'Safety' in numbers?

Southwind17 · 8th October 2007, 05:16 AM

Reading a recent new post prompted me to seek members' views on a question that I've harboured for some time:

Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves?

I can understand it with natural disasters, such as tsunami, where entire communities' infrastructure might be wiped out or severely disrupted, but what about air disasters, for example? To my mind, each person involved in such an event is individually affected, essentially to the mutual exclusion of the others. The suffering and trauma amongst the victims isn't cumulative, so, as cold and macabre as it might sound, 250 deaths really is no different from just one, certainly from the victim's(s') point of view.

It always seems unfair to me when you hear about accidents involving small numbers of people to realize that if many more had been involved there probably would have been some compensation offered automatically.

Is there an implied 'head-count' threshold above which a 'disaster' takes on a different meaning?

fuelair · 8th October 2007, 05:38 AM

Time and quantity of media coverage.

shemp · 8th October 2007, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Reading a recent new post prompted me to seek members' views on a question that I've harboured for some time:

Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves?

I can understand it with natural disasters, such as tsunami, where entire communities' infrastructure might be wiped out or severely disrupted, but what about air disasters, for example? To my mind, each person involved in such an event is individually affected, essentially to the mutual exclusion of the others. The suffering and trauma amongst the victims isn't cumulative, so, as cold and macabre as it might sound, 250 deaths really is no different from just one, certainly from the victim's(s') point of view.

It always seems unfair to me when you hear about accidents involving small numbers of people to realize that if many more had been involved there probably would have been some compensation offered automatically.

Is there an implied 'head-count' threshold above which a 'disaster' takes on a different meaning?

42

tkingdoll · 8th October 2007, 08:16 AM

As far as the public go, if a death is sudden and unexpected (and particularly if it is violent), then there is usually a collection by the local community. This is commonplace.

But for air disasters, etc, does the government give financial aid? Unless it involves a criminal act (e.g. terrorism) then I'm not sure the govt. gives the families any aid...?

Yes, there is probably an official death toll which is considered a 'disaster'.

ImaginalDisc · 8th October 2007, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

As far as the public go, if a death is sudden and unexpected (and particularly if it is violent), then there is usually a collection by the local community. This is commonplace.

But for air disasters, etc, does the government give financial aid? Unless it involves a criminal act (e.g. terrorism) then I'm not sure the govt. gives the families any aid...?

Yes, there is probably an official death toll which is considered a 'disaster'.

(Number Killed/Number Wounded) X (1/Skin Tone) X (Median Household Income) X (1/Number of Days Left Until Election) = Compensation Value.

Regardless, the politicans and NGO's will "send relief to the afflicted families," or the "families of those affected." It's a little known fact that single people never suffer from disaster.

tkingdoll · 8th October 2007, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

(Number Killed/Number Wounded) X (1/Skin Tone) X (Median Household Income) X (1/Number of Days Left Until Election) = Compensation Value.

Regardless, the politicans and NGO's will "send relief to the afflicted families," or the "families of those affected." It's a little known fact that single people never suffer from disaster.

In the UK we have a Criminal Compensation Board, families will (eventually) get a payout depending on the lost income resulting from the death. What is interesting is that there doesn't need to be a criminal conviction for them to pay out.

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

Ivor the Engineer · 8th October 2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

<snip>

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

That's what I said when I heard it on the News too.

BTW, I probably used to drive past your house when I was working in Hall Green designing bombs.

Southwind17 · 8th October 2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

Off-thread a little, but it's issues like this that contributed to my decision to leave the UK!

tkingdoll · 8th October 2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

That's what I said when I heard it on the News too.

BTW, I probably used to drive past your house when I was working in Hall Green designing bombs.

My office is in Hall Green. I can't believe you flouted the 'no commies' local by-law there!

Jasper Carrott, whom I usually dislike, made a great joke about Hall Green at a recent(ish) gig at the NEC. Some latecomers who unfortunately had front row seats arrived and he asked them where they live. They replied 'Hall Green', to which he said "ooh, there are some nice houses in Hall Green. Do you live near any of them?".

I only know this cause I saw it on YouTube whilst searching for something else. I don't want anyone to think I've been to a Jasper Carrott gig.

[/derail]

Ziggurat · 8th October 2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves?

Votes.

Puppycow · 8th October 2007, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

How big was the payout, though? Full compensation equal to those who had insurance?

In any case, this is an example of moral hazard. The same thing happens regularly with flood insurance in the US. Which, of course, means that you would be a sucker to buy flood insurance.

This is a trade-off of living in a welfare state. The government bails people out even if their own choices led to their predicament.

Re the OP: I've noticed that too. I guess it's more evidence that the world isn't fair.

8th October 2007, 05:16 AM	#1
Southwind17 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Location: Location Posts: 4,457	'Safety' in numbers? Reading a recent new post prompted me to seek members' views on a question that I've harboured for some time: Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves? I can understand it with natural disasters, such as tsunami, where entire communities' infrastructure might be wiped out or severely disrupted, but what about air disasters, for example? To my mind, each person involved in such an event is individually affected, essentially to the mutual exclusion of the others. The suffering and trauma amongst the victims isn't cumulative, so, as cold and macabre as it might sound, 250 deaths really is no different from just one, certainly from the victim's(s') point of view. It always seems unfair to me when you hear about accidents involving small numbers of people to realize that if many more had been involved there probably would have been some compensation offered automatically. Is there an implied 'head-count' threshold above which a 'disaster' takes on a different meaning?
	__________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind "Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Why is it that when I ask for a pair of hands a brain comes attached?

8th October 2007, 05:38 AM	#2
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900	Time and quantity of media coverage.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900

8th October 2007, 07:44 AM	#3
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	Originally Posted by Southwind17 Reading a recent new post prompted me to seek members' views on a question that I've harboured for some time: Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves? I can understand it with natural disasters, such as tsunami, where entire communities' infrastructure might be wiped out or severely disrupted, but what about air disasters, for example? To my mind, each person involved in such an event is individually affected, essentially to the mutual exclusion of the others. The suffering and trauma amongst the victims isn't cumulative, so, as cold and macabre as it might sound, 250 deaths really is no different from just one, certainly from the victim's(s') point of view. It always seems unfair to me when you hear about accidents involving small numbers of people to realize that if many more had been involved there probably would have been some compensation offered automatically. Is there an implied 'head-count' threshold above which a 'disaster' takes on a different meaning? 42
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

8th October 2007, 08:16 AM	#4
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	As far as the public go, if a death is sudden and unexpected (and particularly if it is violent), then there is usually a collection by the local community. This is commonplace. But for air disasters, etc, does the government give financial aid? Unless it involves a criminal act (e.g. terrorism) then I'm not sure the govt. gives the families any aid...? Yes, there is probably an official death toll which is considered a 'disaster'.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

8th October 2007, 09:38 AM	#5
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by tkingdoll As far as the public go, if a death is sudden and unexpected (and particularly if it is violent), then there is usually a collection by the local community. This is commonplace. But for air disasters, etc, does the government give financial aid? Unless it involves a criminal act (e.g. terrorism) then I'm not sure the govt. gives the families any aid...? Yes, there is probably an official death toll which is considered a 'disaster'. (Number Killed/Number Wounded) X (1/Skin Tone) X (Median Household Income) X (1/Number of Days Left Until Election) = Compensation Value. Regardless, the politicans and NGO's will "send relief to the afflicted families," or the "families of those affected." It's a little known fact that single people never suffer from disaster.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47* Last edited by ImaginalDisc; 8th October 2007 at 09:44 AM.

8th October 2007, 09:51 AM	#6
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc (Number Killed/Number Wounded) X (1/Skin Tone) X (Median Household Income) X (1/Number of Days Left Until Election) = Compensation Value. Regardless, the politicans and NGO's will "send relief to the afflicted families," or the "families of those affected." It's a little known fact that single people never suffer from disaster. In the UK we have a Criminal Compensation Board, families will (eventually) get a payout depending on the lost income resulting from the death. What is interesting is that there doesn't need to be a criminal conviction for them to pay out. But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie Last edited by tkingdoll; 8th October 2007 at 09:54 AM.

8th October 2007, 10:27 AM	#7
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by tkingdoll <snip> But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint That's what I said when I heard it on the News too. BTW, I probably used to drive past your house when I was working in Hall Green designing bombs.
	__________________ My Blog.

8th October 2007, 11:09 AM	#8
Southwind17 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Location: Location Posts: 4,457	Originally Posted by tkingdoll But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint Off-thread a little, but it's issues like this that contributed to my decision to leave the UK!
	__________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind "Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Why is it that when I ask for a pair of hands a brain comes attached?

8th October 2007, 11:24 AM	#9
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer That's what I said when I heard it on the News too. BTW, I probably used to drive past your house when I was working in Hall Green designing bombs. My office is in Hall Green. I can't believe you flouted the 'no commies' local by-law there! Jasper Carrott, whom I usually dislike, made a great joke about Hall Green at a recent(ish) gig at the NEC. Some latecomers who unfortunately had front row seats arrived and he asked them where they live. They replied 'Hall Green', to which he said "ooh, there are some nice houses in Hall Green. Do you live near any of them?". I only know this cause I saw it on YouTube whilst searching for something else. I don't want anyone to think I've been to a Jasper Carrott gig. [/derail]
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

8th October 2007, 11:38 AM	#10
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,183	Originally Posted by Southwind17 Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves? Votes.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th October 2007, 08:43 PM	#11
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Originally Posted by tkingdoll But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint How big was the payout, though? Full compensation equal to those who had insurance? In any case, this is an example of moral hazard. The same thing happens regularly with flood insurance in the US. Which, of course, means that you would be a sucker to buy flood insurance. This is a trade-off of living in a welfare state. The government bails people out even if their own choices led to their predicament. Re the OP: I've noticed that too. I guess it's more evidence that the world isn't fair.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22