Incidence of mortality in UK

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by bazzinho, Jul 12, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Right

    Interesting little fact identified here. Might need some help with the figures.
    Got the civvie figures from the ONS, and did the calcs myself, so they are fairly robust. not sure about the miliatry ones, as I have used newspaper reports.

    since 2001, there have been 13 UK forces deaths in Afghanistania, average of 2.6 p.a. This would give a mortality rate of (assuming a steady state population of 3,600) 0.72 per 1000 popn for all causes.

    For those of us living in the UK, looking at a population of ONLY 16-54 year olds (cos i presume we dont have any old knackers in 'stania older than that) we have a mortality rate (in 2004) of 0.84 per 1000 popn.

    In other words, staying in the Uk you are likely 17% more likely to die befiore the age of 54

    Sod Intelligent Mobilisation, my life is at risk if I stay in this country
  2. Thats because the really dangerous terrorists are now in UK!!!
  3. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Did you factor male/female into that? cos i think young males will be in the majority in the hilly place....
  4. I took total population. I didnt want to be seen as sexist. Give me a tick and I will give you the male only mortality rate.

    wait out
  5. Mortality rate for UK males living in the Uk in 2004 was 1.1 per 1000 popn. This means you would be (as a male) 50% more likely to meet with an early death if you are in the UK and male and between ages of 16 and 44 (sorry, i said 54 in my earlier post - typo).
  6. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Maybe it should be 18 - 44 as we dont deploy under 18's right? Not meaning to sound not picking, this actually confirms a thought that opccured to me last year. During telic 6 i think approx a dozen soldiers died and i did actually wonder if you compare a similar sized group back home how many of them would die in the same period...

    I am not very good at interpreting statistics though, basically are you saying that male soldiers (or of military age) are twice as likely to die early in the Uk than on tour?
  7. Not twice as likely mate, one and a half times as likely. But that includes all causes of death.

    Can't do 18 upwards, because I would need access to the underlying figures which are used by the ONS, which, even with my godlike access and powers of persuasion, I dont have and cant be arsed to get. However, if someone has the figures for telic etc, I am happy to do the same again for iraqistan.

    But yes, it is more dangerous to be a young male living in britain than in afghanistania
  8. But arn't the UK deaths mostly from natural causes or RTA's or similar.

    Not much chance of fit young squaddies dieing of Cancer or the like in Afghanistan.
  9. Exactly xplosiverab, neither will a cancer ridden old bloke be donning his boots and going off to Afghanistan.

    To really make this accurate you need to look at a VERY tight demographic, 19-25 sort of thing. Maybe not those numbers, but that's more along the idea.

    0.72 to 0.84. Many people up to the age of 54 are not living a healthy life, I'm sure if they were that 0.84 number would be alot lower.

    There are other ways of phrasing this, and other reasons for why you're basically wrong, but I'm too lazy to list them. So basically, sorry to say it bazzinho, but mostly you're wrong.
  10. True, the UK figures include all deaths. But have to include such things as RTAs as this then ensures you are comparing the composite danger. And have to include health issues becuase deaths by e.g. cancer can be quick and sudden or septicaemia, MCI etc etc are all very very sudden. Therefore, if there were more deaths in 'stania of natural causes which i haven't picked up in my calculation then I will happily amend my figures. But I stand by my UK ones.

    On an interesting side note there were 9,000 deaths in the UK that year of GUM disease. GUM DISEASE - what are you lot up to ffs! There were no reported deaths of GUM disease for british soldiers in stania that year. IObvisouly, fairly limited access to local women there
  11. Within the 18-50 demographic?
  12. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    you would need to discount natural causes to get it more accurate. still include RTA's, accidents, murders etc though.
  13. Intresting fact or boring, depending on viewpoint, more people in the UK commit suicide then die in RTAs. Average cost of police investigation into Suicide £12k, RTA with death or serious injury £1million. so for the cost of one serious RTA you can have 83 suicides. I now know why a pedal cyclists death on the A3 closed it for 11 hours jaming the M25 and surrounding roads delaying and estimated 125,000 people, overtime....they have to find an excuse for spending £1 million somehow..
  14. I'll say it then.

    You can't compare the two. Its two completely different situatyions and there are too many variable factors to make an effective comparison.
  15. Look up guys, as i mentioned, the figures represent 18-44, which would presumably include old kknackers (ssgt+,majors+), not 54 as I accidentally said. And yes there are draw backs with the statistics, but they are the best I have. I could sift them further, but "natural causes" is a very wide area, as any health professional or population statistician or geographer will tell you.

    Also, I am making the point that of course there are less deaths from poor health, that is because we are trained well. The same reason that given that we generally have access to weapons designed to maim and kill and so do our enemy, yet we still don't have a massively proportionately higher death rate, which you would imagine would flow from being in that situation. So yes the 2 situations are different, each with their own risks. But because of our training and skills and outlook etc. we do not have a massively higher fatality rate in 'stania. As i said, I don't have the figures for Iraqistan so I can't do the numbers. But given the larger numbers, it should be statistically more of a clear picture.

    For Genito-urinary the figures are for the 18-44 around 6000. Which means that I am obviously not getting my fair share. Possibly because I spend so much time number crunching instead of being in the sun and meeting the opposite sex.

    "Statistics are like a lamp post to a drunken man - more for support than illumination"