That was a good editorial. Should have been posted to that insurance thread the other day.
Even if we assume the CDC statistics - i.e, absolute #s - are pure, accurately account for truly vicious vs truly unreasonably provoked, and all bites are reported (not just big dogs) they are misleading as far as "viciousness probability".
There are 60,000 German Shepherds 1 year. 100 "attacks" were reported from different dogs.
There are 20,000 Cairn Terriers 1 year. 100 attacks were reported.
Who is more likely to be vicious based on these raw data? .2% of GS attacked; .5% of Cairns attacked. .2 is < .5. Who has the greater probability of being "vicious"?
(This is purely an example.)
You cannot tell how vicious a breed/type is by simplistic stats such as "how many out of all the bites in the country this year were GS bites". Wrong relation, wrong % analysis. But that's what CDC does all the time.
You know I love big dogs... but I don't think the insurance companies are afraid of claims from Cairn terriers, the hospital bill for a few stitches is affordable. They are trying to avoid Intensive Care bills and wrongful death awards. That's why they are more concerned for large aggressively prone dogs.