|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is on the list! That means it can kill you! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html I think I've done this rant before. I just don't recall if it was in this newsgroup. Forgive me for repeating myself. Such statistics are very inaccurate and misleading. For example, the official cause of death often has nothing to do with the actual cause. For example, in situations where a proper autopsy is impractical, impossible, or just plain too expensive, the cause of death can be a bad guess or a politically correct replacement. One of my friends paid his way through college by working in the Chicago morgue. At the time (late 1930's) there were quite a few drunks that died from alcohol related maladies. Rather than perform an expensive autopsy, they were listed as their heart having stopped as the standard cause of death. Many years later, public health investigators were still trying to analyze the sudden epidemic of cardiovascular fatalities in the area. The same can happen with bicycle fatalities. If a vehicle was involved, it could be listed as a vehicular related accident with no mention of the bicycle. Even worse, it could be from "complications arising from severe trauma" which lists neither the vehicle or the bicycle. When there are multiple causes, it's often difficult to handle in the statistics. For example, a near terminal AIDS victim was dragged into the ER by her minister in the hope that they could do something for her. To get her admitted, they told the triage nurse that she had the flu. After about an hour of arguing, someone noticed that she had died. I later checked and the cause of death was listed as influenza since there had been no attempt to diagnose or treat the AIDS condition. There are also multiple reports that attempt to list a cause of death. Most offer room for only a single cause. So, which are you going to believe? The report by the police officer at the scene of the accident? The EMT? The transporting ambulance attendant? The ER attending physician? The coroners autopsy? Or what the family wants to see on the death certificate to avoid complications with collecting on an accidental death insurance policy? I've seen a few of these reports that offered quite different causes of death. It's still difficult to get accurate statistics, but I must say that data collection has been radically improved since the introduction of computers into medicine. It's fairly easy to recognize the better numbers. The report or sensationalist article will include the sources of the data which can be traced back to the original source. In this case, the Yahoo article's data came from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath which offered as its sources "National Safety Council; National Academies, The Economist". Swell. I couldn't find anything specific on the NSC web pile, which doesn't seem to deal with such statistics: http://www.nsc.org I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as a source: http://www.nationalacademies.org Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant, and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 IIRC it was Samuel Clemmens who said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". Far too often statistics can and are manipulated to say whatever one wants them to. Cheers. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:27:57 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as a source: http://www.nationalacademies.org Foundit: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21656/measuring-the-risks-and-causes-of-premature-death-summary-of Click on "contents" tab. Oddly, an entire chapter is dedicated to the sources and methodology, without actually mentioning exactly what sources and methodology was used. After a quick skim, it looks like data from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System, National Death Index, National Longitudinal Mortality Study, Indian Health Service, Census Bureau, and whatever else I missed. Offhand, I would call this a survey report, which summarizes data and conclusions collected elsewhere. Digging deeper would require more time than I want to burn. Incidentally, this quote is kinda interesting: Wang noted that within the United States, inconsistent coding across states or counties can be a particular problem. He shared data indicating that correcting the cause-of-death assignment is necessary in 15 to 32 percent of cases depending upon the state. I guess there are still problems with assigning an accurate cause of death. I think it's much higher than 15 to 32 percent. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
On 2/13/2016 1:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is on the list! That means it can kill you! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html I think I've done this rant before. I just don't recall if it was in this newsgroup. Forgive me for repeating myself. Such statistics are very inaccurate and misleading. For example, the official cause of death often has nothing to do with the actual cause. For example, in situations where a proper autopsy is impractical, impossible, or just plain too expensive, the cause of death can be a bad guess or a politically correct replacement. One of my friends paid his way through college by working in the Chicago morgue. At the time (late 1930's) there were quite a few drunks that died from alcohol related maladies. Rather than perform an expensive autopsy, they were listed as their heart having stopped as the standard cause of death. Many years later, public health investigators were still trying to analyze the sudden epidemic of cardiovascular fatalities in the area. The same can happen with bicycle fatalities. If a vehicle was involved, it could be listed as a vehicular related accident with no mention of the bicycle. Even worse, it could be from "complications arising from severe trauma" which lists neither the vehicle or the bicycle. When there are multiple causes, it's often difficult to handle in the statistics. For example, a near terminal AIDS victim was dragged into the ER by her minister in the hope that they could do something for her. To get her admitted, they told the triage nurse that she had the flu. After about an hour of arguing, someone noticed that she had died. I later checked and the cause of death was listed as influenza since there had been no attempt to diagnose or treat the AIDS condition. There are also multiple reports that attempt to list a cause of death. Most offer room for only a single cause. So, which are you going to believe? The report by the police officer at the scene of the accident? The EMT? The transporting ambulance attendant? The ER attending physician? The coroners autopsy? Or what the family wants to see on the death certificate to avoid complications with collecting on an accidental death insurance policy? I've seen a few of these reports that offered quite different causes of death. It's still difficult to get accurate statistics, but I must say that data collection has been radically improved since the introduction of computers into medicine. It's fairly easy to recognize the better numbers. The report or sensationalist article will include the sources of the data which can be traced back to the original source. In this case, the Yahoo article's data came from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath which offered as its sources "National Safety Council; National Academies, The Economist". Swell. I couldn't find anything specific on the NSC web pile, which doesn't seem to deal with such statistics: http://www.nsc.org I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as a source: http://www.nationalacademies.org Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant, and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks. Your nicely done rant reminded me that when I had life insurance( long ago) I used to quip that if found dead, toss me into a taxi and then light it; triple indemnity for death in a common carrier. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 14:08:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
Your nicely done rant reminded me that when I had life insurance( long ago) I used to quip that if found dead, toss me into a taxi and then light it; triple indemnity for death in a common carrier. I don't have life insurance at this time, but can see the point. A more common problem is "accidental death" insurance, which only pays if you died in an accident. The problem is that if you die later in the hospital, instead of on the roadway, you will have officially died from "complications resulting from [fill in the blank]" which is specifically not covered. You have to die from the accident, be documented as having died from some cause with the word "accident" included, at the scene of the accident, and not later or elsewhere. Some states have fixed this problem with legislation. Check with your insurance agent. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:28:02 PM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is on the list! That means it can kill you! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html [big snip] Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant, and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks. On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:45:10 PM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote: IIRC it was Samuel Clemmens who said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". Far too often statistics can and are manipulated to say whatever one wants them to. Incompetence isn't necessarily malicious. Often it is just ignorant. Andre Jute |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
AE6KS
during seeking stats for: ride there not here the not assembling data suggested political underpinnings as ride there not here translates to buy there not here. the Corner's office |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
On 2/13/2016 2:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is on the list! That means it can kill you! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html I think I've done this rant before. I just don't recall if it was in this newsgroup. Forgive me for repeating myself. Such statistics are very inaccurate and misleading. For example, the official cause of death often has nothing to do with the actual cause. For example, in situations where a proper autopsy is impractical, impossible, or just plain too expensive, the cause of death can be a bad guess or a politically correct replacement. One of my friends paid his way through college by working in the Chicago morgue. At the time (late 1930's) there were quite a few drunks that died from alcohol related maladies. Rather than perform an expensive autopsy, they were listed as their heart having stopped as the standard cause of death. Many years later, public health investigators were still trying to analyze the sudden epidemic of cardiovascular fatalities in the area. The same can happen with bicycle fatalities. If a vehicle was involved, it could be listed as a vehicular related accident with no mention of the bicycle. Even worse, it could be from "complications arising from severe trauma" which lists neither the vehicle or the bicycle. When there are multiple causes, it's often difficult to handle in the statistics. For example, a near terminal AIDS victim was dragged into the ER by her minister in the hope that they could do something for her. To get her admitted, they told the triage nurse that she had the flu. After about an hour of arguing, someone noticed that she had died. I later checked and the cause of death was listed as influenza since there had been no attempt to diagnose or treat the AIDS condition. There are also multiple reports that attempt to list a cause of death. Most offer room for only a single cause. So, which are you going to believe? The report by the police officer at the scene of the accident? The EMT? The transporting ambulance attendant? The ER attending physician? The coroners autopsy? Or what the family wants to see on the death certificate to avoid complications with collecting on an accidental death insurance policy? I've seen a few of these reports that offered quite different causes of death. It's still difficult to get accurate statistics, but I must say that data collection has been radically improved since the introduction of computers into medicine. It's fairly easy to recognize the better numbers. The report or sensationalist article will include the sources of the data which can be traced back to the original source. In this case, the Yahoo article's data came from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath which offered as its sources "National Safety Council; National Academies, The Economist". Swell. I couldn't find anything specific on the NSC web pile, which doesn't seem to deal with such statistics: http://www.nsc.org I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as a source: http://www.nationalacademies.org Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant, and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks. Rant noted. However, for a person interested in gauging, however roughly, the risk of bicycling vs. other activities or conditions, I think the aspects I questioned are much more pertinent. Dividing annual deaths by the total population (instead of the population of participants, the hours of activity, etc.) is not very useful... Except, perhaps, in deciding how to allocate public money. If the fatality count due to cycling is so low as to generate the article's quoted low risk of cycling, it might be used to justify spending little public money to lower it further. IOW, there are bigger public health fish to fry. Incidentally, I doubt officials have great difficulty deciding whether a particular fatality was due to bicycling or not, as in the realm of what you're discussing. For one thing, I do some work with a person who diligently tracks down all the data there is on every bike fatality in our state. It's very unusual for him to disagree about whether the death was, in fact, generated by riding a bicycle. (Some news reports have sometimes called a traffic fatality a "bicyclist death" when the person was actually a pedestrian pushing a bike; but that's rare, and the NHTSA seems able to sort those out just fine.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of dying chart
Cyclist's legal positions well below just equality to vehicular traffic is the area of social dwelling....legally untouchable.
No statistics finagling required You believed otherwise ? As what ? Fanatic, zealot ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is rbt dying? | thirty-six | Techniques | 40 | July 16th 10 04:21 AM |
what are the chances | dwjones1953 | Racing | 11 | July 27th 09 05:29 AM |
Wat are the chances | brendon557 | Unicycling | 1 | June 2nd 08 11:51 AM |
i think my uni is dying | robdizzle | Unicycling | 22 | August 24th 07 09:43 PM |
What are the chances of that? | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 14 | July 29th 04 09:16 PM |