How people die vs. media coverage of death • Hacker News Board

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#61

Post by CalRobert » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 7:56 AM UTC

Thanks!! It's kind of amazing how skewed our view of reality is. Saying "I don't care about terrorism" gets you dirty looks but is a reasonable approach to life if you live in wealthy country and are are trying to worry about things most likely to affect you.

I care about gun violence and knew it was overreported, but it blew my mind to find out that there are about twice as many deaths per year from just asbestos are there are gun homicides. I wonder how many other misconceptions there are? (Total gun deaths is much higher due to suicide and accidents)

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#62

Post by ObeyTheGuts » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 8:27 AM UTC

this nonsense, as you need check YOUNG PEOPLE deaths, ye old die from disease, but that is general accepted path, what perfect news would blast is causes that kill people in their prime

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#63

Post by 4mitkumar » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 8:29 AM UTC

baking wrote: post #56

fastball wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that dying of heart disease and cancer are over-diagnosed? Why does that matter in the context of this analysis? It's a comparison between CDC data and news coverage -- any "over-diagnosis" (or under-diagnosis) should be reflected in all datasets equally, so it doesn't really effect the overall review.

Everyone dies. The only significance of death is if it occurs sooner than otherwise expected. For the vast majority of people that die in old age what to list on the death certificate can be a conundrum, but it is safe to say no one will ever be sued for malpractice if heart disease is listed as the cause of death. 80% of all deaths due to heart disease occur in the 65 and older population. https://www.cdc.gov/injury…

This is actually a very good point. I was thinking myself something along similar lines that intuitively speaking, death by unnatural causes like terrorism/homicide/suicide are of course more "newsworthy" than the ones due to "heart-disease".

Although the study is trying to do a larger scale comparison between the perceived and actul leading causes of deaths, it would serve it much better if it were to segment the results by age group.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#64

Post by emj » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 9:15 AM UTC

It's actually worse, because you have to factor in media attention, advertisement, bias etc to things that makes the problem worse; e.g. most of those hearts and respitory deaths can be attributed to pollution and lack of exercise, that means the car and all that it brings.

You are inundated with positive coverage of cars all over, they are vehemently supported in most pieces and comments. Pair that with;

    Heart Disease              10.388 Under
    Car Accidents               2.285 Under
    Lower Respiratory Disease   3.520 Under

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#65

Post by hansthehorse » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #61

Thanks!! It's kind of amazing how skewed our view of reality is. Saying "I don't care about terrorism" gets you dirty looks but is a reasonable approach to life if you live in wealthy country and are are trying to worry about things most likely to affect you. I care about gun violence and knew it was overreported, but it blew my mind to find out that there are about twice as many deaths per year from just asbestos ar…

When presented with gun violence statistics ask them to take out gang related and suicide then you can more accurately use the information.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#66

Post by alan-crowe » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 10:15 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #36

baking wrote: post #31

100% of people die from being born. If this data is not segregated by age, it is pretty much meaningless. People don't die of "natural causes" or "old age" any more because the doctors are required to list something previously diagnosed on the death certificate (or else the doctor is looking at a lawsuit.) And the family member who happens to be there at the time of death is in no mood to put up an argument. No one w…

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that dying of heart disease and cancer are over-diagnosed? Why does that matter in the context of this analysis? It's a comparison between CDC data and news coverage -- any "over-diagnosis" (or under-diagnosis) should be reflected in all datasets equally, so it doesn't really effect the overall review.

LifeSpan = HealthSpan + GrimSpan

A reasonable expectation for news coverage would be that coverage is proportional to deaths weighted by years of HealthSpan lost.

That cannot be exactly right. But coverage of loss of GrimSpan is a separate issue. If hip replacements and cataract operations are reducing the GrimSpan by increasing the HealthSpan that is a happier story than better infection control at Alzheimer's units increasing the GrimSpan. It is hard to state an expectation about news coverage of loss of GrimSpan

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#67

Post by lalp1 » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 10:19 AM UTC

Another good example that "data" is not always meaningful. The graphs help the idea "media are talking too much about terrorism".

All deaths are not equal. Most of old people die naturally from an heart failure or cancer, that the natural process of death. Homicides and accidents are not natural but common. Terrorism is an exception, that's why it so much covered.

100 old people dying from cancer do not worth 1 minute of press coverage, a family killed by a truck in a christmas market a bit more.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#68

Post by gnode » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 12:57 PM UTC

baking wrote: post #31

100% of people die from being born. If this data is not segregated by age, it is pretty much meaningless. People don't die of "natural causes" or "old age" any more because the doctors are required to list something previously diagnosed on the death certificate (or else the doctor is looking at a lawsuit.) And the family member who happens to be there at the time of death is in no mood to put up an argument. No one w…

This would be useful information to have, but I don't agree that this makes the data meaningless. No matter when you are killed, and what by, your life has been cut short. Just because certain diseases (e.g. heart disease) mostly kill older people doesn't mean they aren't most important and worth tackling. If in the future due to medical advancement most people are living to 100+, we will regard dying at 80 an early death and a travesty.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#69

Post by gnode » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 1:32 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #27

lifeformed wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.

i am one of those people who think that we should allocate resources against causes of death in close proportion to the number of lives claimed. my guess is that many other engineering types also take this position. recently however, i have come to worry that this position lacks empathy. especially in light of recent mass shootings in the US, i am forced to consider that some types of deaths have far worse second ord…

The issue is more that due to highly asymmetric reporting, people wrongly estimate what the risks to themselves and loved ones are. This means that we don't act rationally in our own interests, to best avoid harm. I think most parents would care more about road safety, carbon monoxide poisoning, mental health, etc. than about terrorism or school shootings, if they were aware of the statistics.

Re: How people die vs. media coverage of death

#70

Post by CalRobert » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

hansthehorse wrote: post #65

CalRobert wrote: post #61

Thanks!! It's kind of amazing how skewed our view of reality is. Saying "I don't care about terrorism" gets you dirty looks but is a reasonable approach to life if you live in wealthy country and are are trying to worry about things most likely to affect you. I care about gun violence and knew it was overreported, but it blew my mind to find out that there are about twice as many deaths per year from just asbestos ar…

When presented with gun violence statistics ask them to take out gang related and suicide then you can more accurately use the information.

Well, those statistics aren't wrong, they just tell a different story.

Gun suicides matter, but we might address those very differently from homicides.

Gang-related violence... I'm not sure why I'd exclude that? They're human beings. The term also is very unevenly applied and laws meant to target "gang-related violence" have a tendency to burden minorities more heavily. (See also: "terrorism")

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/magazine/how-do-you-defin...