The Lancet pulls a fast one 10

[SwinnyGG]

surely a key finding is that cold is significantly more deadly than heat

Uhhhh yeah. That's what every single chart says, that's what every single description says, thats what the entire report says.

And a bunch of people are in here complaining about how the report doesn't clearly say that heat is apparently less dangerous than cold in this part of Europe, when the report says it very clearly about 25 times.

 

[dik]

And it is well written and they did not mislead. I don't understand their reason, but I suspect it was to emphasise the effects and the countries involved to show the differences.


It was neither... and it displayed the intended data quite well.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[wheaney]

Not sure if it's the way it's rendering for me, but the caption for the figure in question simply states: Country-level cold (in blue) and heat (in red) annual raw death rates broken down by age group

If "casual observers" are not part of the intended audience, who is? Only people who are prepared to sit down with a fine-toothed comb and take in every word of the report? Surely the audience for scientific literature includes people who may not be paying their whole, undivided attention to minutiae, people who are reading for the summary/conclusion/figures, people who may not be as scientifically literate as you and I, people who may not have a strong grasp of technical English, and others? While it's bordering on semantics at this point, I think choosing between the following two statements sums it up well:

We chose not to spend 15 seconds adding a clarifying statement to the caption because we expect everyone reading this to pore over the figure and read the body of the report in detail, confusion be damned.

We chose to spend 15 seconds to include a clarifying statement in the caption because it supports accessibility, makes the findings more digestible, and does not present any drawbacks.

 

[hokie66]

Welcome to the site, wheaney. Good luck with your studies. The star above is my thanks for your insightful input to this thread.

 

[wheaney]

Thanks, Hokie! 3 classes left...

 

[SwinnyGG]

If "casual observers" are not part of the intended audience, who is

Uh.. scientific journals are, by definition, produced for the consumption of scientists and academia. The report is chock full of very detailed information on sources and methods, along with a lot of technical discussion of the relevant statistics. To claim that it is or even should be dumbed down for the general public is an asinine take.

The author owes no one any additional explanation when the outcome of the report is very clearly and succinctly stated more than 10 times, which it is. Which you don't know because apparently you are yet another proclaimer of truth who hasn't read the report. If the 500 word description of the chart was moved after the chart into the caption instead of before the chart, I suspect the 'fast one' would be some complaint that the author forced you to look at a graphic you interpret as misleading because you misread it without providing a clear description ahead of time.

This point of view is completely and utterly baffling.

 

[TugboatEng]

That was also the opinion of many governments during COVID. There was a lot of talk about journals restricting access to the general public because they might misinterpreted or misused by the general public.

 

[rb1957]

@SwinnyGG ...
"that's what every single description says" ...

oh no it doesn't ! review your posted description ...
"For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years
there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat
The impact of cold is important everywhere........with a maximum of 240 (151 to 327) raw excess deaths per 100 000 person-years due to cold in Latvia
There is wider heterogeneity in the effect of heat........with a maximum of 37 (25 to 49) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years in Croatia."

nowhere does it say heat causes less deaths than cold (by almost a factor of 10).
sure it says "for both hot and cold", but it does take the time to discuss specifically "the impact of cold".

It could have talked about "extreme weather" (both hot and cold) causing more death among the elderly.

The higher death rate due to cold could be due to a higher number of extreme weather counts/events (or days).
But certainly finances have a direct bearing ... the cost of fuel, the wealth of nations, etc
but I suspect the Lancet is less interested in finances and more interested in the age groups, and why (medically) the elderly are more vulnerable to cold.


"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[LionelHutz]

Neither do you or anyone else crying about said chart.

Did you even read my other post or are you just in full-on attack mode ripping on everyone that posts??

Uh.. scientific journals are, by definition, produced for the consumption of scientists and academia.

Bullshit, and I'm describing how stupid this statement is in a kind way.

 

[dik]

Gentlemen...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[wheaney]

...should be dumbed down for the general public...

Two issues here, Swinny. I think maybe we got some wires crossed when talking about "casual observers" and the "general public". The deleted comment above rings true, in that The Lancet is aiming at as much of society as possible. However, when I mention a casual observer, think more of the examples I listed. There are plenty of academics and scientists who, for one reason or another, may not be able to or want to invest full attention into one article like this one. This is not the same as the general public, and I hope that difference is clear. That said, I don't see how it serves anyone positively to intentionally restrict information like this to a certain group of people. Perhaps my perspective is different than yours, but a core value I was raised on is to be as up-front and honest as possible with people.

Ultimately, I think that it is, at best, disrespectful, and at worst, full-blown elitist to say that only scientists and academia should be able to take information from the report. This doesn't mean it has to be "dumbed down" in any way. Does adding a sentence to a caption constitute "dumbing down" the report in your eyes? To me, "dumbing down" would consist of altering key content and its delivery to make it less technical or detailed. That's not what I or anyone else suggest, and in fact, I think an argument is to be made that the inclusion of such a caption simply constitutes better communication on the authors' part.


For your enlightenment, I did read the report in full the first time I read this thread. I find your use of straw-man arguments ("...some complaint that the author forced you...") and derogatory remarks ("...completely and utterly baffling...") antithetical to good, productive discourse. Difference of opinion and making points about the issue at hand are one thing, but inflammatory remarks like that are quite another. As an educated professional, I would have hoped that you've learned the difference by now, as well as the merit in conducting a respectful, open discussion.

 

[SwinnyGG]

nowhere does it say heat causes less deaths than cold (by almost a factor of 10).

oh no it doesn't ! review your posted description ...
"For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years
there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat
The impact of cold is important everywhere........with a maximum of 240 (151 to 327) raw excess deaths per 100 000 person-years due to cold in Latvia
There is wider heterogeneity in the effect of heat........with a maximum of 37 (25 to 49) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years in Croatia."

Reading comprehension shortcomings are not the author's problem.

 

[SwinnyGG]

That said, I don't see how it serves anyone positively to intentionally restrict information like this to a certain group of people

No one said anything even remotely advocating that the 'general public' not be allowed to access the information in this article or in millions of others.

But free access does not mean there is now a burden on the author to write a paper or article such that it is understandable by any average person off the street.

Difference of opinion and making points about the issue at hand are one thing, but inflammatory remarks like that are quite another

Oh please. Get over it. I have insulted no one directly in this thread. I have aggressively assaulted bad ideas and points of view which are badly crafted or have very obvious bias.

If you can't handle having your ideas attacked, don't enter the debate. It's not personal.

I'm done with this discussion - it's clear everyone is dug in and no one is going to change their opinion. Best of luck.

 

[wheaney]

Reading comprehension shortcomings are not the author's problem.

If you're interested in considering it from another angle, try this:
As engineers, and more generally problem solvers, a large part of our jobs is to consider edge cases and externalities, right? Would it be good or bad engineering to design a freeway tunnel that's only a few inches wider than the vehicles? Would you say that "driving shortcomings are not the engineer's problem" or similar? We usually use factors of safety and a healthy margin for error to account for edge cases and other factors - why shouldn't technical communication be the same?

 

[rb1957]

I think he was meaning my shortcoming ...

@ SwinnyGG ... ok, on the 3rd or 4th reading I got there ...

"For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight)" ...
it took me sometime to read that as saying "82 (72 to 91)" for cold and "seven (six to eight)" for heat ... i read them as "For both cold and heat" ...

mea culpa

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

Here's another graph that means one thing at first sight, and another when you find the true story. Before 2000 the reporting system was not global.

Here's the Beeb accepting bad data at face value

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58396975

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

And the UN's report spreading dik like fear and gloom using the same data

https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2022-our-world-risk-gar#container-downloads

AP reportage

https://apnews.com/article/climate-...al-disasters-fa1d16ad7d59c7629bb1a9a955a494b0

and here's a scary graph.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Here's another graph that means one thing at first sight, and another when you find the true story. Before 2000 the reporting system was not global.

Yup, graphs like this are the reason why so many were so skeptical of the motivations behind that Lancet chart.

Another thing to consider is if a chart reports total deaths related to climate or hurricanes (or whatever) over a century or more without correcting for population growth. On a per capita basis waaaaay fewer people die from these disasters now than a hundred plus years ago. We've got better construction, better warning systems, better medical care, better emergency response, better transportation.

I should point out that most of these improvements that have resulted in lower per capita deaths were possible BECAUSE of our cheap and available fossil fuel based energy.

 

[dik]

Motivation? I only took it as data, albeit presented in a little confusing fashion. Had you read the article, you would not have come up with that statement.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

dik,

Of course he read the report. To suggest otherwise is insulting. But most of us would have read, instead of the report itself, the Monash article which reported on the Lancet report. You linked it first. But the problem with this article is that it doesn't read like a scientific report, but rather like journalism. One of the first principles of news reporting is to write so that the report can be truncated at any point, removing all below the cut. Read this 'report' from the top, just read through the second paragraph, and tell us what message is imparted.

https://www.monash.edu/medicine/new...illion-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures