| I'm curious, this article spins the whole "lower rates of ambulance usage" as a positive thing, but is there enough evidence to say that? From the article: _______
With demand for ambulances decreased by available Uber drivers, emergency personnel have been able reach critical patients faster while also applying necessary treatment on the way to the hospital, according to a new economic study from the University of Kansas: "Given that even a reduction of a few minutes can drastically improve survival rates for serious conditions, this could be associated with a substantial welfare improvement." The study investigated ambulance rates in 766 U.S. cities from 43 different states. Taking into account the timelines of when Uber entered each city, the researchers found that the app reduced per capita ambulance usage rates by around 7 percent.
_______ Okay they claim the study says "emergency personnel have been able reach critical patients faster" but decreased usage does not necessarily equal faster response time. It would have been much more solid if they actually looked at the ambulance response time, not just how many are being used. (My skeptical side leads me to think this is because that data-set didn't match their narrative.) There is also the question of: Is this actually a good thing? Are those 7% less people using ambulances all not having serious health issues? Especially when something is wrong, you are often not a good judge of your own health. How many people having chest pain thought it wasn't too bad so they called an Uber instead of an ambulance and died on the way to the hospital? Might not have turned out that way if they just called an ambulance in the first place.. Need more data to decide if this is an Uber propaganda piece. |
I honestly question of the numbers are even statically significant, but even if they are, this is seriously fucked up and not something Americans should be proud of at all!