlan 2012; North Stafford 2000; Tracy 2013; Turnbull 1996; Waldenstrom 2001).

Homebirth is in America as Homebirth in America does, yet the Homebirth advocates who are looking at the actually data are making excuses about the worse outcomes as they speculate that it is either due to the high risks births that were included, or because they must have been farther away from the hospital than just 5 minutes, or just ignoring the outcomes data and focusing on the low intervention data.