NYPD and possible work stoppage

[fskimospy]

What is your basis for determining that their jobs are 'not nearly as dangerous as cops often make it out to be'?

On the job injury and fatality statistics from the BLS. Unless you are arguing that cops do not say their jobs are particularly dangerous, that's enough right there.

All that aside, you should still admit that anecdotal evidence is worthless as to showing whether or not a job is dangerous.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

On the job injury and fatality statistics from the BLS. Unless you are arguing that cops do not say their jobs are particularly dangerous, that's enough right there.

All that aside, you should still admit that anecdotal evidence is worthless as to showing whether or not a job is dangerous.

You're wrong.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb3962.pdf

They had the 3rd highest incidence rate for nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases in 2013. That's an average...I imagine that it's much worse in large urban areas.

 

[fskimospy]

You're wrong.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb3962.pdf

They had the 3rd highest incidence rate for nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases in 2013.

Behind nursing home care workers and pet supply store workers, the true heroes who put their lives on the line every day.

Is there a reason why you chose injuries and illnesses as opposed to fatalities, other than you felt that it supported your position better? I wonder this because police officers don't even crack the top 10 when it comes to fatalities, and injury/illness statistics over-represent industries with strong worker rights. (You tend not to take many sick days if you don't get paid for them)

None of this explains why you thought anecdotal evidence would mean anything though.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Behind nursing home care workers and pet supply store workers, the true heroes who put their lives on the line every day.

Is there a reason why you chose injuries and illnesses as opposed to fatalities, other than you felt that it supported your position better? I wonder this because police officers don't even crack the top 10 when it comes to fatalities, and injury/illness statistics over-represent industries with strong worker rights. (You tend not to take many sick days if you don't get paid for them)

None of this explains why you thought anecdotal evidence would mean anything though.

You're wrong...deal with it.

 

[fskimospy]

You're wrong...deal with it.

lol, that's what I figured. Today I learned that according to DSF working at a pet shop is more dangerous than working in a coal mine.

Feel free to answer any of the questions I asked or offer an explanation for your "reasoning".

 

[BoberFett]

You're wrong.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb3962.pdf

They had the 3rd highest incidence rate for nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases in 2013. That's an average...I imagine that it's much worse in large urban areas.

According to your own link, the danger of being hurt (not killed) as a cop is roughly on par with working in a pet store. Color me unimpressed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

According to your own link, the danger of being hurt (not killed) as a cop is roughly on par with working in a pet store. Color me unimpressed.

No one is here to impress you...that's the facts Jack.

http://www.businessinsurance.org/the-most-unexpectedly-hazardous-jobs-in-the-u-s/

 

[Subyman]

A gerbil scratch is considered an incident?

 

[fskimospy]

No one is here to impress you...that's the facts Jack.

http://www.businessinsurance.org/the-most-unexpectedly-hazardous-jobs-in-the-u-s/

I think he's telling you that your determination of police work as being particularly dangerous from that data might be foolish, considering that by your metric working at a pet store or a nursing home is more 'dangerous'.

There's a reason why people focus so much on fatalities when evaluating how dangerous a job is: they are hard to fudge, they don't vary based on benefits, and you don't have to worry about relative severity. There is no professional evaluation of how dangerous a job is that I am aware of that would use your metric the way you are trying to use it. Can you provide a single credible source that does?

If you consider businessinsurance.org to be a good site to determine the most dangerous job, I can provide you with literally dozens of websites where the police aren't even on the list.

Look, you took the first statistic that you thought helped you and you posted it hoping that nobody knew what they were talking about. You got busted. It's life.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A gerbil scratch is considered an incident?

First aid incidents are not covered by the data.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshdef.htm

Recordable cases include work-related injuries and illnesses that result in:

• Death
• Loss of consciousness
• Days away from work
• Restricted work activity or job transfer
• Medical treatment (beyond first aid)
• Significant work related injuries or illnesses that are diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional. These include any work related case involving cancer, chronic irreversible disease, a fractured or cracked bone, or a punctured eardrum.
• Additional criteria that can result in a recordable case include:

• Any needlestick injury or cut from a sharp object that is contaminated with another person's blood or other potentially infectious material.
• Any case requiring an employee to be medically removed under the requirements of an OSHA health standard.
• Tuberculosis infection as evidenced by a positive skin test or diagnosis by a physician or other licensed health care professional after exposure to a known case of active tuberculosis.
• An employee's hearing test (audiogram) reveals 1) that the employee has experienced a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) in hearing in one or both ears (averaged at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz) and 2) the employee's total hearing level is 25 decibels (dB) or more above the audiometric zero (also averaged at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz) in the same ear(s) as the STS.

​

 

[fskimospy]

I found a handy guide that's a number of years old, but from the BLS on how to think about how dangerous a job is:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

You'll notice that they don't discount injuries, but they use them as a supplemental measure in an attempt to get a more complete picture. At no time do they even come close to the statement that you should determine how dangerous a job is by its number of injuries. If they focus on one measure, it's fatalities.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think he's telling you that your determination of police work as being particularly dangerous from that data might be foolish, considering that by your metric working at a pet store or a nursing home is more 'dangerous'.

There's a reason why people focus so much on fatalities when evaluating how dangerous a job is: they are hard to fudge, they don't vary based on benefits, and you don't have to worry about relative severity. There is no professional evaluation of how dangerous a job is that I am aware of that would use your metric the way you are trying to use it. Can you provide a single credible source that does?

If you consider businessinsurance.org to be a good site to determine the most dangerous job, I can provide you with literally dozens of websites where the police aren't even on the list.

Look, you took the first statistic that you thought helped you and you posted it hoping that nobody knew what they were talking about. You got busted. It's life.

I asked you "What is your basis for determining that their jobs are 'not nearly as dangerous as cops often make it out to be'?" and you replied:

On the job injury and fatality statistics from the BLS.

I just gave you the data on job injuries and it proves you wrong. Fatalities are relatively high as well, but not nearly as high as their injury rate.

EDIT: And another thing to consider is that these numbers are averages. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that these numbers go through the roof on the 3rd shift in large urban areas like NYC.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116162017.htm

 

[fskimospy]

I asked you "What is your basis for determining that their jobs are 'not nearly as dangerous as cops often make it out to be'?" and you replied:



I just gave you the data on job injuries and it proves you wrong. Fatalities are relatively high as well, but not nearly as high as their injury rate.

What don't you understand? It doesn't prove me wrong, as not only I explained but the BLS explained.

How is this difficult to understand? Don't take the first piece of info that you think makes you right. Actually try to understand the issue.

 

[TreVader]

I think the danger police see every day is the danger they put every other citizen they come in contact with in. That's what they are going on about. Crashes into citizens where citizens die and of course, officers don't. Shootings with perpetrators where citizens die, and cops of course don't. Sometimes even the criminals don't die, but they still kill citizens.



I seriously think that psychologically that is why cops think they are in so much danger. They see the danger they put the community in every day, and say "what if that was me that my partner shot accidentally?? Damn... my job is dangerous!"

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What don't you understand? It doesn't prove me wrong, as not only I explained but the BLS explained.

How is this difficult to understand? Don't take the first piece of info that you think makes you right. Actually try to understand the issue.

Being a NYC cop is a dangerous job...how is this difficult to understand? I've been posting here at ATPN for quite a while now and I don't believe that I've ever seen you admit that you were ever wrong about anything...now would be a good time.

 

[fskimospy]

Unless everyone in the NYPD works third shift, the average is the only thing that makes sense.

Also, police work in NYC is extremely safe. Until those two cops were murdered no police officer had died on duty in NYC for about three years. Compare that rate to not only other departments but to tons of other jobs.

I for one am looking forward to A&E canceling The Deadliest Catch and replacing it with The Deadliest Pet Store though, considering how much more dangerous it is to work in a pet store and all.

There's a reason why in data analysis one of the first things you learn is to run a histogram on your data and do a sanity check. Do your results seem insane? If you have determined that working in a pet store is more dangerous than working as a deep sea fisherman or a miner, that should have been a flashing red light to you that what you were trying to do was flawed.

 

[fskimospy]

Being a NYC cop is a dangerous job...how is this difficult to understand? I've been posting here at ATPN for quite a while now and I don't believe that I've ever seen you admit that you were ever wrong about anything...now would be a good time.

Lol, I have admitted being wrong on many occasions.

It is pretty funny to watch you double down on your ridiculous thesis and insist that other people join you in being wrong instead of re-evaluating what you did though.

You made a mistake. It happens to all of us. Just own up to it instead of digging in.

 

[TreVader]

You've almost got him Doc! You're so close

 

[BoberFett]

No one is here to impress you...that's the facts Jack.

http://www.businessinsurance.org/the-most-unexpectedly-hazardous-jobs-in-the-u-s/

Great, let's dig deeper.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/207.html

Nearly half the injuries (47%) consisted of sprains, strains, and soft-tissue tears, followed by contusions (15%), lacerations (14%), and exposure to bloodborne pathogens (7%). Broken bones; chronic injuries to heart, lungs, or back; dislocations; knife puncture or gunshot wounds; and internal damage were relatively rare (3% or less).

The activities most often associated with injury were making arrests (24% of the total), training (13%), automobile crashes (11%), foot pursuits (6%), and slips and falls (6%). Injuries resulting from use of force apart from making an arrest constituted only 4% of the total.

So the injuries that cops are getting being shot or stabbed by a criminal are only 3% of the injuries. And only 24% of the total injuries are while making an arrest. The rest are typical day-to-day injuries that you could get on any job.

Not nearly as dangerous sounding as you make it out to be.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Great, let's dig deeper.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/207.html





So the injuries that cops are getting being shot or stabbed by a criminal are only 3% of the injuries. And only 24% of the total injuries are while making an arrest. The rest are typical day-to-day injuries that you could get on any job.

Not nearly as dangerous sounding as you make it out to be.

All I did was give you the data...your beef is with the Bureau of Labor Statistics...not me.

 

[BoberFett]

All I did was give you the data...your beef is with the Bureau of Labor Statistics...not me.

And I'm giving you more detailed data. Your beef is apparently with facts that don't support your forgone conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

And I'm giving you more detailed data. Your beef is apparently with facts that don't support your forgone conclusion.

What's funny is that I gave him an analysis of workplace 'danger' by the BLS itself earlier. Needless to say, it didn't support his method of determining what workplaces are most dangerous.

It didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, so he ignored it. You would think that he would avoid invoking the authority of BLS after ignoring their interpretation of the numbers, but apparently not.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lol, I have admitted being wrong on many occasions.

It is pretty funny to watch you double down on your ridiculous thesis and insist that other people join you in being wrong instead of re-evaluating what you did though.

You made a mistake. It happens to all of us. Just own up to it instead of digging in.

So let me get this straight...it's a "ridiculous thesis" to believe that being a cop in NYC is a dangerous occupation? I find it odd that you now wish to ignore the BLS data that you said was your basis for saying it wasn't a dangerous profession in the first place. This is getting really pathetic.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And I'm giving you more detailed data. Your beef is apparently with facts that don't support your forgone conclusion.

Let's get to the root of this...in your opinion, what exactly is my foregone conclusion?

 

[fskimospy]

So let me get this straight...it's a "ridiculous thesis" to believe that being a cop in NYC is a dangerous occupation? I find it odd that you now wish to ignore the BLS data that you said was your basis for saying it wasn't a dangerous profession in the first place. This is getting really pathetic.

1. No, I said it was "not nearly as dangerous as cops make it out to be".

2. You then asked for my basis, which I mentioned was injury and fatality statistics.

3. You provided one half of what I said my basis was, the less important half, and then tried to argue I was wrong using your selective interpretation of partial data.

4. This attempt to say I was wrong not only ignored my own stated standard, but runs at odds with an analysis that came directly from the source you got your data from, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

You are once again just digging in your heels instead of admitting you made a mistake.

Like I said in the past, everyone makes mistakes. Take a minute and think this through; you don't have to keep digging.