Difference between revisions of "Talk:The mortality due to PM 2.5 from buses"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 29: Line 29:
 
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
{{defend|#(3): |It is not correct to talk about ''premature'' deaths, this is clear.|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
:{{attack|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
:{{attack|#(number): |Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
−
:{{defend|#(2): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}}}
+
:{{defend|#(2): | In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. |--[[ User:A.gasparrini| A.gasparrini]] 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
 
 
{{attack|#(4): |The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
{{attack|#(4): |The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
−
 
+
}}
  
  
Line 42: Line 43:
 
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
{{defend|#(1): |'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 
{{comment|#(1): |It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward|--[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
{{defend|#(2): |See above. ''Excess mortality'' is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in [[Image:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf]]. |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
 
}}
 
}}
  

Revision as of 16:28, 20 February 2008

Mortality in the formula -- Anne.knol 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(1): : The background mortality (Mb) is input into the formula, whereas the Mortality (M) is the output of the formula. These are therefore two different parameters --Anne.knol 17:06, 20 February 2008 (EET) ←#(2): : Mortality and Mortality background are different parameters. We are in agreement with the defend 1 --Jgrellier 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)


Scope should contain temporal information -- Ninais 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(1): : The scope is not clear because it refers to number of premature deaths - but not the timeframe (daily, monthly, yearly etc), or whether or not it is yearly average, or in a particular year (i.e. 1997 or 2020) --Ninais 17:20, 20 February 2008 (EET) ←#(2): : We agree. The number of deaths should be annual --Jgrellier 17:56, 20 February 2008 (EET)


== Premature deaths should be considered as additional == Jgrellier 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET) How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(1): : Premature deaths due to PM2.5 from buses should be defined as addtional to background premature deaths --Jgrellier 17:29, 20 February 2008 (EET)

⇤#(2): : There is no such thing as 'additional' or 'premature' deaths. Everybody dies once, so in the end (let's say, if a whole cohort has died), no one died additionally. Instead, they have died earlier. (see next dispute) --Anne.knol 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) ←#(3): : It is not correct to talk about premature deaths, this is clear. --Jgrellier 18:03, 20 February 2008 (EET)

⇤#(number): : Mathematically, that is true. However, it is a convention to calculate health impacts this way because it is easy. And "premature" is the word used for this, not "additional. --Jouni 18:16, 20 February 2008 (EET)
←#(2): : In such a context we are using a counterfactual approach, describing what “would” have been if we change some parameters of our scenario. In this framework, it could happen that people die twice, but in different times. So, I think that “additional” deaths is an appropriate definition. -- A.gasparrini 18.16, 20 February 2008 (EET)

⇤#(4): : The fact that it is convention does not mean we have to keep using it. Excess mortality is another phrase that can be debated. My argumentation is described in File:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf. If you are very clear about the timeframe, it is perhaps okay to say it this way, but I would recommend using proper (and not convential) terminology ... --Anne.knol 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)


Premature deaths --Anne.knol 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(1): : 'premature deaths' should better be described as 'deaths put forward', since the concept of premature deaths suggests that there is something like a 'mature death' which I don't not think is the good terminology --Anne.knol 17:43, 20 February 2008 (EET) --#(1): : It seems reasonable to provide an estimate of excess mortality (i.e. vs background mortality) due to PM2.5 without referring to a timeframe i.e. deaths put forward --Jgrellier 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EET) ←#(2): : See above. Excess mortality is another phrase that can be debated. Argumentation further described in File:Brunekreef - The Brave New World of Lives Sacrificed and Saved.pdf. --Anne.knol 18:26, 20 February 2008 (EET)


Delete "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" -- Ninais 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(1): : "Effect of bus type on PM2.5 emissions and exposure" refers to the scenarios and assessment, but is not a parent variable (and "bus type" is not within the scope of the variable because it is a scenario in the assessment). --Ninais 17:30, 20 February 2008 (EET)


Parent variables -- Ninais 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(number): : Causality should refer to variables in the assessment:

  1. "Primary fine PM concentration due to bus emissions"
  2. "Concentration-response function for primary fine PM"

--Ninais 17:53, 20 February 2008 (EET) ←#(2): : There is no sense in referring to data items under 'causality' unless they are variables. --Jgrellier 18:10, 20 February 2008 (EET)


Problems with definitions -- A.gasparrini 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←#(1): : the variable “mortality rate1” doesn’t refer to number of cases during time, as the word “rate” is normally used, but is the increment of risk for a specific increase in concentration. For these reason, “mortality rate” and “background mortality” relate to different things. I think “relative risk”, or “risk increment” is a more appropriate definition -- A.gasparrini 18.03, 20 February 2008 (EET)

Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Talk:The_mortality_due_to_PM_2.5_from_buses&oldid=4430"