3 ms·

I found that a very weird thing to say, given that eight people have froze to death in this area during the last month. I wouldn't assume that surviving the co

I found that a very weird thing to say, given that eight people have froze to death in this area during the last month. I wouldn't assume that surviving the cold is very easy. Hypothermia doesn't even require very low temperatures.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
This from 2010: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/winter_weather/report.html http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/winter_weather/... Says 700 annually, 4 of 700 is a bit more than 1/2 of one percent. I believe they got their number from this paper (http://www.bhchp.org/BHCHP%20Manual/pdf_files/Part2_PDF/Hypothermia.pdf http://www.bhchp.org/BHCHP%20Manual/pdf_files/Part2_PDF/Hypo...) or its source material. More recent numbers from this blog entry (http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/06/santa-clara-county-coroner-four-die-in-san-jose-from-exposure/ http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/06/santa-clara-county-...) have the unsheltered homeless population in Santa Clara county (where four people died) at 74% of 7631 or 5647 souls living unsheltered. Four of them dying is a mortality rate of .7 people per thousand. Not a very likely reason for dying. It isn't that surviving cold is "easy" or "hard", it isn't that unsheltered homeless folks are "ok" or "not ok", it is that death from hypothermia is a function of both exposure and duration, which is minimized in climates such as that of the Bay Area, so that the risk of death from exposure falls below that of death by being hit by a car (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Leads-Bay-Area-in-Pedestrian-Bicyclist-Fatalities-238044141.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Leads-Bay-Area...) for example.
- peterwoo 13y ago
  The Bay Area winters are comparatively mild, and if you're going to die of exposure it's most likely to be elsewhere. I don't dispute that. But I don't think we can say that it is very difficult to freeze here, nor that all one needs is a coat and blanket for protection. It implies the absurdity that the people must have tried very hard to die that way, trivializes the difficulty of obtaining adequate clothing, ignores concerns such as injury/illness/addiction/age which increase risk of freezing, etc. Incidentally, the 2010 report on homeless deaths in NYC (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/57985th_annual_report_final.pdf?epi-content=GENERIC http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/57985th_annual_re...) says that 6 died from exposure to cold. We had a comparable number this year in the Bay Area (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081571/bay-area-homeless-deaths/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081571/bay-area...). I don't bring this up to start a contest or anything -- you can't draw very many conclusions from these numbers alone -- only to suggest that the risk should not be trivialized.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

This from 2010: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/winter_weather/report.html http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/winter_weather/... Says 700 annually, 4 of 700 is a bit more than 1/2 of one percent. I believe they got their number from this paper (http://www.bhchp.org/BHCHP%20Manual/pdf_files/Part2_PDF/Hypothermia.pdf http://www.bhchp.org/BHCHP%20Manual/pdf_files/Part2_PDF/Hypo...) or its source material. More recent numbers from this blog entry (http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/06/santa-clara-county-coroner-four-die-in-san-jose-from-exposure/ http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/06/santa-clara-county-...) have the unsheltered homeless population in Santa Clara county (where four people died) at 74% of 7631 or 5647 souls living unsheltered. Four of them dying is a mortality rate of .7 people per thousand. Not a very likely reason for dying. It isn't that surviving cold is "easy" or "hard", it isn't that unsheltered homeless folks are "ok" or "not ok", it is that death from hypothermia is a function of both exposure and duration, which is minimized in climates such as that of the Bay Area, so that the risk of death from exposure falls below that of death by being hit by a car (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Leads-Bay-Area-in-Pedestrian-Bicyclist-Fatalities-238044141.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Leads-Bay-Area...) for example.

peterwoo 13y ago
The Bay Area winters are comparatively mild, and if you're going to die of exposure it's most likely to be elsewhere. I don't dispute that. But I don't think we can say that it is very difficult to freeze here, nor that all one needs is a coat and blanket for protection. It implies the absurdity that the people must have tried very hard to die that way, trivializes the difficulty of obtaining adequate clothing, ignores concerns such as injury/illness/addiction/age which increase risk of freezing, etc. Incidentally, the 2010 report on homeless deaths in NYC (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/57985th_annual_report_final.pdf?epi-content=GENERIC http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/57985th_annual_re...) says that 6 died from exposure to cold. We had a comparable number this year in the Bay Area (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081571/bay-area-homeless-deaths/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081571/bay-area...). I don't bring this up to start a contest or anything -- you can't draw very many conclusions from these numbers alone -- only to suggest that the risk should not be trivialized.