▲ 90 ▼ Pentagon Data Shows High Suicide Rates Among Troops Exposed to Blasts (www.nytimes.com) submitted 2 years ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world 15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 13 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The paragraph before the one you quoted says it: Explosives ordinance disposal team members, who disable roadside bombs and routinely train and work around very large blasts, had the highest suicide rate — 34.77 deaths per 100,000 people per year — followed by infantry and special operations forces; armor crews; and artillery troops; whose rates are closer to 30 deaths per 100,000. That's a 15% bump in suicide for the most blast exposed troops when compared to less blast exposed combat troops. Obviously combat exposure vs not is going to have a large effect, but blast exposure seems to have a further effect on top the horrors of combat. Also: In the Air Force, where blast exposure is rare, there were no significant differences in suicide rates among different military occupations. But among Army and Marine Corps troops, the rates are elevated wherever blasts are part of daily work The report presented the data, but made no attempt to grapple with the implications: The report released on Wednesday does not mention blast exposure as a factor, and offers no insights into what may be contributing to the different suicide rates. Still, the correlation between deaths by suicide and levels of blast exposure is a common theme in the figures permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's the same reason that an increase from a 0.0001% chance of something happening to a 0.0002% chance is a 100% increased chance of the thing happening. More relevantly, 0.0003477% is ~ 15% bigger a number than 0.0003000%. The overall numbers are still low, but the increase is significant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago Yep, NP! permalink fedilink source parent [–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aurix@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago The New York Times, that's why. It's a paper which drastically lost credibility. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 13 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The paragraph before the one you quoted says it: Explosives ordinance disposal team members, who disable roadside bombs and routinely train and work around very large blasts, had the highest suicide rate — 34.77 deaths per 100,000 people per year — followed by infantry and special operations forces; armor crews; and artillery troops; whose rates are closer to 30 deaths per 100,000. That's a 15% bump in suicide for the most blast exposed troops when compared to less blast exposed combat troops. Obviously combat exposure vs not is going to have a large effect, but blast exposure seems to have a further effect on top the horrors of combat. Also: In the Air Force, where blast exposure is rare, there were no significant differences in suicide rates among different military occupations. But among Army and Marine Corps troops, the rates are elevated wherever blasts are part of daily work The report presented the data, but made no attempt to grapple with the implications: The report released on Wednesday does not mention blast exposure as a factor, and offers no insights into what may be contributing to the different suicide rates. Still, the correlation between deaths by suicide and levels of blast exposure is a common theme in the figures permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's the same reason that an increase from a 0.0001% chance of something happening to a 0.0002% chance is a 100% increased chance of the thing happening. More relevantly, 0.0003477% is ~ 15% bigger a number than 0.0003000%. The overall numbers are still low, but the increase is significant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago Yep, NP! permalink fedilink source parent [–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's the same reason that an increase from a 0.0001% chance of something happening to a 0.0002% chance is a 100% increased chance of the thing happening. More relevantly, 0.0003477% is ~ 15% bigger a number than 0.0003000%. The overall numbers are still low, but the increase is significant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago Yep, NP! permalink fedilink source parent [–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's the same reason that an increase from a 0.0001% chance of something happening to a 0.0002% chance is a 100% increased chance of the thing happening. More relevantly, 0.0003477% is ~ 15% bigger a number than 0.0003000%. The overall numbers are still low, but the increase is significant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago Yep, NP! permalink fedilink source parent [–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago Yep, NP! permalink fedilink source parent [–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I remember reading over some logic - statistics "puzzles", where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aurix@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago The New York Times, that's why. It's a paper which drastically lost credibility. permalink fedilink source parent