So, what exactly is a 'casualty' ?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by dogs_bollox, Nov 23, 2012.

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. Listening to Radio 4 this afternoon and a programme called 'More or Less'. Never heard it before but it takes the numbers mentioned in the headlines and looks a little deeper to see what is behind them.

    One piece was talking about an Israeli General who had stated that as 'unbelieveable as it is, 111 people were injured today in Hamas rocket attacks'. (Can't remember which day those figures were for but it doesn't matter here).

    When 'More or Less' looked into it, it appeared that the Israeli Emergency Services stated that 3 people were injured by shrapnel, 11 were injured running away from the scene and the remainder were all treated for shock. There are no figures for Palestinians in shock.

    So, what is a 'casualty' ? Casualty figures have always been manipulated for propoganda purposes. Either reduced or hidden to stop the demoralising of a nation. Or as here, inflated, to make things sound worse than they really are. Or maybe not.

    It used to be that 'X' number were killed and 'X' number wounded. They were what I thoguht casualties were. Physical rather than emotional or mental. Death is pretty well defined but has what is termed by wounded changed over time ?

    They also had some interesting stuff about the real figures for the Ash dieback as well as the number of cod in the North Sea too but perhaps not of interest here other than that it showed how figures get massaged or used totally out of context. And we all know that anyways.

    Anyways, I know there's plenty of people smarter than me and I wondered whether the consensus was that those treated for shock should be considered.
  2. I suppose if you are trying to help your cause because you are being attacked - It's probably everyone who needs medical treatment of some sort. This would be fair, as they wouldn't have needed medical treament if they weren't bombed. And treament for Shock would fall into this area.

    If you were trying to "dumb down" Casualty rates, you might put it at those that needed hospital treatment.

    But I think it must have to flow between those lines somewhere.
  3. More or less, is one of those programmes that make you stop and think about the 'facts' put out by all sorts. Well worth a listen.

    As people get compo for 'hurt feelings' it is only logical that someone who would have been given a nice cup of sweet tea and told to get on with it, should now be deemed a casualty. Especially when going for sympathy.
  4. Casualty? A crap tv show but some of the nurses in it were pretty hot.
  5. Depends on the context I suppose but it could be that a casualty is someone who has not yet become a 'patient' ie is not yet under medical care.
  6. If someone goes into shock on tour they'll probably be casevaced so really counting them as a casualty is probably fair enough.
  7. Shock - the clinical syndrome whereby tissue perfusion and hence oxygenation is inadequate to maintain normal metabolic function.

    None of this needing a cup of tea nonsense.
  8. Well, in a propaganda war I suppose you'll claim as high a figure on your side as possible and as low as possible on t'other. For an "equitable" view of the Palestine/Zionist conflict perhaps something a bit more straightforward to count is best.You can then muck about with what dates you choose etc. Bottom line is that pretty much anyway you cut it 20 times more palestinians die than "Israelis" in any particular period.

    Another interesting "stat" I found was than in US mainstream media reporting 120% of "Israeli" childrens deaths were reported in the headline or first paragraph ( ie child deaths were mentioned even if none had occurred in a particular incident) against 7.5% of Palestininian child deaths, in general Palestinian casualties were not mentioned until somewhere down the article.
  9. So in the circumstances quoted "upset" or "distressed" is probably more accurate for the majority of than a diagnosis of clinical "Shock" ?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. With us your a casualty if the Medic or BAS has to treat you for wounds, injuries caused through enemy action. Not sure about Shock in a civil defense setting. I suppose it can depend on the individual. If your next to someone who was just evicerated by shrapnel from a rocket you would be likely to be far more affected than someone around the corner who just hears the explosion.
  11. Pretty sure a perusal of the times thru 1940-45 would not go into German or Japanese casualties among the Civpop as much as opposed to friendlies
  12. I'd say so. People like to use the colloquial "shock" in a medical context to make "upset" or "shaken up" sound severe or to sound like they know what they are talking about.
  13. Sorry chum but I don't think we or indeed the US is at war with Palestine or its population ? Your comment does nicely illustrate the point I was getting at tho. Thanks.
  14. It's ok son, Of course I didnt say we or the UK is at war with the arabs in gaza, but the point still stands that typically you dont really care about the other sides casualties in the papers, especially when your Civpop is under missile fire.
  15. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Radio 4 has figures on the tree and fish casualties in the recent Hamas vs Israel conflict? Wow. I missed that.

    Take a look at 'Number Crunching' in Private Eye. And don't believe everything you read. Unless I write it.