I just saw the recent figures for bodies recovered in New Orleans at 197 with over 1/2 the city remaining under water http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050912/D8CIM1K80.html. Assuming the worst and find 2-3 times that many in the remaining flooded areas its still a far cry from the 10,000 originally estimated. I also remember back to the start of the Iraq invasion when the naysayers were predicting thousands and thousands of American soldiers would die. It was the same on 9/11 when the early figures put the death toll at over 10,000 from the WTC. Not blaming the media neccessarily but why do we get such exagerated numbers for these events?
Sensationalism and media hype always trumps the numbers.
In the heat of things people forget the big picture and lose sight as to what really going on around them.
It would be interesting to see how the people came up with the 10k figure. I think it was Mayor Nagin who gave out that number.
In addition it would be interesting to see how many deaths were attributed to the response. I suspect not many.
I just saw the recent figures for bodies recovered in New Orleans at 197 with over 1/2 the city remaining under water http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050912/D8CIM1K80.html. Assuming the worst and find 2-3 times that many in the remaining flooded areas its still a far cry from the 10,000 originally estimated. I also remember back to the start of the Iraq invasion when the naysayers were predicting thousands and thousands of American soldiers would die. It was the same on 9/11 when the early figures put the death toll at over 10,000 from the WTC. Not blaming the media neccessarily but why do we get such exagerated numbers for these events?
If you’ll recall following 9/11, it was the administration itself that continued to use exaggerated death toll numbers, even after the number was obviously lower.
My wife and I were talking about that this weekend. I told her I suspect the 10,000 was WAY overstated as I would have thought if it were that high, we would have seen more evidence when the flood waters were high. There were a few bodies but not many.
On the other hand, we’ve all heard stories about people trapped by rising water in their homes, and cutting holes in the attic to get out. How many couldn’t get out that way? These victims are most likely in the most affected (lowest-lying) areas, and are still in their homes.
I suspect that all such estimates are (S)WAGs.
If the death toll winds up being ten times lower than expected, does this mean the emergency response was ten times better than previously thought?
I too thought the numbers were overblown, but with that said, the task of getting an accurate body count is going to be pretty big. With people from New Orleans spread all over the country, the prospect of deaths well after the fact due to disease, and the potential of having to go door to door looking for bodies, it could be a long while before the final toll is released. And while it won’t be 10k, I’d be surprised if it didn’t rise substantially from where it’s at now.
I have no idea where we get some of those numbers. It’s premature … Then there are the lesser estimates that turn out to be more as the truth is uncovered. I’m thinking Rwanda, gulags in Russia, Cambodia, but also casualties (not deaths) in many wars (Iraq 1 & 2 included), also civilian casualties in the wake of wars and disasters … So that happens as well.
I also remember back to the start of the Iraq invasion when the naysayers were predicting thousands and thousands of American soldiers would die.
We’re at 1896 so far. 2093 when you throw in coalition soldiers. Definitely not “thousands and thousands”, but we’ll make “thousands” well before christmas at the current rate.
Give it a break Casey. You’re sarcasm is sickening. You just gotta make it political don’t you? Those mean old war mongers who just hate the Iraqi people. Of course its the same people we are shedding our blood for to give them an opportunity to someday sit at their computers on the Iraqi Slowtwitch and have debates back and forth.
And I bet you just can’t wait till we hit the thousands mark can you? You will probably be dancing i the street as you then can prove how wrong it was to invade Iraq. You know what? One death is too many. But no matter how delighted you are we still have lost no where near the 10000 the media estimated.
And I bet you just can’t wait till we hit the thousands mark can you? You will probably be dancing i the street as you then can prove how wrong it was to invade Iraq. You know what? One death is too many. But no matter how delighted you are we still have lost no where near the 10000 the media estimated.
I think it may be past time for your pill. I was just pointing out that “thousands” wasn’t as far away as you made it sound. Did you throw out an obvious troll like that just for the opportunity to have this tantrum? How sad…
No I honestly did not throw this out as a troll. I also am saddened at every loss we take. We just lost another 1LT last week who was the captain of the Army Hockey team and I wept at the news. What started me on my “tantrum” is what I consider to be an exageration of death counts. As I said one death is too many but even 2000 is a far cry from 10000.
I have to stick up for Army Tri Guy here. If I were in his position, I would hold the same opinions of the motivations for those trumpeting casualty numbers.
Casualty reports are just about the only reports we get out of Iraq. No other war has ever been reported this way. Had WWII been reported this way, we would have tucked tail after Normandy, or more likely before, and ran.
Most of those continually talking about casualty numbers don’t give a damn whether the number is 200 or 2000 or 20,000. That tells you something.
Look at the thread on this board talking about 45 dead in a hospital. The poster seems glad to be able to have this talking point. Whether the death toll is 100, 1000, 10,000 or 100,000, it will be trumpeted and all Bush’s fault. The dead are nothing but a vehicle to regain power.
The truth is that these early estimates are almost never right, whether the circumstances are war, terrorist acts, or natural disaster. Communications aren’t effective, nothing can be verified, and the press resorts to speculation. This speculation is fueled by officials on the ground who toss out numbers they can’t validate under the pressure of repeated questions from the press.
It’s bad when they overstate, but it was even worse when they underestimated after the tsunamis. Initial reports were in the hundreds, and the subsequent climbs in the death toll were staggering.
It’s as if they (the press) just can’t handle the possibility of being truthful and saying “We don’t know, it’s just too early to tell.”
Hey thats the price of keeping the world safe for democracy.
Actually, the human cost is to be expected and something I could except what we are fighting for is a bit vague at best. Getting involved in an invasion in the Middle East isn’t something that will go away in the near future - especially when you consider they have been fighting for all of what, a few thousand years so far? The problem is we do not have a readily attainable goal or purpose there…we have a lot of war slogans and a lot of vague connections between 9-11 and Iraq but nothing really substantial. I would like to think that there was a brilliant plan by Bush to take Afganistan and Iraq to gain a tactical advantage against bigger real threats like Iran and create a semi-permanent millitary presence in the region but I have my doubts that they have the ability to think that far in advance. I have my doubts to whether anyone is driving the bus at all. Frankly, most people would find that a more offensive reason to go to war but IMHO at least my reason has a real practical reason to invade rather than the jingoistic bullshit reasons we have been getting. But I digress…
I think when Nagin said 10,000 trying to get people to understand the severity of the situation…although I agree the estimates were drastically overblown. Its still a big shit sandwich regardless of the exact human price.
I need to come clean on my position on Iraq, I guess. Here’s my take: We probably would have ended up there anyway. Saddam was not going to cooperate. Ever. The original reason for invading (Terrorists, WMD) was completely incorrect, either because it was a bald-faced lie, or because our military intelligence community is incompetent. I choose to believe the former because the latter is too scary to contemplate. We did a great job of invading and taking control, we almost always do. We aren’t doing such a good job of policing and maintaining order and control in the post-invasion environment, we almost never do, and likely nobody else could do any better. The worst possible thing we could do to the Iraqi people now is to pull up our stakes and leave them. They aren’t on their feet, and they have much to learn about building a free society. I am not a GWB fan, but I think we still would have ended up invading Iraq under any president from any party. It might have taken longer, and the reasons for going and amount of international support might have varied, but it had to happen. We had to go. Maybe not right then and for that reason, but eventually. We have to stay now that we’re there. There were steps along the way that could have been handled better. I believe our standing in the world community has suffered, as has the credibility of the “war on terror.”
I suspect most will be able to find a point or two in there that they think is ridiculous, and most will find one or two they can agree with. I just felt I neded to make my position clear since ATG was convinced I would be dancing in the streets when the toll reached a certain number.
Look at the thread on this board talking about 45 dead in a hospital. The poster seems glad to be able to have this talking point. Whether the death toll is 100, 1000, 10,000 or 100,000, it will be trumpeted and all Bush’s fault. The dead are nothing but a vehicle to regain power.
Hey, Art, go to hell. The original poster (me) was quite bothered to read this. I posted it to shut up those jerks who felt that everyone who didn’t leave NO before the storm had only themselves to blame. I note that none of those people popped up and said “yes, there were people who couldn’t get out, and needed assistance that wasn’t there”.
Furthermore, I certainly wasn’t blaming this politician or that appointee.
Again, go f*** yourself.
Good post. Very simple and logical. I agree with a lot of it. I mostly disagree with some of the steps along the way, but the conclusion is spot on.
Nothing personal intended by my post, though I see how you took it that way.
I stand by my remarks in general, but I don’t really attribute that attitude to you in particular.
Of course there were sick and helpless people who died in the storm. I don’t think anyone has suggested otherwise, but those that might have are best ignored.
I am probably wrong, but did the NO Chief of Police start putting out the big numbes. He has been off base about many, many things–no back up for his statements. He has still done a hell of a job–you just have to hold some of his statements up to the light before you run around repeating them.