A reader takes issue with Ms. Bradley’s response to our initial article on dog bite claim statistics in Massachusetts
I debated responding to the InSurOp-Ed: Insurance Dog Bite Claim Data Doesn’t Pass The Critical Thinking Test (January 11, 2022) as it would only open up arguments and counter arguments. However, after reading of the Texas College Student that lost her ears, nose and lips in a vicious dog attack while pet sitting, it made me go back and reread Janis Bradley’s response to the dog statistics.
Any and all statistics can be viewed and interpreted in different ways. To state that the article doesn’t pass the critical thinking test, however, is dangerous. The danger comes from the fact that just about any statistic can be broken down further to the point that it could only be viewed one way. When that is done, one side calls it unacceptable, and the other calls it science. The article provides very broad information. For the young lady that was attacked by a mixed breed German Sheppard and Pitbull, if it occurred in the state of Massachusetts, the breeds would be one of 48 and 53 respectively, out of 503. Let’s call it two (2) out of 503 and that equates to only 0.40% of a chance that she would be injured by one of these dogs. What a low number one would say, and great way to show that the animals were not dangerous, nor should they be on the list.
It is true that many times dog bites are not reported, aside from those with horrific injuries. But then again, only the people that hit others while texting are the problem and are reported in traffic accidents/deaths. Let us not include those that were texting and got in the accident but were able to hide the fact they were texting. But on the other side, if we added them into the overall number, texting wouldn’t seem as dangerous.
There are not many statistics on keeping pythons, baboons, or ostriches as pets, however, most would agree that could be dangerous. That said, there are those that argue and use the statistics to show that those animals can be their “support” system. Again, the stats can tell two different stories depending on what you are trying to convey.
Many insurance companies have eligibility guidelines with respects to pets, particularly dogs. Should their data be discounted because it does not drill down to the type of owner, feeding habits of the animal, if they live in an apartment or a home in the suburb versus a farm, exposure to other animals on a regular basis, full moon versus eclipse, spayed versus neutered, training via professional versus home, etc. To what point does it become overreaching to ask these personal questions of the homeowner? The dog is a pet, regardless of it being like a member of the family. The owner is responsible for the actions of their pet whether the pet is 4 months old or 17 years old. This is a reason for the data to be collected. The insurance companies are the entities that are and have been required to defend the pet owner and provide any payments for the injury. To say “that is what insurance is for” is another argument for another day.
One report says hospitals are at 100% capacity, but only 50% are covid only, therefore covid isn’t the issue for the overcrowding. Can one agree with that? But it is taking the stat of crowed hospitals and drilling down. What if we drilled down further to discover that only 5% of the hospital beds are taken up by those under the age of 21 that are male, living in urban areas, and have covid. Does that mean we shouldn’t be concerned about covid?
I am sure my examples will anger some and there will be those that disagree. While any injury is horrific, the examples are meant to be tongue in cheek to make people think about the “news” and “stats” that they read and hear. The stats are only as good as the information provided and most likely prejudices by the one providing the information.
If I told you that the ultimate answer was 42, would that be great? Depends, if on a scale of 1 – 50 then probably; if on a scale of 1 – 100 then probably not. That is statistics for you. But to say the initial report doesn’t pass the critical testing test is just absurd given that it is just providing “numbers” and details where that information is collected.
Understand that Janis Bradley works for and is paid by the National Canine Research Council and therefore is part of her position to direct negative stats away. To question the DNA of the dog is the same of questioning a human’s DNA. Should we drill down the stats on the horrific things that humans do to humans and then we will know which ones we should ban/cast out/remove from society?
The challenge with any pet isn’t the statistics, it is the humans. The owners and the way they treat the animals determine much of the outcome, however that does not negate that in Massachusetts, according to the report, 503 people in 2019 and 428 in 2020 were bitten by a dog. Isn’t that too many? Or since the estimated population of MA is 6.98M in 2021 that only 0.0061318 of the population was bit that there are no issues and that we shouldn’t be concerned?
Article regarding the Texas student attacked: https://apple.news/A97DmNe6YT7igt8PmogBqsA
David W. D. Haynes
This opinion is that of the author and not that of any past, present, or future employers, affiliates, or co-workers.
