Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever

Military Fatalities Low rate

  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#1 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 09 December 2004 - 11:54 PM

http://www.washingto...ec8.html?sub=AR

Quote

U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever
Technology and Surgical Care at the Front Lines Credited With Saving Lives

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 9, 2004; Page A24

Ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds, the lowest casualty fatality rate ever, thanks in large part to technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines, an analysis to be published today has found.

But the remarkable lifesaving rate has come at the enormous cost of creating a generation of severely wounded young veterans and a severe shortage of military surgeons, wrote Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

The war in Iraq has produced the "largest burden of casualties our military medical personnel have had to cope with since the Vietnam War," said Gawande's report in the New England Journal of Medicine. By contrast, 24 percent of soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War or the Persian Gulf War did not survive.
So it would be less bothersome if they occupied nice cemetary plots instead? What the f@#$??!

President Bush is fighting two wars at once, the war on terror, and a war of disinformation from the partisan media. For what possible reason could they spin positive news as a negative?

I often watched Ceci Connolly on the roundtable of FoxNews Sunday, and am astonished she could write this.

I look at the story again and am in awe. Anything can be spun, anything.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 10 December 2004 - 07:21 PM.


#2 Lord Ravensburg

Lord Ravensburg

    All your lightsabers are belong to me

  • Islander
  • 533 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 01:30 AM

I too am shocked at the spin on these statistics.  A 10% death rate rom combat injury should be hailed as a victory for modern medicine.  I don't understand what the article is trying to drive at through the apparent suggestion that some of the survivors might have been better off dead.

#3 Guldorak

Guldorak
  • Islander
  • 393 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 09:01 AM

Here's the rest of the article in case anyone is interested and see if our friend  again chose to misinterpret something. :angel:

Quote

U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever
Technology and Surgical Care at the Front Lines Credited With Saving Lives

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 9, 2004; Page A24

Ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds, the lowest casualty fatality rate ever, thanks in large part to technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines, an analysis to be published today has found.

But the remarkable lifesaving rate has come at the enormous cost of creating a generation of severely wounded young veterans and a severe shortage of military surgeons, wrote Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.


The war in Iraq has produced the "largest burden of casualties our military medical personnel have had to cope with since the Vietnam War," said Gawande's report in the New England Journal of Medicine. By contrast, 24 percent of soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War or the Persian Gulf War did not survive.

"It used to be our thinking that the number of deaths reflects the violence of the war," Gawande said in an interview. "Now, the number of deaths reflects how well surgical teams are doing in saving lives."

More than 10,300 U.S. service members have been injured in Iraq and more than 1,000 of them killed in action, according to Defense Department statistics cited in the report. "This can no longer be described as a small or contained conflict," Gawande wrote.

He praised the military's strategy of positioning close to the fighting smaller, "leaner and more mobile" surgical teams with the ability to erect a battlefield hospital in less than 60 minutes. Traveling in Humvees with hand-held ultrasound machines, portable ventilators, supplies of red blood cells and an array of surgical tools and pharmaceuticals, the teams focus on stabilizing patients and moving them for further treatment in less than two hours.

During the Vietnam War, it took injured soldiers an average of 45 days to reach a hospital in the United States. At the beginning of the Iraq war, the average was eight days, and now it is four. One airman hit by a mortar attack in September "was on the operating table at Walter Reed" Army Medical Center here "just 36 hours later," Gawande said.

The battlefield triage is called "damage control" because the emphasis is on stopping bleeding, keeping a patient warm and leaving almost everything else to doctors at a permanent hospital.

"The combination of Kevlar vests and a system that allows them to stop the bleeding makes it possible for them to survive injuries that were unsurvivable before," he said. "How you rehabilitate physically, let alone emotionally, someone who has that kind of loss is a serious question."

For every soldier killed, an average of 10 are injured, he said. Gawande found similarly low fatality rates among soldiers wounded in Afghanistan.

Early in the Iraqi conflict, when the fighting was more traditional battlefield combat, the most common injuries came from wounds to limbs that were not protected by body armor. More recently, as the engagement has shifted to guerrilla-style warfare with explosive devices, more injuries result from shrapnel that hits under vests and through neck- and armholes, Gawande said.

"And with suicide bombers, you see not just metal shrapnel, but also clothing, dirt and even bone from the attacker that is infectious," he said, "and can lead to more extensive surgeries and multiple surgeries."

With just 120 general surgeons on active duty in the Army and a similar number in the reserves, Gawande argued the teams are overextended and operating in far more dangerous circumstances.

"Many surgeons have been on a second deployment or an extended deployment, and even this has not been sufficient," he wrote. "Planners are having to contemplate pressing surgeons into yet a third deployment."

The American Medical Association and the state surgeon of the Wisconsin Army National Guard have expressed concerns that the Selective Service System may revive procedures for drafting medical personnel. Such a plan "was not undertaken at the request of anyone" at the Pentagon, a Defense Department statement said yesterday. "Furthermore, there is no need for such a plan."

Col. John B. Holcomb, commander of the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, agreed that Iraq can no longer be viewed as a minor conflict. But he said the casualty rate and severity of injuries is not inconsistent with other wars.

A review of historical documents shows that "head and extremity injuries predominate, at least back to World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam," he said. Perhaps Gawande, who lacks military experience, was unaccustomed to the level of trauma seen in war, Holcomb said.

"The injuries in combat are devastating compared to what most civilian surgeons are used to seeing," he said, adding that the closest parallel he could think of were injuries sustained by someone run over by a train.

The number of general surgeons serving in Iraq is not as high as in the Persian Gulf War 13 years ago, Holcomb acknowledged. However, he said the key was placing the right doctors and nurses in the right place.

Iraq has brought other unanticipated medical challenges. Soldiers were suffering a "dismayingly high incidence of blinding injuries" because they refused to wear goggles that they described as " 'something a Florida senior citizen would wear.' So the military bowed to fashion," Gawande said, and purchased hipper protective eyewear that appears to be serving its purpose.

Edited by Guldorak, 10 December 2004 - 01:56 PM.


#4 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 09:27 AM

I don't see where you are finding a negative spin here.  Read as a whole  the article is fairly positive. I would prefer that NOBODY dies or is injured but the news that the survival rate is up and treatment is being received faster is good news.  

AS to whether it is better that more are surviving even with the possibililty or certainty of being diabled for life...that is up to each individual soldier and their families as to whether this is bad or good.  Each person reacts differently to their situations and attitude is very important.  You can just give up and feel sorry for yourself or you can be like Christopher Reeve and try to make a difference still.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#5 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 09:33 AM

Unfortunately, the "Ignore" feature doesn't block out titles and subtitles of threads.  It sure would be nice if Ogami edited the subtitle, which is inflammatory and incorrect.

Edited by Spectacles, 14 December 2004 - 07:55 AM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#6 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 10:11 AM

It's not even spelled right. ;)

#7 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 10:37 AM

Quote

It's not even spelled right.

:D

OK. That's funny.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#8 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 10:51 AM

Wow, a selectively edited article being used to support a far-right political agenda?  I wonder who could have started this thread?  :whistle:


Oh, and go here for the slideshow from the NEJM slideshow on what's now a survivable wound.  If you feel like it, you can even tell some of the people in the photos to stop their whining about unarmored vehicles.  

http://www.nejm.org/...209/slides1.htm

From trikay

Quote

You can just give up and feel sorry for yourself or you can be like Christopher Reeve and try to make a difference still.

Or like Max Cleland, you can run for elected office and then get compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden by your draft-dodging Republican opponent because you didn't want Homeland Security workers to get stripped of their civil service protections.  Because you know, wounded war heroes aren't really wounded war heroes if they're Democrats.

Edited by MuseZack, 10 December 2004 - 11:05 AM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#9 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 01:33 PM

Or you can watch the righties parade in front of the TV cameras at the Republican convention with a Purple Heart bandaid on each of their quadruple chins.

waterpanther
Posted Image

#10 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 01:43 PM

Folks, i'm asking you all to cool the political generalisations against each other please. There is no need for it.

#11 GoldenCoal

GoldenCoal

    Not Fool's Gold

  • Islander
  • 1,096 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 02:00 PM

I think what the article is saying is that death is bad, but mutilation is also bad, though not as bad as death.
We as a society are going to have to deal with how someone who has lost three of their appendages is going to function in society, so as great has saving a large amount of lives is, there are some issues that we will have to deal with. So it's not a celebration.

#12 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 03:44 PM

^^^Exactly :)

That was my feeling too.  People are going to have to learn to deal with more disabled people and their everyday needs  

And I don't know about anyone else but what little I know about how the VA hospitals work and the quality or level of services provided currently,  this is going to be a major issue in years to come.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#13 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 04:54 PM

Ogami, on Dec 10 2004, 12:54 AM, said:

http://www.washingto...ec8.html?sub=AR

Quote

U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever
Technology and Surgical Care at the Front Lines Credited With Saving Lives

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 9, 2004; Page A24

Ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds, the lowest casualty fatality rate ever, thanks in large part to technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines, an analysis to be published today has found.

But the remarkable lifesaving rate has come at the enormous cost of creating a generation of severely wounded young veterans and a severe shortage of military surgeons, wrote Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

The war in Iraq has produced the "largest burden of casualties our military medical personnel have had to cope with since the Vietnam War," said Gawande's report in the New England Journal of Medicine. By contrast, 24 percent of soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War or the Persian Gulf War did not survive.
So it would be less bothersome if they occupied nice cemetary plots instead? What the f@#$??!

President Bush is fighting two wars at once, the war on terror, and a war of disinformation from the partisan media. For what possible reason could they spin positive news as a negative?

I often watched Ceci Connolly on the roundtable of FoxNews Sunday, and am astonished she could write this.

I look at the story again and am in awe. Anything can be spun, anything.

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



You putting the Rush spin on this, when the real point of the article is that there are 10,000 wounded from this conflict, and it's something that you almost never see reported.

Walter Reed Hospitol, or all places, doesn't even have enough rehab facilities to handle all the wounded who are coming through. John McCain took Don Imus and Charles through Walter Reed, and Imus is still talking about the lack of even tread mills for wounded to rehab on.
Can't Touch This!!

#14 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 05:50 PM

Ogami, read the whole of the article - you are doing a wonderful job of reading just the part that fits your preconceptions.  Not every thing critical of the war, the government, the state of the nation is a leftist / democratic / etc attack on Bush / the government / the war.

People who support something can still be critical of that something.

and stop refering to those whom you disagree with as wacko - while there may well be wackos in the left, the whole is not and it is a negative generalization to do so -

Which is against guidelines

Spectacles, two wrongs don't make a right - your calling Ogami a right wing kook is a rather psrsonal attack - again something that is against guidelines.

Zack - please stop fanning the fire.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#15 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 05:58 PM

Quote

Spectacles, two wrongs don't make a right - your calling Ogami a right wing kook is a rather psrsonal attack - again something that is against guidelines.

Yes, I know. :)

As I said up there, I will delete the remarks when Ogami deletes his subtitle.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#16 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 06:55 PM

Guldorak wrote:

Here's the rest of the article in case anyone is interested and see if our friend again chose to misinterpret something.

And since I posted a link to the entire article at the top of the thread, only a raving idiot would assert I'm trying to hide anything. Which you are not, Guldorak, nice try though.

According to the posting rules I was advised of, Guldorak,  reposting an entire news article is prohibited, Ex Isle doesn't want to be sued by the respective news agency.

Am I wrong on this? Can I post entire news articles without having my posts edited? It sure would save time over the excerpts I've been posting for the past year. Some Moderator help me on this.
______________

Trikay wrote:

I don't see where you are finding a negative spin here. Read as a whole the article is fairly positive.

The surgeon in Boston wrote a factual article, that such a large number of surviving casualties stresses the system for handling those things. The Washington Post reporter took a perfectly decent story about how we've achieved the lowest mortality rate in American military history, and put the two stories together.

Why? Informing the readers? Or to criticize "Bush" by implication?

There is no other logical reason for putting the two stories together.

As the first President Bush observed, the joke has come true. "Berlin Wall comes down, two border guards lose jobs, media blames Bush."

Journalism has reached an all-time low.

-Ogami

#17 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 06:58 PM

Zack's slideshow link is the reason I will never become a doctor.

*barf*

Oh, and what the other "wacko lefties" have said.

:rolleyes:
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#18 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 07:01 PM

Spectacles wrote:

Unfortunately, the "Ignore" feature doesn't block out titles and subtitles of threads. I hereby officially object to "Whacko Left" in the subtitle.

It's "wacko left", spell it right, please.

It's interesting that Spectacles is personally offended, does this mean you describe yourself in those terms, and think of yourself in that precise group? That explains quite a bit.

I also think that when a poster demonstrates repeatedly that he's off-the-deep-end in brainwashed rightwing partisan hatred, it's necessary to call a rightwing kook a rightwing kook.

You have repeatedly insulted me, personally, by name, and I haven't asked any moderator to banish you. That's the difference between us, you can't take criticism of your side, and assume everything is about you. If someone posts about the "right-wing neocons", I could not be offended because I do not think of myself in those terms. (Which again really makes me wonder what you think of yourself as.)

So I see Ogami his "Whacko Left" and raise him a "rightwing kook." I will be happy to delete this admittedly personal but well-deserved attack as soon as Ogami edits the subtitle, which is, like most propaganda, inflammatory and incorrect.

Only very seriously disturbed people would see news of "lowest combat fatality ever" as bad news. This could only happen if someone believes any good news coming out of Iraq/Afghanistan is bad because it helps Bush. That's a sick attitude, Spectacles, and what I was commenting on.

If that doesn't describe you, then you have nothing to be offended about, do you? Weird.

-Ogami

#19 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 07:14 PM

Muse Zack wrote:

Wow, a selectively edited article being used to support a far-right political agenda? I wonder who could have started this thread?

(edited)
Respect goes both ways. If Zack Stentz prefers to comment on his fellow posters, rather than actual topics, that's his business. But it won't go unnoticed. Ever.

Oh, and go here for the slideshow from the NEJM slideshow on what's now a survivable wound. If you feel like it, you can even tell some of the people in the photos to stop their whining about unarmored vehicles.

They recognized the need for such armored undersides over a year and a half ago, these things take time to get into production. But then Zack Stentz never heard of the LCTs from World War II.

http://www.ww2lct.org/

These craft were put in development years before D-Day, and while they had some testing and refinement in the Pacific, they were still flawed vehicles when they were used on D-Day. But we used them anyway, because we had a job to do. Just like any equipment today.

Or like Max Cleland, you can run for elected office and then get compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden by your draft-dodging Republican opponent because you didn't want Homeland Security workers to get stripped of their civil service protections. Because you know, wounded war heroes aren't really wounded war heroes if they're Democrats.

Yes, I am personally to blame for that television ad, so is Bush. Oh wait, I'm not. I guess this is just some of that straw-man generalizing I'm told about.

If I can understand the discussion so far, we've had several posters insisting they are members of the wacko left, this is who they believe they are, and they are insulted that the wacko left has been impugned. This is news to me, I had no idea anyone on this board thought of themselves in those terms.

Weirder still.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 11 December 2004 - 06:10 PM.


#20 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 10 December 2004 - 07:20 PM

Kosh wrote:

You putting the Rush spin on this, when the real point of the article is that there are 10,000 wounded from this conflict, and it's something that you almost never see reported.

How dare you disagree with Steven Q! Steven Q clearly pointed out just the other day on the Rumsfeld thread:

Just because the reporter came up with the question, Ogami doesn't invalidate the question

So my question on the motives of the partisan media is still valid, even if someone else also asks it, hmm?
__________________

Shalamar wrote:

Ogami, read the whole of the article - you are doing a wonderful job of reading just the part that fits your preconceptions.

You go back and read my thread. I posted THREE paragraphs from the story, TWO of the THREE paragraphs were from the doctor just minding her own business in Boston talking about the levels of disabled vets coming in. If that's not balance, I'm not sure where else to point you, Shalamar.

and stop refering to those whom you disagree with as wacko - while there may well be wackos in the left, the whole is not and it is a negative generalization to do so - Which is against guidelines

Ceci Connelly is not a poster on this message board, I've never called a single person on this message board a wacko. (The same cannot be said of some of the enlightened, open-minded, and diverse progressive moderate posters here.)

-Ogami



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Fatalities, Low rate

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users