[WarHawk]

I think many of us have started to subscribe to this belief that anything the USA does automatically = bad. It's like it has become socially accepted that, as Canadians, we must oppose anything the USA says or does (without putting any REAL thought into it besides watching a couple of movies). Even I was plagued by this irrational line of thought, I admit it. It's time to grow up and face the facts, the USA isn't some kind of monster out to get you, and if you actually believe that you are either a) nuts or b) reading far too many conspiracy theories.

[Scape]

Is Ward out to get me?

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

WarHawk WarHawk:

I think many of us have started to subscribe to this belief that anything the USA does automatically = bad. It's like it has become socially accepted that, as Canadians, we must oppose anything the USA says or does (without putting any REAL thought into it besides watching a couple of movies). Even I was plagued by this irrational line of thought, I admit it. It's time to grow up and face the facts, the USA isn't some kind of monster out to get you, and if you actually believe that you are either a) nuts or b) reading far too many conspiracy theories.

Hmm, I can agree in some ways. What I get sick of is people who go down a huge list of all the terrible things in the US, and then say "see, I told you the US isn't great, it sucks, look at all these problems" as though the United States does nothing good at all. To me, the US is both bad, and good. If you search out the bad, you can find it, if you search out the good, you can find that also, but people who search out the bad would lead you to believe there's nothing good about the US, and that they are inferior to Europe and Canada(thus why they always pick out statistics in which Europe is better or Canada is better, ignoring the fact that we are all different countries with different problems).

[WarHawk]

Scape Scape:

Is Ward out to get me?

Yay for liberal biased media!

[WarHawk]

Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:

WarHawk WarHawk:

I think many of us have started to subscribe to this belief that anything the USA does automatically = bad. It's like it has become socially accepted that, as Canadians, we must oppose anything the USA says or does (without putting any REAL thought into it besides watching a couple of movies). Even I was plagued by this irrational line of thought, I admit it. It's time to grow up and face the facts, the USA isn't some kind of monster out to get you, and if you actually believe that you are either a) nuts or b) reading far too many conspiracy theories.

Hmm, I can agree in some ways. What I get sick of is people who go down a huge list of all the terrible things in the US, and then say "see, I told you the US isn't great, it sucks, look at all these problems" as though the United States does nothing good at all. To me, the US is both bad, and good. If you search out the bad, you can find it, if you search out the good, you can find that also, but people who search out the bad would lead you to believe there's nothing good about the US, and that they are inferior to Europe and Canada(thus why they always pick out statistics in which Europe is better or Canada is better, ignoring the fact that we are all different countries with different problems).

What I find is a lot of people go down that list of terrible things, and a lot of those items are completly unfounded. For instance; the homocide rate. Homocides are actualy gone down over 1/3 in the 90's while in other countries with strict gun laws it is going up.

[Scape]

Yeah I was talking to an American paramedic a few months back and he confirmed that as well. What he said was the reaction time of the teams has increased the survivability of someone that gets shot. If they can get to them in time the provability for a recovery is in the high nineties. It's not that the violent incidents have gone down, they have actually gone up a bit, but that they now are more likely to live.

[WarHawk]

Scape Scape:

Yeah I was talking to an American paramedic a few months back and he confirmed that as well. What he said was the reaction time of the teams has increased the survivability of someone that gets shot. If they can get to them in time the provability for a recovery is in the high nineties. It's not that the violent incidents have gone down, they have actually gone up a bit, but that they now are more likely to live.

Well...I don't know if it could affect it THAT much.

[Scape]

Here is the stats

Violent 1960: 160.9
2000: 506.1
Pop 1960: 179,323,175
2000: 281,421,906
Murder 1960: 5.1
2000: 5.5
Aggravated Assault
1960:86.1
2000:323.6

[WarHawk]

Do those figures factor in population? I know they are per 100,000, but does it factor in the total population? There are a hell of a lot more people living in the states now, so maybe population density has something to do with it.

[WarHawk]

woah, triple post

[WarHawk]

edit

[Scape]

Initial Impact on Trauma-Related Mortality

Lets look at a study in Quebec.

$1:

A total of 158 patients treated in 1987, and 288 treated in 1993, were identified. The mean age of the patients treated in 1993 was significantly higher (40.0, +/- 18.1), when compared with the 1987 group (30.9 +/- 18.1; p < 0.001). Patients in the 1987 cohort had a significantly higher proportion of injuries caused by stabbing (p = 0.02), and a significantly lower proportion caused by falls (p = 0.003). The 1987 cohort had a higher rate of abdominal injuries (p = 0.0001), and external injuries (p = 0.0001), and a significantly lower rate of head or neck injuries (p = 0.003), and injuries to the extremities (p = 0.0001). The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) for the 1987 cohort was 14.96 (+/- 12.36), and 15.49 (+/- 11.61) in 1993 (p = 0.65). The crude mortality rate was 20% for 1987, and 10% for 1993. The crude odds ratio for mortality in 1987 was 2.10 with 95% confidence intervals between 1.22 and 3.62 (p = 0.006). The ISS-based z scores for these two cohorts were 3.62 (p = 0.0002), and 0.68 (p = 0.49) respectively. The Standardized Mortality Rates (95% confidence intervals) were 1.64 (1.10-2.53) for 1987, and 1.11 (0.75-1.59) for 1993, indicating a statistically significant reduction in excess mortality (p < 0.05). Multiple Logistic Regression, adjusting for patient age, ISS, body regions injured, and mechanism of injury, showed a significantly higher mortality risk for the 1987 cohort (relative odds = 3.25, p = 0.009). These data show that the process of trauma center designation has significantly improved the survival of the patients treated in these facilities. This is likely due to increased surgical staffing, nursing support, and availability of the required high level technology at the designated hospitals.

If we are to extrapolate that to the American system (whom we must assume parallel development curve) then therefore the rates of survivability has indeed gone up measurably.

[WarHawk]

I'm just saying that it can't all be contributed to that.

[Scape]

Please validate your assertion.

[WarHawk]

Scape Scape:

Please validate your assertion.

I can't.