Difference between revisions of "Sandbox"

From ChanceWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(In progress)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed==
 
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html The NewScientist]<br> 
October 06 2009
<br>Ewen Callaway
 
  
This  article reports on a study to be published by the [http://www.ajph.org/ American Journal of Public Health]. The current version of the abstract of this article can be found [http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/11/2034 here] and the current version of the article itself can be found [http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2008.143099v1 here] In the abstract we read:<br><br>
 
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.<br><br>
 
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.<br><br>
 
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).<br><br>
 
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.<br><br>
 
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.<br><br>
 
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.<br><br>
 
  
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).<Br?
+
==Forsooth==
  
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
+
==Quotations==
 +
“We know that people tend to overestimate the frequency of well-publicized, spectacular
 +
events compared with more commonplace ones; this is a well-understood phenomenon in
 +
the literature of risk assessment and leads to the truism that when statistics plays folklore,
 +
folklore always wins in a rout.
 +
<div align=right>-- Donald Kennedy (former president of Stanford University), ''Academic Duty'', Harvard University Press, 1997, p.17</div>
  
Key Words: Epidemiology, Health Policy, Injury/Emergency Care/Violence, Prevention, Social Science, Urban Health
+
----
  
==Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed==
+
"Using scientific language and measurement doesn’t prevent a researcher from conducting flawed experiments and drawing wrong conclusions — especially when they confirm preconceptions."
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html The NewScientist]<Br>
 

October 06 2009
<br>
 
Ewen Callaway
 
  
In this article we read
+
<div align=right>-- Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Margaret Mitchell and Alexander Todoorov, quoted in: The racist history behind facial recognition, ''New York Times'', 10 July 2019</div>
<blockquote>People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analyzed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighborhood.</blockquote>
 
Their article will appear in the American Journal of Public Health. The current version of this article can be found [http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2008.143099v1.pdf here] and the most resent abstract can be found [http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1 here] in this abstract we read:<br><br>
 
<blockquote>Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.<br><br>
 
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.<br><br>
 
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).<br><br>
 
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.</blockquote>
 
  
Discussion
+
==In progress==
 +
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/magazine/placebo-effect-medicine.html What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?]<br>
 +
by Gary Greenberg, ''New York Times Magazine'', 7 November 2018
  
Why do you think  the New Science and other's discussing this study entieled there artince "Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed" rather than the title of of the article  "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault"?
+
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/opinion/pretrial-ai.html The Problems With Risk Assessment Tools]<br>
 +
by Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar and Colin Doyle, ''New York Times'', 17 July 2019
  
Of course this is the kind of article that lends iself to interesting comments. What do you think about these comments:
+
==Hurricane Maria deaths==
 +
Laura Kapitula sent the following to the Isolated Statisticians e-mail list:
  
I am definitely going to have to find the complete article. I want to see how they determined which victims of being shot were included in the study and how they determined which civilians would be included in the study. With out that information, this study doesn't really mean anything.
+
:[Why counting casualties after a hurricane is so hard]<br>
 +
:by Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2018
  
Sounds to me like a completely ignorant study and weighted to get the result they want. If you check a place like Philidelphia, of course this is the result you would get, because the people carrying guns are more likely to be involved in crimes or living in crime ridden areas.  
+
The article is subtitled: Indirect deaths—such as those caused by gaps in medication—can occur months after a storm, complicating tallies
 +
 +
Laura noted that
 +
:[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/02/did-4645-people-die-in-hurricane-maria-nope/?utm_term=.0a5e6e48bf11 Did 4,645 people die in Hurricane Maria? Nope.]<br>
 +
:by Glenn Kessler, ''Washington Post'', 1 June 2018
  
Check Dallas, or Oklahoma City. You wouldn't get that result at all. And that's because dang near everybody has guns, and we have far fewer shootings.
+
The source of the 4645 figure is a [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972 NEJM article].  Point estimate, the 95% confidence interval ran from 793 to 8498.
 +
 
 +
President Trump has asserted that the actual number is
 +
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1040217897703026689 6 to 18].
 +
The ''Post'' article notes that Puerto Rican official had asked researchers at George Washington University to do an estimate of the death toll.  That work is not complete.
 +
[https://prstudy.publichealth.gwu.edu/ George Washington University study]
 +
 
 +
:[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-dont-know-how-many-people-died-because-of-katrina/?ex_cid=538twitter We sttill don’t know how many people died because of Katrina]<br>
 +
:by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 26 August 2015
 +
 
 +
----
 +
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/climate/hurricane-evacuation-path-forecasts.html These 3 Hurricane Misconceptions Can Be Dangerous. Scientists Want to Clear Them Up.]<br>
 +
[https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-88-5-651 Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season]<br>
 +
[https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutcone.shtml Definition of the NHC Track Forecast Cone]
 +
----
 +
[https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-risks Remember when a glass of wine a day was good for you? Here's why that changed.]
 +
''Popular Science'', 10 September 2018
 +
----
 +
[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/30/googling-the-news Googling the news]<br>
 +
''Economist'', 1 September 2018
 +
 
 +
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/google-tests-changes-to-its-search-algorithm-how-search-works.html We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned]
 +
----
 +
[http://www.wyso.org/post/stats-stories-reading-writing-and-risk-literacy Reading , Writing and Risk Literacy]
 +
 
 +
[http://www.riskliteracy.org/]
 +
-----
 +
[https://twitter.com/i/moments/1025000711539572737?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email Today is the deadliest day of the year for car wrecks in the U.S.]
 +
 
 +
==Some math doodles==
 +
<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>
 +
 
 +
<math>P(E)  = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{ n-k}</math>
 +
 
 +
<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>
 +
 
 +
<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>
 +
 
 +
==Accidental insights==
 +
 
 +
My collective understanding of Power Laws would fit beneath the shallow end of the long tail. Curiosity, however, easily fills the fat end.  I long have been intrigued by the concept and the surprisingly common appearance of power laws in varied natural, social and organizational dynamics.  But, am I just seeing a statistical novelty or is there meaning and utility in Power Law relationships? Here’s a case in point.
 +
 
 +
While carrying a pair of 10 lb. hand weights one, by chance, slipped from my grasp and fell onto a piece of ceramic tile I had left on the carpeted floor. The fractured tile was inconsequential, meant for the trash.
 +
<center>[[File:BrokenTile.jpg | 400px]]</center>
 +
As I stared, slightly annoyed, at the mess, a favorite maxim of the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, came to mind: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, turn to yourself and ask what power you have to put it to use.”  Could this array of large and small polygons form a Power Law? With curiosity piqued, I collected all the fragments and measured the area of each piece.
 +
 
 +
<center>
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! Piece !! Sq. Inches !! % of Total
 +
|-
 +
| 1 || 43.25 || 31.9%
 +
|-
 +
| 2 || 35.25 ||26.0%
 +
|-
 +
|  3 || 23.25 || 17.2%
 +
|-
 +
| 4 || 14.10 || 10.4%
 +
|-
 +
| 5 || 7.10 || 5.2%
 +
|-
 +
| 6 || 4.70 || 3.5%
 +
|-
 +
| 7 || 3.60 || 2.7%
 +
|-
 +
| 8 || 3.03 || 2.2%
 +
|-
 +
| 9 || 0.66 || 0.5%
 +
|-
 +
| 10 || 0.61 || 0.5%
 +
|}
 +
</center>
 +
<center>[[File:Montante_plot1.png | 500px]]</center>
 +
The data and plot look like a Power Law distribution. The first plot is an exponential fit of percent total area. The second plot is same data on a log normal format. Clue: Ok, data fits a straight line.  I found myself again in the shallow end of the knowledge curve. Does the data reflect a Power Law or something else, and if it does what does it reflect?  What insights can I gain from this accident? Favorite maxims of Epictetus and Pasteur echoed in my head:
 +
“On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have to turn it to use” and “Chance favors only the prepared mind.”
 +
 
 +
<center>[[File:Montante_plot2.png | 500px]]</center>
 +
 +
My “prepared” mind searched for answers, leading me down varied learning paths. Tapping the power of networks, I dropped a note to Chance News editor Bill Peterson. His quick web search surfaced a story from ''Nature News'' on research by Hans Herrmann, et. al. [http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040227/full/news040223-11.html Shattered eggs reveal secrets of explosions].  As described there, researchers have found power-law relationships for the fragments produced by shattering a pane of glass or breaking a solid object, such as a stone. Seems there is a science underpinning how things break and explode; potentially useful in Forensic reconstructions.
 +
Bill also provided a link to [http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/poweRlaw/vignettes/poweRlaw.pdf a vignette from CRAN] describing a maximum likelihood procedure for fitting a Power Law relationship. I am now learning my way through that.
 +
 
 +
Submitted by William Montante
 +
 
 +
----

Latest revision as of 15:58, 17 July 2019


Forsooth

Quotations

“We know that people tend to overestimate the frequency of well-publicized, spectacular events compared with more commonplace ones; this is a well-understood phenomenon in the literature of risk assessment and leads to the truism that when statistics plays folklore, folklore always wins in a rout.”

-- Donald Kennedy (former president of Stanford University), Academic Duty, Harvard University Press, 1997, p.17

"Using scientific language and measurement doesn’t prevent a researcher from conducting flawed experiments and drawing wrong conclusions — especially when they confirm preconceptions."

-- Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Margaret Mitchell and Alexander Todoorov, quoted in: The racist history behind facial recognition, New York Times, 10 July 2019

In progress

What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?
by Gary Greenberg, New York Times Magazine, 7 November 2018

The Problems With Risk Assessment Tools
by Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar and Colin Doyle, New York Times, 17 July 2019

Hurricane Maria deaths

Laura Kapitula sent the following to the Isolated Statisticians e-mail list:

[Why counting casualties after a hurricane is so hard]
by Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2018

The article is subtitled: Indirect deaths—such as those caused by gaps in medication—can occur months after a storm, complicating tallies

Laura noted that

Did 4,645 people die in Hurricane Maria? Nope.
by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 1 June 2018

The source of the 4645 figure is a NEJM article. Point estimate, the 95% confidence interval ran from 793 to 8498.

President Trump has asserted that the actual number is 6 to 18. The Post article notes that Puerto Rican official had asked researchers at George Washington University to do an estimate of the death toll. That work is not complete. George Washington University study

We sttill don’t know how many people died because of Katrina
by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 26 August 2015

These 3 Hurricane Misconceptions Can Be Dangerous. Scientists Want to Clear Them Up.
Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season
Definition of the NHC Track Forecast Cone


Remember when a glass of wine a day was good for you? Here's why that changed. Popular Science, 10 September 2018


Googling the news
Economist, 1 September 2018

We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned


Reading , Writing and Risk Literacy

[1]


Today is the deadliest day of the year for car wrecks in the U.S.

Some math doodles

<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>

<math>P(E) = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{ n-k}</math>

<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>

<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>

Accidental insights

My collective understanding of Power Laws would fit beneath the shallow end of the long tail. Curiosity, however, easily fills the fat end. I long have been intrigued by the concept and the surprisingly common appearance of power laws in varied natural, social and organizational dynamics. But, am I just seeing a statistical novelty or is there meaning and utility in Power Law relationships? Here’s a case in point.

While carrying a pair of 10 lb. hand weights one, by chance, slipped from my grasp and fell onto a piece of ceramic tile I had left on the carpeted floor. The fractured tile was inconsequential, meant for the trash.

BrokenTile.jpg

As I stared, slightly annoyed, at the mess, a favorite maxim of the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, came to mind: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, turn to yourself and ask what power you have to put it to use.” Could this array of large and small polygons form a Power Law? With curiosity piqued, I collected all the fragments and measured the area of each piece.

Piece Sq. Inches % of Total
1 43.25 31.9%
2 35.25 26.0%
3 23.25 17.2%
4 14.10 10.4%
5 7.10 5.2%
6 4.70 3.5%
7 3.60 2.7%
8 3.03 2.2%
9 0.66 0.5%
10 0.61 0.5%
Montante plot1.png

The data and plot look like a Power Law distribution. The first plot is an exponential fit of percent total area. The second plot is same data on a log normal format. Clue: Ok, data fits a straight line. I found myself again in the shallow end of the knowledge curve. Does the data reflect a Power Law or something else, and if it does what does it reflect? What insights can I gain from this accident? Favorite maxims of Epictetus and Pasteur echoed in my head: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have to turn it to use” and “Chance favors only the prepared mind.”

Montante plot2.png

My “prepared” mind searched for answers, leading me down varied learning paths. Tapping the power of networks, I dropped a note to Chance News editor Bill Peterson. His quick web search surfaced a story from Nature News on research by Hans Herrmann, et. al. Shattered eggs reveal secrets of explosions. As described there, researchers have found power-law relationships for the fragments produced by shattering a pane of glass or breaking a solid object, such as a stone. Seems there is a science underpinning how things break and explode; potentially useful in Forensic reconstructions. Bill also provided a link to a vignette from CRAN describing a maximum likelihood procedure for fitting a Power Law relationship. I am now learning my way through that.

Submitted by William Montante