Remix.run Logo
influx an hour ago

More Europeans die from lack of air conditioning than people in the US die from guns.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/articles/europe-heat-wave...

vanderZwan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I fail to understand why this should make the lack of US action on gun control any more justifiable.

Per your linked article:

> But then comes the adjustment the viral chart skips entirely: when Ritchie controls for population, expressing both figures as rates per 100,000 people, the picture shifts. "Gun deaths in the US are now slightly larger than European heat death rates," she wrote.

> I think this comparison is a bit silly," she wrote, "but sympathize with the overall sentiment." Fewer gun deaths in America would not make European heat deaths acceptable, or vice versa. What the data is actually showing, she argued, is something simpler: status quo bias. "Both places take the status quo as a given"—a high-mortality situation in one domain that each society would never accept in another.

GaggiX an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>The European heat death figures are based on modeled "excess deaths"—a standard epidemiological approach that tries to capture everyone who died earlier than they would have in cooler conditions, including from cardiovascular disease, stroke, and respiratory failure, which casts a wide net. "But the US number," Ritchie wrote, "isn't based on this type of modeling; it's based on heat deaths recorded on death certificates." That's a far narrower count which only captures cases where a physician specifically wrote heat as the cause of death. The result is that the two figures being compared are not measuring the same thing. "If you used death certificate figures for Europe," Ritchie wrote, "they'd be far lower."

Just citing it because some people don't even seem to read the article they just linked.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
api an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People don’t evaluate risks based on stats. They do it based on vibes. We do have a disproportionate amount of gun violence for a developed nation but statistically it’s still a very low risk.

I recall pointing this out back during the post 9/11 terror panic. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack were still phenomenally low even after 9/11. It would have taken a relentless stream of constant 9/11 scale attacks to even approach automobile or drug overdose deaths.

atmavatar 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is a good point, so I'd like to provide some additional context.

There were 2,977 victims in the 9/11 attacks. This doesn't come close to cracking the top 10 leading causes of death, which are annual numbers.

The top 2 are Heart Disease at 683K and Cancer at 619K.

For terrorism to be an equivalent threat, 9/11 scale attacks would need to occur ~230 times a year, or just shy of 2 out of every 3 days.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...

See: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]