U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever (Never mind that, cost is still enormous)

The Washington Post ^ | 12/9/04 | Ceci Connelly

[Oblongata]

Ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds, the lowest casualty fatality rate ever, thanks in large part to technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines, an analysis to be published today has found.

But the remarkable lifesaving rate has come at the enormous cost of creating a generation of severely wounded young veterans and a severe shortage of military surgeons, wrote Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

[Oblongata]

So the first paragraph talks about the low fatality rates, and the rest of the article goes on to mitigate this information from the WaPo's perspective, ie. show how terrible this is.

[CDHart]

My former boss, who is an RN, refused to wear seat belts. She said that, yes, they save lives but many times the saved lives are lived as vegetables.

Carolyn

[Alberta's Child]

The basic premise of this article is actually correct. Any statistical comparison involving fatality rates in almost any area of life is pretty pointless, mainly because reductions in fatality rates are a function of factors that have nothing to do with the statistical measure.

Statements like this, for example . . . "New York had fewer murders last year than in any year since the 1940s," or "Fatality rates on our nation's highways were reduced by 5% in 2002," . . . don't really tell us anything. The fact that New York saw a steep decline in the number of murders doesn't mean the city is any safer; it simply means there are more highly-trained medical personnel, better trauma units at local hospitals, more advanced medical procedures, etc. than ever before. The same goes for highways; putting an ambulance on-call every ten miles along our highways would dramatically reduce the fatality rates on these roads, but it wouldn't make them any safer.

[TChris]

...yes, they save lives but many times the saved lives are lived as vegetables.

That's just an asinine attitude. It's like saying, "I won't bother to look before walking across the street. Some people who are hit by cars end up vegetables, so I just won't do it."

Utterly stupid attitude, IMO.

[Oblongata]

"The fact that New York saw a steep decline in the number of murders doesn't mean the city is any safer; it simply means there are more highly-trained medical personnel, better trauma units at local hospitals, more advanced medical procedures, etc. than ever before. The same goes for highways; putting an ambulance on-call every ten miles along our highways would dramatically reduce the fatality rates on these roads, but it wouldn't make them any safer."

What you are saying here is exactly correct. You are just interpreting the data wrong. Lower fatality rates don't mean a reduction in accidents, they mean if you are in an accident you are less likely to die. A reduced fatality rate IS a good thing.

In the Iraq war, there isn't neccessarily a reduction in the number of troops wounded, but there IS a reduction in the percentage of troops who die from their wounds. That is a very good thing.

[CDHart]

"Utterly stupid attitude, IMO."

I agree -- but then she wasn't always the brightest bulb in the box, either.

Carolyn

[Sprite518]

No your not providing enough data to come to that conclusion. As usual the Libs at the post always see the glass half empty.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Ceci Connelly is the one liberal on Brit Hume's panel that I can't stand. Mort's fair, Mara is more likeable, and Juan is just plain dumb, but she's arrogant and smug in the Bob Beckel sort of way.