'To live and die [for] Dixie': Irish civilians and the Confederate States of America

Around 20,000 Irishmen served in the Confederate army in the Civil War. As a result, they left behind, in various Southern towns and cities, large numbers of friends, family, and community leaders. As with native-born Confederates, Irish civilian support was crucial to Irish participation in the Confederate military effort. Also, Irish civilians served in various supporting roles: in factories and hospitals, on railroads and diplomatic missions, and as boosters for the cause. They also, however, suffered in bombardments, sieges, and the blockade. Usually poorer than their native neighbours, they could not afford to become 'refugees' and move away from the centres of conflict. This essay, based on research from manuscript collections, contemporary newspapers, British Consular records, and Federal military records, will examine the role of Irish civilians in the Confederacy, and assess the role this activity had on their integration into Southern communities. It will also look at Irish civilians in the defeat of the Confederacy, particularly when they came under Union occupation. Initial research shows that Irish civilians were not as upset as other whites in the South about Union victory. They welcomed a return to normalcy, and often 'collaborated' with Union authorities. Also, Irish desertion rates in the Confederate army were particularly high, and I will attempt to gauge whether Irish civilians played a role in this. All of the research in this paper will thus be put in the context of the Drew Gilpin Faust/Gary Gallagher debate on the influence of the Confederate homefront on military performance. By studying the Irish civilian experience one can assess how strong the Confederate national experiment was. Was it a nation without a nationalism

The Contribution of Cancer Incidence, Stage at Diagnosis and Survival to Racial Differences in Years of Life Expectancy

African Americans have higher cancer mortality rates than whites. Understanding the relative contribution of cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis and survival after diagnosis to the racial gap in life expectancy has important implications for directing future health disparity interventions toward cancer prevention, screening and treatment. We estimated the degree to which higher cancer mortality among African Americans is due to higher incidence rates, later stage at diagnosis or worse survival after diagnosis. Stochastic model of cancer incidence and survival after diagnosis. Surveillance and Epidemiology End Result cancer registry and National Health Interview Survey data. Life expectancy if African Americans had the same cancer incidence, stage and survival after diagnosis as white adults. African-American men and women live 1.47 and 0.91 fewer years, respectively, than whites as the result of all cancers combined. Among men, racial differences in cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis and survival after diagnosis account for 1.12 (95% CI: 0.52 to 1.36), 0.17 (95% CI: −0.03 to 0.33) and 0.21 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.34) years of the racial gap in life expectancy, respectively. Among women, incidence, stage and survival after diagnosis account for 0.41 (95% CI: −0.29 to 0.60), 0.26 (95% CI: −0.06 to 0.40) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.40) years, respectively. Differences in stage had a smaller impact on the life expectancy gap compared with the impact of incidence. Differences in cancer survival after diagnosis had a significant impact for only two cancers—breast (0.14 years; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.16) and prostate (0.05 years; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09). In addition to breast and colorectal cancer screening, national efforts to reduce disparities in life expectancy should also target cancer prevention, perhaps through smoking cessation, and differences in survival after diagnosis among persons with breast and prostate cancer

The Effect of Weather Forecast Uncertainty Visualization on Decision Making

program administered by the Office of Naval

Understanding clinical and non-clinical decisions under uncertainty: a scenario-based survey

BACKGROUND: Prospect theory suggests that when faced with an uncertain outcome, people display loss aversion by preferring to risk a greater loss rather than incurring certain, lesser cost. Providing probability information improves decision making towards the economically optimal choice in these situations. Clinicians frequently make decisions when the outcome is uncertain, and loss aversion may influence choices. This study explores the extent to which prospect theory, loss aversion, and probability information in a non-clinical domain explains clinical decision making under uncertainty. METHODS: Four hundred sixty two participants (n = 117 non-medical undergraduates, n = 113 medical students, n = 117 resident trainees, and n = 115 medical/surgical faculty) completed a three-part online task. First, participants completed an iced-road salting task using temperature forecasts with or without explicit probability information. Second, participants chose between less or more risk-averse (“defensive medicine”) decisions in standardized scenarios. Last, participants chose between recommending therapy with certain outcomes or risking additional years gained or lost. RESULTS: In the road salting task, the mean expected value for decisions made by clinicians was better than for non-clinicians(−ce:para,022 vs -ce:para,061; < 0.001). Probability information improved decision making for all participants, but non-clinicians improved more (mean improvement of $64 versus$33; p = 0.027). Mean defensive decisions decreased across training level (medical students 2.1 ± 0.9, residents 1.6 ± 0.8, faculty1.6 ± 1.1; p-trend < 0.001) and prospect-theory-concordant decisions increased (25.4%, 33.9%, and 40.7%;p-trend = 0.016). There was no relationship identified between road salting choices with defensive medicine and prospect-theory-concordant decisions. CONCLUSIONS: All participants made more economically-rational decisions when provided explicit probability information in a non-clinical domain. However, choices in the non-clinical domain were not related to prospect-theory concordant decision making and risk aversion tendencies in the clinical domain. Recognizing this discordance may be important when applying prospect theory to interventions aimed at improving clinical care