SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Fact? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=150761)

Jimbuna 04-17-09 03:03 PM
Fact?
 
There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.


Conclusion: Maybe its time the U.S. pull out of Washington?

Sailor Steve 04-17-09 03:05 PM
You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga!:arrgh!:

Digital_Trucker 04-17-09 03:15 PM
Personally, I think we should just pick DC up and move it about 200 miles due East of its current location. That would be about the right spot for it.:woot:

Jimbuna 04-17-09 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1085945)
You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga!:arrgh!:
We can't afford London nevermind Washington :DL

fatty 04-17-09 03:29 PM
Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.

Dowly 04-17-09 03:51 PM
I'm too drunk to understand that thing, but I vote yay!

August 04-17-09 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatty (Post 1085955)
Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?
Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.

Aramike 04-17-09 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatty (Post 1085955)
Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.
*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.

fatty 04-17-09 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1085987)
*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.
*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.

Aramike 04-17-09 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatty (Post 1085990)
*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.
Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

fatty 04-17-09 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1085995)
Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.
So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification. :88)

Quote:
Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.
Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.

Digital_Trucker 04-17-09 05:11 PM
2,112 deaths/ 22 months = 96 deaths per month
96 deaths per month / 160,000 average monthly troop level = 60 in 100,000 probability of death in a one month period

Have no idea where the DC number came from, but the Iraq number is correct

Aramike 04-17-09 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatty (Post 1086006)
So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification. :88)



Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.
*Sighs again*

Here's the math:

2112 Deaths in 22 months.
Average Soldier Population is 160,000
2112 / 1.6 = 1320 per 100,000
1320 / 22 = 60 Deaths per 100,000 per month.

Do you get it now? We're right back to that magical word, "monthly".

August 04-17-09 11:09 PM
Or more simply about 1 in 1700.

BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever.

IIRC From the Revolution to WW2 the US kia rate averaged about 1 in 15. In Vietnam it was about 1 in 1500.

baggygreen 04-18-09 02:32 AM
I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*

Aramike 04-18-09 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baggygreen (Post 1086192)
I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*
Very true. That is a sad part of the "game" unfortunately.

I did understand where fatty was coming from too, btw. But he was a tad too insistant upon his being correct after his error was pointed out...

Oh well, all in good fun...

Jimbuna 04-18-09 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1086200)

Oh well, all in good fun...
Precisely :DL

The original idea was to draw attention to the conclusion and hopefully plant the seed "Washington isn't a war zone" :o

I'm wondering if the risks are even higher in some other US cities :hmmm:

AVGWarhawk 04-18-09 06:39 AM
I live outside Washington....it is a war zone:yep: I see the aftermath of the night skirmishes on the news all the time.

Jimbuna 04-18-09 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1086274)
I live outside Washington....it is a war zone:yep: I see the aftermath of the night skirmishes on the news all the time.
Is that just since Obama moved into the neighbourhood? :DL

Fincuan 04-18-09 07:27 AM
Old one, and misleading. You can think of that as VERY creative or just plain wrong use of statistics.

See for example here for an conversation on the subject: http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/594867.html

This one pretty much sums it up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some guy at the linked conversation
While I thought the "joke" about pulling out of D.C. was kind of
funny, I couldn't believe that those figures were right, so I checked
them. They are not even anywhere close based on my calculations.
Whoever published that email really twisted his statistics.

According to the email, there have been 2112 deaths in 22 months.
Average US soldier population in Iraq was 160,000
2112 / 1.6 = 1320 deaths per 100,000
1320 deaths / 22 months = 60 deaths per MONTH per 100,000

DC has had 188 murders so far this year, 11 months. http://www.safestreetsdc.com/
Population of D.C. is around 550,000 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108620.html
188 deaths / 5.5 = 34.2 deaths per 100,000
34.2 deaths / 11 months = 3.1 deaths per MONTH per 100,000

So take your pick:
D.C. = 3 people killed per MONTH for every 100,000
Iraq = 60 soldiers killed per MONTH for every 100,000 (or 2 per DAY
for every 100,000!!!)
Note that the figure that above guy used for Washington DC is all murders, not just those committed with a firearm. Without looking at the statistics I bet suicides are a big majority of firearm related deaths in US and Washington D.C anyway, and even if one included them it would be hard to get the math as wrong as in the original version of this "myth".


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.