Comments on: Death Rates Again http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 00:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-3/#comment-170280 abb1 Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:26:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170280 <i>The mortality rate among the richest Americans [...] is 100%.</i> I dunno, don't some of them get cryopreserved? The mortality rate among the richest Americans [...] is 100%.

I dunno, don’t some of them get cryopreserved?

]]> By: Craig http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-3/#comment-170279 Craig Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:10:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170279 I think a more important point than how many US troops are killed, or even how many US troops are injured or how many Iraqis are killed and injured, is the fact that our policies are set more by the public's tolerance for casualties than by any principled system of law and morality. Think about it. The US going to war *should* be based on great self-restraint and adherence to not abusing its power in pursuit of its own interests in unjust ways - but it's not, today. All of that self-restraint, all of the systems designed to restrict war from the US's own laws, to our democracy's system of government, to the UN, do not stop the war direction. The only limit the US seems to recognize is the public's weariness of casualties. This is going to be a far more important issue in coming wars, because the Pentagon is creating new weapons systems which will greatly reduce US casualties, including space-based systems. What, then, will be the restricting factor on the use of military force? Almost no restriction. So, it's fine to note the problems with propaganda that minimize the casualties of war, but it's important not to forget the larger problem that our society has failed to create any effective system for which to set war policies, which makes principles, and not casualties, the rules. And we're moving even further from policy by principles, in attacking the UN. I think a more important point than how many US troops are killed, or even how many US troops are injured or how many Iraqis are killed and injured, is the fact that our policies are set more by the public’s tolerance for casualties than by any principled system of law and morality.

Think about it. The US going to war should be based on great self-restraint and adherence to not abusing its power in pursuit of its own interests in unjust ways – but it’s not, today.

All of that self-restraint, all of the systems designed to restrict war from the US’s own laws, to our democracy’s system of government, to the UN, do not stop the war direction.

The only limit the US seems to recognize is the public’s weariness of casualties.

This is going to be a far more important issue in coming wars, because the Pentagon is creating new weapons systems which will greatly reduce US casualties, including space-based systems.

What, then, will be the restricting factor on the use of military force? Almost no restriction.

So, it’s fine to note the problems with propaganda that minimize the casualties of war, but it’s important not to forget the larger problem that our society has failed to create any effective system for which to set war policies, which makes principles, and not casualties, the rules.

And we’re moving even further from policy by principles, in attacking the UN.

]]> By: MFA http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-3/#comment-170276 MFA Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:58:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170276 The mortality rate among the richest Americans, with access to the best medical care in the nation and all the safety and security money can buy, is 100%. The mortality rate for the citizens of Iraq is also 100%. Therefore, our invasion of Iraq has produced for them a mortality rate equivalent to that enjoyed by the most privileged members of our society. That's freeance for ya. The mortality rate among the richest Americans, with access to the best medical care in the nation and all the safety and security money can buy, is 100%.

The mortality rate for the citizens of Iraq is also 100%.

Therefore, our invasion of Iraq has produced for them a mortality rate equivalent to that enjoyed by the most privileged members of our society.

That’s freeance for ya.

]]> By: dfinberg http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-3/#comment-170274 dfinberg Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:54:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170274 steve seems right on. Except for the fact that the mean surface temperature on venus is around 400 degress centigrade. Well, at least he's keeping his batting average steady. steve seems right on. Except for the fact that the mean surface temperature on venus is around 400 degress centigrade. Well, at least he’s keeping his batting average steady.

]]> By: Rob St. Amant http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-3/#comment-170273 Rob St. Amant Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:46:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170273 Here's what I think is a more useful version of Steve's temperature illustration (using Mars, because my understanding is that Venus is quite hot): "On Mars, protected by the most effective insulation that is available today in portable form, you'd freeze to death in less than an hour. In the coldest natural places on Earth, you'd freeze almost that fast, but only if you were completely naked." I think it's more useful because it supplies the context that some readers will not fill in automatically. If the goal of the original article was to give readers insight, it should be a reasonable insight. Here’s what I think is a more useful version of Steve’s temperature illustration (using Mars, because my understanding is that Venus is quite hot): “On Mars, protected by the most effective insulation that is available today in portable form, you’d freeze to death in less than an hour. In the coldest natural places on Earth, you’d freeze almost that fast, but only if you were completely naked.” I think it’s more useful because it supplies the context that some readers will not fill in automatically. If the goal of the original article was to give readers insight, it should be a reasonable insight.

]]> By: Steve http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-3/#comment-170271 Steve Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:33:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170271 That should obviously read "[making the comparison] is much less so" in my above. That should obviously read “[making the comparison] is much less so” in my above.

]]> By: Steve http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170270 Steve Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:30:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170270 Christ, Other Steve, this isn't hard. Comparing the temperature on Venus to the temperature in Minnesota is useful in a popular science article; comparing the death rate for the US military in Iraq to the death rate for the US civilian population not in Iraq isn't much less so, because you're adjusting two factors and implying that you're only adjusting one. As I said in comment 34, if a scientist had written a piece about climate change that led off by throwing a shock figure out there that conflated two factors, one of which vastly outweighed global warming (seasonality, for instance), people would be quite right to say that it was a cheap trick. The death rate for peacetime military is a sixth of that for the general population; the comparison is totally useless, even for getting a Minnesota-in-December sense of whether this figure represents a big deal. The stats comparing the death rate Iraq to Vietnam are interesting, although I'd seen similar ones discussing the advances in battlefield medicine, and comparison the death rate in Iraq to that of South Philly don't seem nearly as misleading. But it's a lousy piece of rhetoric that seems designed to pander to the Post's center-right editorial stance. Christ, Other Steve, this isn’t hard. Comparing the temperature on Venus to the temperature in Minnesota is useful in a popular science article; comparing the death rate for the US military in Iraq to the death rate for the US civilian population not in Iraq isn’t much less so, because you’re adjusting two factors and implying that you’re only adjusting one. As I said in comment 34, if a scientist had written a piece about climate change that led off by throwing a shock figure out there that conflated two factors, one of which vastly outweighed global warming (seasonality, for instance), people would be quite right to say that it was a cheap trick. The death rate for peacetime military is a sixth of that for the general population; the comparison is totally useless, even for getting a Minnesota-in-December sense of whether this figure represents a big deal.

The stats comparing the death rate Iraq to Vietnam are interesting, although I’d seen similar ones discussing the advances in battlefield medicine, and comparison the death rate in Iraq to that of South Philly don’t seem nearly as misleading. But it’s a lousy piece of rhetoric that seems designed to pander to the Post’s center-right editorial stance.

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170266 Ray Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:04:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170266 No, I don't buy it. People have a strong sensory impression of how cold it is when it snows, or how cold their freezer is, but they don't have a good mental image of a statistic like the mortality rate per thousand in the US. (And most people aren't young black men in Philadelphia, so the article is not comparing the statistics to their personal experience.) So the article isn't proceeding from familiar examples to the unfamiliar, it's comparing one hard-to-grasp number to another. No, I don’t buy it. People have a strong sensory impression of how cold it is when it snows, or how cold their freezer is, but they don’t have a good mental image of a statistic like the mortality rate per thousand in the US. (And most people aren’t young black men in Philadelphia, so the article is not comparing the statistics to their personal experience.) So the article isn’t proceeding from familiar examples to the unfamiliar, it’s comparing one hard-to-grasp number to another.

]]> By: Steve http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170264 Steve Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:56:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170264 "How cold is it on Venus? Well, one comparison would be to the winters in Minnesota. The temperature in Minnesota, during the coldest time of the year, would freeze a glass of water in XX seconds. On Venus, that glass of water would freeze in less than a minute. Perhaps your deep freeze, where the temperatures are XX degrees. Nope, Venus is colder. You would have to go to the research facilities at UCLA, or directly to the North and South Poles, to encounter the temperatures a potential space traveller would encounter on the surface of Venus." Obviously, I made this entire thing up. But it is the type of article one reads all the time-an attempt to make understandable, in normal experience, statistics or measurements that people don't have are real feel for. Noone would believe that I think Venus is anything like Minnesota, or my deep freeze, or like a research facility at UCLA. Neither would they think that this proves I want to take a vacation on Venus, or that its safer on Venus than in my freezer, or any other preposterous hypothetical. This article did the same thing. The writer isn't claiming that soldiers in Iraq can be accurately, scientifically compared to the population of the country at large. He isn't claiming that those soldiers are exactly comparable to African Americans in Philadelphia. He's just trying to bring some human sense of the statistic: "...ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq." Frankly, the fact that it is even in the ballpark of a subset of civilians in peacetime is astounding-the fact that it is actually lower is mindboggling. Neither is he trying to claim that Bagdad is as safe as Philadelphia, or as safe as Saigon, or that Iraqis are as well off as Americans, or that the war is over, or that Iraq is or is not Vietnam, or that anyone wants to take a vacation in Baghdad (or in Philadelphia) or any of the other nonsense in this conversation. Your critiques are petty. It is clear that an article that is written for a newspaper for the layman doesn't pass the test of a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal would pass. This is a surprise to all of you? Get a grip. Methinks you doth protest too much. Steve “How cold is it on Venus? Well, one comparison would be to the winters in Minnesota. The temperature in Minnesota, during the coldest time of the year, would freeze a glass of water in XX seconds. On Venus, that glass of water would freeze in less than a minute. Perhaps your deep freeze, where the temperatures are XX degrees. Nope, Venus is colder. You would have to go to the research facilities at UCLA, or directly to the North and South Poles, to encounter the temperatures a potential space traveller would encounter on the surface of Venus.”

Obviously, I made this entire thing up. But it is the type of article one reads all the time-an attempt to make understandable, in normal experience, statistics or measurements that people don’t have are real feel for. Noone would believe that I think Venus is anything like Minnesota, or my deep freeze, or like a research facility at UCLA. Neither would they think that this proves I want to take a vacation on Venus, or that its safer on Venus than in my freezer, or any other preposterous hypothetical.

This article did the same thing. The writer isn’t claiming that soldiers in Iraq can be accurately, scientifically compared to the population of the country at large. He isn’t claiming that those soldiers are exactly comparable to African Americans in Philadelphia. He’s just trying to bring some human sense of the statistic: “…ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.” Frankly, the fact that it is even in the ballpark of a subset of civilians in peacetime is astounding-the fact that it is actually lower is mindboggling.

Neither is he trying to claim that Bagdad is as safe as Philadelphia, or as safe as Saigon, or that Iraqis are as well off as Americans, or that the war is over, or that Iraq is or is not Vietnam, or that anyone wants to take a vacation in Baghdad (or in Philadelphia) or any of the other nonsense in this conversation. Your critiques are petty. It is clear that an article that is written for a newspaper for the layman doesn’t pass the test of a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal would pass. This is a surprise to all of you? Get a grip.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Steve

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170263 Ray Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:48:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170263 thomas, that's a subset used in a comparison with a different subset. The ratio of deaths to person years is not qualified - it's all troops, of all ages. The Iraq deaths aren't all deaths by violence, but they don't include illness, afaik, because those troops are sent to hospitals in Europe or the US. But that's why I said the article should have included comparisons with military peace-time deaths, and deaths in other wars. If they'd included military peace-time deaths they could have said "Just being in the army is dangerous, because there are a certain number of accidents etc every year. Compared to this base level, Iraq is X times more dangerous." And thomas, <b>you</b> accused <b>me</b> of sexism (and ageism). It's a bit rich for you to get huffy on the part of the authors, when I point out that the sexist assumptions are in their figures, not mine. There's no longer any rhyme or reason to your defence of this article, is there? It's all just random bullshit flinging and attempts at distraction... thomas, that’s a subset used in a comparison with a different subset. The ratio of deaths to person years is not qualified – it’s all troops, of all ages.
The Iraq deaths aren’t all deaths by violence, but they don’t include illness, afaik, because those troops are sent to hospitals in Europe or the US. But that’s why I said the article should have included comparisons with military peace-time deaths, and deaths in other wars. If they’d included military peace-time deaths they could have said “Just being in the army is dangerous, because there are a certain number of accidents etc every year. Compared to this base level, Iraq is X times more dangerous.”

And thomas, you accused me of sexism (and ageism). It’s a bit rich for you to get huffy on the part of the authors, when I point out that the sexist assumptions are in their figures, not mine.

There’s no longer any rhyme or reason to your defence of this article, is there? It’s all just random bullshit flinging and attempts at distraction…

]]> By: Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170260 Thomas Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:31:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170260 ray, the article gives information on 17-19 year olds serving in Iraq, so the 18- comparison sets you offer aren't perfect fits, are they? And what would you say about offering only workplace statistics--wouldn't that also be misleading, given that the Iraq troop statistics won't be limited to service-related deaths? (Not as stupid as a can of Cheez Wiz, sure, but certainly not a perfect comparison, right?) I suppose your suggestion of sexism on the part of the authors is perfectly appropriate, given that they've been accused of incompetence and worse so far. Well, given that Preston is a sociologist, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by the shoddy quality of his thinking and his willingness to politicize his conclusions. Still, sexism is a bit of a surprise. ray, the article gives information on 17-19 year olds serving in Iraq, so the 18- comparison sets you offer aren’t perfect fits, are they? And what would you say about offering only workplace statistics—wouldn’t that also be misleading, given that the Iraq troop statistics won’t be limited to service-related deaths? (Not as stupid as a can of Cheez Wiz, sure, but certainly not a perfect comparison, right?)

I suppose your suggestion of sexism on the part of the authors is perfectly appropriate, given that they’ve been accused of incompetence and worse so far. Well, given that Preston is a sociologist, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by the shoddy quality of his thinking and his willingness to politicize his conclusions. Still, sexism is a bit of a surprise.

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170256 Ray Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:20:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170256 thomas, I'm well aware that women are serving in Iraq, but I'm using the comparison sets in the linked article. Direct your complaints of sexism to Samuel Preston, who thought the "death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39" and "death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia" figures were more relevant than the figures for all 18 to 39 year olds, or all 18 to 65 year olds. (the comparison to the entire population is still not relevant, unless there are 6 year old girls and 82 year old men now serving in the US Army.) thomas, I’m well aware that women are serving in Iraq, but I’m using the comparison sets in the linked article. Direct your complaints of sexism to Samuel Preston, who thought the “death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39” and “death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia” figures were more relevant than the figures for all 18 to 39 year olds, or all 18 to 65 year olds.

(the comparison to the entire population is still not relevant, unless there are 6 year old girls and 82 year old men now serving in the US Army.)

]]> By: Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170253 Thomas Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:03:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170253 dsquared, can you tell us how you personally misinterpreted the comparison of mortality rates of troops in Iraq to a particularly at-risk subset of the population of Philadelphia? Or did you avoid the problem? Is it only those who don't have your incredible intellectual resources who would misinterpret the statement? ray, I wonder if anyone has told you that there are both men and women serving in Iraq, and that their ages aren't limited to the age range you find most appropriate as a comparison set. Those facts might suggest the limited utility of that particular comparison, and the need for a comparison with the population at large--or at least one might reasonably think--as PB apparently did--that both should be included. dsquared, can you tell us how you personally misinterpreted the comparison of mortality rates of troops in Iraq to a particularly at-risk subset of the population of Philadelphia? Or did you avoid the problem? Is it only those who don’t have your incredible intellectual resources who would misinterpret the statement?

ray, I wonder if anyone has told you that there are both men and women serving in Iraq, and that their ages aren’t limited to the age range you find most appropriate as a comparison set. Those facts might suggest the limited utility of that particular comparison, and the need for a comparison with the population at large—or at least one might reasonably think—as PB apparently did—that both should be included.

]]> By: KCinDC http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170252 KCinDC Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:02:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170252 Ragout, wouldn't the relevant comparison for those Philadelphians you mention be with the death rate for <em>African American men ages 20 to 34 in the Army</em> in Iraq, rather than the US military in Iraq as a whole? Why have the demographic restrictions on one part of the comparison but not the other, and why exclude the branch of the service? Several people seem to have trouble distinguishing between editorial judgment and censorship. There is no First Amendment right to have whatever you write published in the Post. Ragout, wouldn’t the relevant comparison for those Philadelphians you mention be with the death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in the Army in Iraq, rather than the US military in Iraq as a whole? Why have the demographic restrictions on one part of the comparison but not the other, and why exclude the branch of the service?

Several people seem to have trouble distinguishing between editorial judgment and censorship. There is no First Amendment right to have whatever you write published in the Post.

]]> By: Ray http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/comment-page-2/#comment-170251 Ray Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:57:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/#comment-170251 It is possible to imagine an article that says "Suppose you're black, 18, and live in Philadelphia. How do you live to 40?" Such an article would say that staying where you are is dangerous. But such an article would say that volunteering for a tour of duty in Iraq doesn't really help (especially in the Army or Marines), and that there are things you can do in Philadelphia that increase your survival rate by much more (or you could just leave town). The points made in other comments above are still relevant. In Iraq, soldiers are travelling in armoured convoys, with full body armour, and excellent medical facilities on stand-by, doing everything they can to stay alive, and yet they are <b>still</b> getting killed. It is possible to imagine an article that says “Suppose you’re black, 18, and live in Philadelphia. How do you live to 40?” Such an article would say that staying where you are is dangerous. But such an article would say that volunteering for a tour of duty in Iraq doesn’t really help (especially in the Army or Marines), and that there are things you can do in Philadelphia that increase your survival rate by much more (or you could just leave town).

The points made in other comments above are still relevant. In Iraq, soldiers are travelling in armoured convoys, with full body armour, and excellent medical facilities on stand-by, doing everything they can to stay alive, and yet they are still getting killed.

]]>