IP: re: Death and terrorism, some data and questions

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:54:41 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Einar Stefferud <stef () nma com>
> Subject: Re: IP: Death and terrorism, some data and questions
>
> Hi Dave -- I would like to question the logic of using the same decision 
> logic for  both the campaign against terrorism and Medical Research 
> expenditures.
>
> My sense is that the model being used for funding the anti-terror campaign 
> is called "minimization of regrets".  No one wants to be caught having 
> done nothing when the next terrorist attack occurs.
>
> This is the model that says that huge amounts must be spent to try to save 
> the victims of a coal mine disaster, after the disaster, when it might 
> have  been much better to spend the same amount (or more) before the 
> accident to keep it from happening.
>
> This is because it is unacceptable to not try really hard to save any 
> victim, if you might find out later that they died because the rescue 
> efforts was terminated before finding and rescuing any given victim before 
> they died.
>
> We saw this model in use in the wreckage of the WTC, even after it was 
> obvious after a week went by that no one else could possibly be rescued alive.
>
> No one wanted to be found at fault for not trying hard enough, after the 
> event.  Most people feet it as a personal thing, without considering what 
> others might think or say.
>
> Now, to avoid this, all we need is 20-20 foresight, to match our 20-20 
> hindsight.
>
> Another aspect is that using the minimization of regret decision model for 
> medical research funding could very well absorb every available nickel, 
> and leave nothing for anything else, which would soon enough be seen as 
> yet another disaster.
>
> Before the fact is always a balancing act based on foresight, and 
> minimization of regret takes hold with hindsight.
>
> I challenge anyone to figure out how to fix this supposed error of our ways,
> by perhaps inventing foresight glasses to give us hindsight quality vision 
> for our foresight.
>
> The problem is that the future is both unknown and unknowable from our 
> always current position in the present, locked in place between the past 
> and the future.  If the future was always a repeat of the past, we might 
> have a chance, but new stuff keeps happening, as many of our inventive 
> Internauts have endlessly demonstrated.
>
> In any case, death is still at least as inevitable as taxes;-(...
> And this fact will remain true no matter how much we spend on medical 
> research.  So, the proper metric for relative evaluation might better be 
> "additional years of life" vs "lives".
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> PS:  By the way, what is the comparison between expenditures
>      for medical research vs the anti-terrorist campaign?
>
>
> At 14:21 -0400 16/10/01, David Farber wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:15:40 -0500
> > > From: "Lawrence Adams" <larry () bluemartini com>
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > I was pondering my personal risk of being affected by a terrorist
> > > attack, and decided to look up some death statistics at the CDC.  The
> > > estimated age adjusted death rate in the United States for the year 2000
> > > was 872.4 per 100,000 (a record low).  The total population used for
> > > this calcuation was roughly 274 million.  If we estimate the number of
> > > deaths due to terrorist attacks this year in the United States at 7,500
> > > (well above current government and media estimates), that figures in at
> > > 2.73 deaths per 100,000, or 0.3% of the 2000 figure.  I used overall
> > > death statistics because I felt terrorism is age-indiscriminant.
> > >
> > > A report on NPR's Marketplace [http://www.marketplace.org] radio program
> > > October 15 estimated that the U.S. government could spend $1.3 Trillion
> > > (yes trillion) on homeland defense in the next 5 years.  They have
> > > already allocated billions to the effort, and are spending untold
> > > millions each day dropping bombs in Afghanistan in support of the
> > > anti-terrorism campaign.
> > >
> > > How much does the government plan to spend on preventing the other
> > > leading causes of death (besides homicide) over the same time period?
> > > How many deaths does the government expect as a result of terrorism in
> > > the coming years?  How will this figure be affected as a result of
> > > counter-terrorism efforts?
> > >
> > > What will have a greater effect on the mortality rate in this country,
> > > counter-terrorism, or disease prevention?
> > >
> > > I do not want to diminish the need to protect ourselves from terroristic
> > > threats; it would seem that terrorism (homicide) threatens to move up
> > > the list at an alarming rate if we fail to act.  We should examine our
> > > spending priorities based on hard data on the threats posed to our
> > > health and well being.  I urge those on this list to pose these
> > > questions to your elected representatives, and welcome any data which
> > > might shed light on these questions.
> > >
> > > For reference, the top 15 leading causes of death in the United States
> > > for the year 2000 (estimate, per 100,000)
> > > Source:  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_12.pdf
> > > [warning, 1.7 MB file]
> > >
> > > 1. Disease of the heart: 257.9
> > > 2. Malignant neoplasms: 200.5
> > > 3. Cerebrovascular diseases: 60.3
> > > 4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 44.9
> > > 5. Accidents: 34.0
> > > 6. Diabetes mellitus: 24.9
> > > 7. Influenza and pneumonia: 24.3
> > > 8. Alzhiemer's: 17.8
> > > 9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 13.7
> > > 10. Septicemia: 11.5
> > > 11. Suicide: 10.3
> > > 12. Chronic liver disease: 9.5
> > > 13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease: 6.5
> > > 14. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids: 6.1
> > > 15. Assault (homicide): 5.9 *
> > >
> > > *  Homicide deaths should include the terrorist deaths this year, and
> > > may climb a spot or two on the list for 2001.
> >
> >
> > For archives see: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/


For archives see: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/