|
I dislike most studies that say x number of people die due to y. Those are only accurate/relevant when the cause of death is unambiguous with no comorbidities, like falling off a wind turbine and plummeting to the ground. These so-called studies have no way to directly attribute cause of death (because they can't control the variables), and it doesn't factor in how many years of life were lost.
It's way too easy to mislead with those sorts of "facts". Alec Baldwin has killed more people than Fukushima and Three Mile Island combined. Which were bigger problems?
As with the Wu-flu, it matters if it's cutting a week off someone's life, or 70 years.
More relevant would be how many days it impacts overall life expectancy. If it's like 1, then we can hardly care, but if it's 300, we should take notice.
|