It explains the story in the first three paragraphs. I don’t think that’s too bad:
To say that vultures are underappreciated would be putting it mildly. With their diet of carrion and their featherless heads, the birds are often viewed with disgust. But they have long provided a critical cleaning service by devouring the dead.
Now, economists have put an excruciating figure on just how vital they can be: The sudden near-disappearance of vultures in India about two decades ago led to more than half a million excess human deaths over five years, according to a forthcoming study in the American Economic Review.
Rotting livestock carcasses, no longer picked to the bones by vultures, polluted waterways and fed an increase in feral dogs, which can carry rabies. It was “a really huge negative sanitation shock,” said Anant Sudarshan, one of the study’s authors and an economics professor at the University of Warwick in England.
Yes, but the lede is why. They don’t really get to anything resembling a resolution until something like 1/2 to 2/3 of the way through the article. Even now I’m still unsure whether the 500k excess deaths were rabies infections or due to tainted water. They never got around to providing much clarity on that front. The paper only goes so far as to say a) more rabies vaccines were sold, b) people saw more dogs, c) fecal counts in water went up, and d) DO in water went down. But that comes with two huge caveats:
Feral dog data were collected after the ban and “do not allow us to reject that feral dog populations were already higher in the high-vulture suitability districts even before the collapse of vulture populations.”
Fecal coliform also has human origins. And the uptick in fecal counts (along with the decline in DO) was in areas where more people live.
Correlation between excess human deaths and vulture decline wasn’t actually teased out into any kind of causation, and the best they could do was link death upticks with spatially isolated poisoning nodes. Urban areas had a more pronounced effect, but urban areas have a lot of other factors that can cause death, and none of those factors were controlled for, or really even mentioned in section 6.2 or the conclusion. Overall the paper is crappy because the study is quite poor, so I guess the author did the best they could with a study that tried to do far too much with far too little data.
It explains the story in the first three paragraphs. I don’t think that’s too bad:
The hope is to give the story gist in the post itself, without expecting the person to click the link. In this case, “rotting carcasses polluted waterways and spread illness” would have resolved the clickbait.
You’ll never believe what happened next! Could we please bypass the clickbait in these posts? Thanks.
Blech. The opening to the article isn’t any better, and they clearly buried the lede to keep you scrolling. Here’s the gist:
Vultures eat cattle carcasses.
Anti-inflammatory cattle medicine Diclofenac is toxic to birds.
Price of Diclofenac falls in 1994, becomes widely used.
95% of vultures in India die over 1990s and 2000s.
Diclofenac banned in 2006.
Rotting livestock carcasses, no longer picked to the bones by vultures, polluted waterways and fed an increase in feral dogs and rabies.
Districts with no vultures saw uptick in human deaths. Districts with vultures saw no uptick. About 500,000 excess deaths across India.
What a fucking terrible article.
Thanks. I just created [email protected] along the lines of the similarly named Reddit community, just to get past some of this.
It explains the story in the first three paragraphs. I don’t think that’s too bad:
Yes, but the lede is why. They don’t really get to anything resembling a resolution until something like 1/2 to 2/3 of the way through the article. Even now I’m still unsure whether the 500k excess deaths were rabies infections or due to tainted water. They never got around to providing much clarity on that front. The paper only goes so far as to say a) more rabies vaccines were sold, b) people saw more dogs, c) fecal counts in water went up, and d) DO in water went down. But that comes with two huge caveats:
Feral dog data were collected after the ban and “do not allow us to reject that feral dog populations were already higher in the high-vulture suitability districts even before the collapse of vulture populations.”
Fecal coliform also has human origins. And the uptick in fecal counts (along with the decline in DO) was in areas where more people live.
Correlation between excess human deaths and vulture decline wasn’t actually teased out into any kind of causation, and the best they could do was link death upticks with spatially isolated poisoning nodes. Urban areas had a more pronounced effect, but urban areas have a lot of other factors that can cause death, and none of those factors were controlled for, or really even mentioned in section 6.2 or the conclusion. Overall the paper is crappy because the study is quite poor, so I guess the author did the best they could with a study that tried to do far too much with far too little data.
The hope is to give the story gist in the post itself, without expecting the person to click the link. In this case, “rotting carcasses polluted waterways and spread illness” would have resolved the clickbait.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t this lead to issues with a sort of sky burial religious practice in that area as well?
Yep. Page 30 in the referenced study.