The value of a life

Stabshauptmann

I could think of about 5 or 6 forums where this would be relevent so feel free amp to move it at your descretion.

I was just watching sky news and I saw an apalling report. Huricane francais just hit america and so to keep with the theme they talked about hurricanes in general. I wont bore you with all ht details but basically they did the worst hurricanes ever to hit US.

1) $20.3bn damage 1992 23 dead
2) $13bn damage the last one, charlie was it 13 dead
3) $6bn damage 83 dead.


Now while ill admit ive forgottne the names and wasnt paying full attention im almost certain Ive got the jist right. The worst was the one tht caused the most financial damage not killed the most ppl.
Barbaric or pragmatic - your opinions?

aidan_walsh

I for one fail to see your point...

elivsvonchiaing

I'm inclined to agree - think I see your point. I once lived in Bermuda where buildings are by law far more hurricane proof. I had a couple of close-misses but never had a direct hit - last year hurricane whatever killed just 2 people (I think) Emily in 1987 (under 10).

The point being afaik the state of FA authorities seem too liberal on building regulations. True of most states imho.

simu

Given that they have pretty good evacuation routines in the region, the damage figure probably gives a more accurate idea of how bad the hurricanes were.

elivsvonchiaing

simu wrote:

Given that they have pretty good evacuation routines in the region, the damage figure probably gives a more accurate idea of how bad the hurricanes were.

Have to concede was partially talking sheit here. Quick evac from Bermuda is not an option.

Most US states it is (well maybe 12 hours) just reckon if you live in a trailier park you won't get insurance. Concrete building with armoured glass -yes. Bermuda - same (riskwise) for everyone and affordable (if you live in a mansion expect to pay more...) - Oh and I'm not a communist btw.

Stabshauptmann

NO my point was that a lost life is more devastating than the destruction of a block of empty houses, and it wasnt just 1 life it was 83 Vs 23 or there abouts

simu

I agree with you. A human life is priceless but these people are focusing on hurricanes rather than on the greatest causes of death in the southeast of the USA and gulf of Mexico.

To answer your question, I say they were being pragmatic.

sliabh

In the US the human deaths will be factored into the cost as well as there will generally be life insurance and various death in service payouts from companies.

It may not be millions but it's included there. I believe the current going rate for a death in a commercial aircrash in Europe/America is about $2-3m per person.

gom

I too say teh same report at about 2m this morning(don't ask)

Shocked. No
But most of those lives were in Central America so per head of capita they were worth less. That could be the justification that Sky News uses.
I suggest you email them and reference this post.

Seen as the top 2 hit America mostly they are obviously more important...

You forget Sky News is not a News station. Its a party political broadcast. Murdoch is just waiting for the law to change in the US so that Nationals of foreign origin can run in the Presidential Election. Both Arnie and Murdoch will be running for the Republican Ticket in 2008

Back to the topic:

It is sad that today the cost of damage is more important than that of a life

Capt'n Midnight

It is sad that today the cost of damage is more important than that of a life

Some things never change, but if you are planning then you have to assign costs to lifes so you can prioritise prevention schemes. There is no point in spending billions to prevent the loss of one life, when the person won't generate the wealth to replace it - there simply isnt enough money to protect anyone. But if you work out how much the average person will contribute over thier life you can put forward a case to spend a portion of this to protect them that even the bean counters can't argue with.

It could be argued that young males who have just started in the work force will be most productive and so some effort should be made to stop them killing themselves in car accidents - but some how that message hasn't sunk home.

Every year for as long as I can remember there has been at least one ferry disaster in Bangladesh where an over crowded ferry has gone down (usually in bad weather) with over 300 being killed. The human cost of US hurricanes is fairly low compared to their gun deaths. While you building against torrnados is very difficult you can excuse it because the footprint is so small. Hurricanes cover HUGE areas FREQUENTLY so there can be no excuse for the appaling damage that is seen in the US every hurrican season. A house should last a lifetime and in a lifetime it's gonna experiande storms..

Oh yeah while on the subject we subsidise thier insurance (and green house gas emissions etc.) , remember the way rates went up after 9/11 even though it was impossible to get insurance against terrrorism in the British Isles.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_15_17/ai_100000505
Variance in the Statistical Value of a Life
DOT - Federal Aviation Administration $3 million
Department of Labor - Occupational $5 million
Safety & Health Administration
DOT - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, $3 million per
(NHTSA), tire pressure monitoring system equivalent fatality
NHTSA, vehicle stability in heavy braking $1.4 million per
equivalent fatality
Environmental Protection Agency $5 million
Source: OMB, Federal Register, Feb. 3, 2003

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/resnotes/accident.htm
lists of causes of early (<65) death in US - 9,611,000 in 1990
so storms shouldn't be high on the prevention of loss of life strategies.

http://www.mohea.com/mike/words/000174.html
shows how little people really value their lives $166,666 etc.

Victor

Which is worse? A country destroyed and nobody killed or a little damage and a few killed?

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Oh yeah while on the subject we subsidise thier insurance

Short term perhaps, but in the long term the acturaires and underwriters will want to make their money back.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

even though it was impossible to get insurance against terrrorism in the British Isles.

When the insurance companies said they would pull out of terrorism insurance, the British government formed a mutual company that takes premiums from all the insurers, that will pay up to (I think) STG£500m per event, after that the government will insure.

Capt'n Midnight

It's hard to equate monetry values and lives, but it is easy to see that the average person's death will have a negative finacial impact on the community.

Anyway most "news" is a form of edutainment based on ratings "the public wants what the public gets" so thier rating of disasters would be biased towards readily available images. - One of the alternative titles for "Drop the dead donkey" was "Dead Belgians don't count."

dogs

The number of people killed in these storms is statistically insignificant.

Storms are, by their very nature, unpredictable. A failure in a single buildings' design could completely skew the figures. While each death is unfortunate and tragic, to make some kind of reasonable comparison to determine which storm exactly was "worst", you need to look at the financial cost.