would you care to elucidate the third world factor theory? while you are at it, please remember to add in the little matter of the "normal" traffic composition, and show us some methodology as to how it is determined. which countries have a "normal " mix, and which do not? where does the DR rank on the scale? are the results linear? do the countries with high concentrations of bikes have a ranking, and do the stats follow the rank? these should be easy questions for a guy who postulates a theory. finally, are there third world countries with low vehicular traffic death rates? what accounts for that? low concentration of motorcycles?
- Thread starter cobraboy
- Start date
We're number one!!!!!!!!!!
- Status
would you care to elucidate the third world factor theory? while you are at it, please remember to add in the little matter of the "normal" traffic composition, and show us some methodology as to how it is determined. which countries have a "normal " mix, and which do not? where does the DR rank on the scale? are the results linear? do the countries with high concentrations of bikes have a ranking, and do the stats follow the rank? these should be easy questions for a guy who postulates a theory. finally, are there third world countries with low vehicular traffic death rates? what accounts for that? low concentration of motorcycles?
The methodology and safeguards to ensure accuracy seem quite adequate to me (and to the government of the DR evidently) - to which modifier of the real statistics are you referring to in your comment Chip? I am just curious - not looking to pick a fight.
what? how dare you! don't you know you have the right to your own opinions but not to your own facts? heretic!
:devious:
National Data Coordinators (NDCs) were trained in the project methodology. They were required to identify up to eight other road safety experts within their country from different sectors and to facilitate a consensus meeting of these respondents. While each expert responded to the questionnaire in their individual capacity, the consensus meeting facilitated by NDCs allowed for discussion of all responses, and the group used this discussion to agree one final set of information that best represented their country?s situation at the time (up to 2011, using the most recent data available). This was then submitted to the World Health Organization (WHO), see Figure E1.
Data collection began in May 2011 and was completed by December 2011. Validation involved checking data for logical inconsistencies, and these were checked with National Data Coordinators. Following the validation process, final data sets were sent to respective governments for review and sign-off.
Following the computation of estimates of road traffic deaths for 2010, a country consultation process was undertaken. Each country was provided with an opportunity to comment on both the methodology which had been employed to compute the estimate, as well as the actual estimate received. As a result of this process, seven countries (Canada, Chile, China (14), Costa Rica, India (15), Iran and the USA) provided WHO with more up to date data which was used to improve estimates.
These are quotes from pages 42, 49 and 50 of the report - basically a group of Dominican road safety experts got together and compiled and agreed to the stats for the country, then the DR government was allowed to provide more data to improve the estimates if the government desired or to ask questions about the methodology of the study, which it didn't btw.
The methodology and safeguards to ensure accuracy seem quite adequate to me (and to the government of the DR evidently) - to which modifier of the real statistics are you referring to in your comment Chip? I am just curious - not looking to pick a fight.
"Group 4: Countries without eligible death registration data
For 78 countries that did not fall into Groups 1, 2 or 3, a regression model was used to estimate total road traffic deaths. As in the first report, a negative binomial regression model was used ? appropriate for modelling non-negative integer count data (number of road traffic deaths) (7, 8). A likelihood ratio test was used to assess that the negative binomial model provided a better fit to the data than a Poisson model (where the variance of the data is constrained to equal the mean).
ln N = C +β1 X1 +β2X2 +....+βnXn + ln Pop +ε
where N is the total road traffic deaths (for a country-year), C is a constant term, X1 are a set of explanatory covariates, Pop is the population for the country-year, and ε is the negative binomial error term. Population was used as exposure, making it possible to interpret the coefficients (1) for the independent variables as effects on rates rather than a count. In a previous study, this type of model was used to represent ?accident proneness?(9). Other authors have also found a negative binomial regression model to be the
appropriate for count data such as road traffic fatalities (10).
The parameters β1, β2 ??? βn (in the equation above) were estimated by fitting the negative binomial regression model to estimated total road traffic deaths from death registration data for all country-years in the range 1950-2010 meeting the completeness criteria (Group 1).
Three models (Models A, B and C) were chosen that had good in-sample and out-of-sample fit, and for which all the covariates were statistically significant and for which overall estimation is the average of the prediction of these three best models (see Table E2). For these countries a 95% confidence interval was given by using the negative binomial regression in the statistical package STATA."
I know why the "P=Man" ain't worried about being killed in a car accident!!!!!!
He once posted a bunch of his "Pretty Pictures" of a fleet of new "Air Ambulances" stationed around tye DR to "Swoop Down" pick up the accident victims, and rush then to the DR's "World Famous" Trauma Centers!
I HOPE "Anna C" can re-post ?????????
I can't believe with that service available the amount of deaths from traffic accidents hasn't dropped tremendously!!!
I mean, we all see those "Life Flights" filling the skies on a daily basis.
Pilots must be at "Johnny Rocket's" for lunch!
Or, at the mall, ridding line 2 of the "Metro", visiting "Pinewood Studious", buying a "Penhow",or most likely just, "Out-Of-Gas"!!!!!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Like most things here in the Dr, it's just a question of "PRIORITIES"!
He once posted a bunch of his "Pretty Pictures" of a fleet of new "Air Ambulances" stationed around tye DR to "Swoop Down" pick up the accident victims, and rush then to the DR's "World Famous" Trauma Centers!
I HOPE "Anna C" can re-post ?????????
I can't believe with that service available the amount of deaths from traffic accidents hasn't dropped tremendously!!!
I mean, we all see those "Life Flights" filling the skies on a daily basis.
Pilots must be at "Johnny Rocket's" for lunch!
Or, at the mall, ridding line 2 of the "Metro", visiting "Pinewood Studious", buying a "Penhow",or most likely just, "Out-Of-Gas"!!!!!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Like most things here in the Dr, it's just a question of "PRIORITIES"!
Ok I read this in the report as well - can you please point out and explain which part of this formula you believe to be inaccurate and explain why? It is after all based on the findings of two papers that were written decades apart; but whose standings have stood the test of time and which have been judged worthy of publication in what seem to be peer review journals. I do realize that I copy pasted from the report as well but I then summarized in my own words what I think to be the relative points of my quotes. Could you please do that for this quote as well?
Sources for the formula as listed in the report:
9. Greenwood M, Yule GU. An enquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A), 1920, 83:255–279.
10. Karlaftis MG, Tarko AP. Heterogeneity considerations in accident modeling. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1998, 30:425–433.
Included in the list of Group four are some countries that I would be hard pressed to label as "third world" especially if you are taking the most common connotation of the term referring to economic status you cannot include countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, KSA, or the UAE which all are included in group four. I think the weakest point of your position for a "third world bias" is that the countries in group four were all comfortable enough with the formulas that were used to participate in the survey even after having the opportunity to review the statistics (which their own in country experts provided) and they were provided the opportunity to provide feedback on the methodology and provide corrections as desired. Only seven countries availed themselves of this opportunity, and most of those were "first world" countries. If the Dominican Republic experts and government felt that this was a non-biased report I am not going to argue. I truthfully am not all that interested in the math formulas which is why I always like to have people explain their positions in detail.
Sources for the formula as listed in the report:
9. Greenwood M, Yule GU. An enquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A), 1920, 83:255–279.
10. Karlaftis MG, Tarko AP. Heterogeneity considerations in accident modeling. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1998, 30:425–433.
Included in the list of Group four are some countries that I would be hard pressed to label as "third world" especially if you are taking the most common connotation of the term referring to economic status you cannot include countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, KSA, or the UAE which all are included in group four. I think the weakest point of your position for a "third world bias" is that the countries in group four were all comfortable enough with the formulas that were used to participate in the survey even after having the opportunity to review the statistics (which their own in country experts provided) and they were provided the opportunity to provide feedback on the methodology and provide corrections as desired. Only seven countries availed themselves of this opportunity, and most of those were "first world" countries. If the Dominican Republic experts and government felt that this was a non-biased report I am not going to argue. I truthfully am not all that interested in the math formulas which is why I always like to have people explain their positions in detail.
I'm a little surprised that you don't see the issue with generic accident modeling, especially when it would appear there is real world data. For example, the reported deaths due to accidents by the Dominican government is 1,902 but is shown as 4,143 in the WHO report. The original figure is increased 117% based on a "generic accident modeling binomial equation" with parameters such as GNP, etc. To put that in perspective, Ecuador's deaths were reported as 3319 by their government but shown as 3911 in the WHO report, an increase of 18%. Granted Ecuador is by all accounts a richer country and has a better infrastructure but it also too has very poor and remote villages. While poorer, the DR relatively small in comparison and has enough infrastructure to be able to quantify road traffic deaths.
What we have here is another good example WHO making up facts along the way based on some theoretical pseudo scientists mathematicians contractor cooked up baseless opinions.
Somebody is projecting
Do not forget to include your real statistician credentials in your resume, might help next time you are looking
Just sayin'
While we're at it mon amour, the DR has a higher GDP per capita than Ecuador.
Dominican Republic 5530
Ecuador 4496
GDP per capita (current US$) | Data | Table
Another baseless opinions ?
I did a graduate course in statistics and learned the scientific method, what is your experience?Somebody is projecting
Do not forget to include your real statistician credentials in your resume, might help next time you are looking
Just sayin'
It is obvious you don't understand the topic at hand, ie GDP is just one parameter deary.
That makes you an EXPERT, my apologies...
So, do you think WHO statisticians are purposely targeting the DR ?
You are questioning their methodologies which is fine, but since the report contains data with other third world countries besides DR wouldn't their numbers be overestimated too ? According to your third world factor that is...
What are your estimations of the number of deaths in the DR due to traffic accidents ? A lot less ? Half of that ? negligible ?(please explain your methodology :knockedou).
We want to learn :smoke:
What modeling would YOU have used ? What would be your rate on a relative scale in comparison than other third world countries ? Your are not very specific.
If I was the contractor sent to the DR to analyze and verify data I would have analyzed the administrative centers in the country and compared that to the population distribution to see if it could be inferred (lacking more specific data) that the majority of the incidents would have been sufficiently close to an administrative center for accurate reporting. I would also as a contractor taken into account the DR has a typical Catholic approach regarding the deceased (think Catholic church records that go back hundreds of years). After taking this all into account I would expect a fudge factor of 30% to be used, not 130%
As someone who has been working in the sciences for over 20 years I do find it humorous that people are so willing to believe any "study" that is published and are seemingly unconcerned with the methodology or reasoning.
"Afri", the "GDP" of Ecuador is less than that of the DR, because Ecuadorian families prefer not to send their daughters all over the world prostituting themselves to send home "Remisas" to increase the GDP!
And you actually think you can have an intellectual discussion of statistics here with a man who believes that,"Mary" was a VIRGIN, who gave birth to a baby that is the "Son-Of-god"?????
Even "father" "JOE" had a hard time with that story!
Remember, that it's after 6pm, that "Miller Time" for our "Deary Fren"!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
"Bottoms Up"! chip,......as the priests like to say!
Why is it, that when ignorant, agenda driven, people have no idea what they are talking about, they open their mouth just to prove it???
Help me out here chipy???
And you actually think you can have an intellectual discussion of statistics here with a man who believes that,"Mary" was a VIRGIN, who gave birth to a baby that is the "Son-Of-god"?????
Even "father" "JOE" had a hard time with that story!
Remember, that it's after 6pm, that "Miller Time" for our "Deary Fren"!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
"Bottoms Up"! chip,......as the priests like to say!
Why is it, that when ignorant, agenda driven, people have no idea what they are talking about, they open their mouth just to prove it???
Help me out here chipy???
- Status