A bit over a year old, but rather relevant given recent events.
This table may be relevant to what is and is not effective in reducing risks:
2 Likes
Doesn’t seem well controlled.
What controls would you expect to see in a study of this type?
Most of the P-values are not significant except for the type of weapon
1 Like
Yes, hence “armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries”, but do significantly reduce fatalities. Lockdown drills don’t significantly affect either injuries or fatalities – so may be viewed as largely Security Theatre.
So a reasonable conclusion to draw from this might be to not bother with lockdown drills, but put more effort into banning Assault Rifles.
2 Likes
Uh…
in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003).
2 Likes
Sorry, it seems I did not look at the results sufficiently closely – that is rather counter-intuitive however.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.